Evidence of Hell.

[Jan Ardena]

And I have answered already.
See posts #231 and #235

What more are you looking for, Jan?

Your evasion says it all Baldeee.

Jan.

 

[Sarkus]

Your evasion says it all Baldeee.

Given your predilection for evasion, Jan, you should surely by now be aware of what it looks like. Baldeee has answered your question, as he indicated, so either you have a personal issue with him - and if so address it with him in PMs - or you're simply doing your utmost to be annoying.
Either way, I suggest you grow up.

 

[wellwisher]

You're funny Baldeee.

My question, "is that true" was directed at the whole quote.

This is the quote I referred to...

There are two notions of "truth" being considered: one that means being in accordance with reality - I.e. Objective; the other meaning a belief that is accepted as corresponding to reality - I.e. Subjective.
When you say "a truth is a truth" you seem to be implying the first, yet your subsequent statement suggests the second.
You thus seem to be offering inconsistent messages.
Again.

Jan.

Reality is not always objective, but is only assumed to be objective, based on the underlying assumptions and premises you assume. For example, before Einstein and relativity, gravity was considered objective truth based on Newtonian assumptions. When Einstein first developed relativity, but before there was any way to prove it would have been considered subjective, while still reflect something closer to the truth.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Given your predilection for evasion, Jan, you should surely by now be aware of what it looks like. Baldeee has answered your question, as he indicated, so either you have a personal issue with him - and if so address it with him in PMs - or you're simply doing your utmost to be annoying.
Either way, I suggest you grow up.

No he didn't answer my question fully. Only a very small portion. My question was for the whole quote.

If he continues to evade I will have assume it is the truth as he sees it, demonstrating my point.

I don't know Baldeee outside of these so I don't have a personal issue with him.

Jan.

 

[Sarkus]

No he didn't answer my question fully. Only a very small portion. My question was for the whole quote.

There were 2 elements to Baldeee's post that you quoted, to which you asked "is that true?".
1.

There are two notions of "truth" being considered: one that means being in accordance with reality - I.e. Objective; the other meaning a belief that is accepted as corresponding to reality - I.e. Subjective.

Baldeee responded to your question with regard this in post #235.

2.

When you say "a truth is a truth" you seem to be implying the first, yet your subsequent statement suggests the second.
You thus seem to be offering inconsistent messages.

Baldeee responded to this in post #231.

So, to reiterate the question Baldeee asked: what more are you looking for? if yon don't think he has answered your question, what is it about his answers do you not like, or what do you think he is failing to answer?

If he continues to evade I will have assume it is the truth as he sees it, demonstrating my point.

Given that he has answered, where is the evasion?

I don't know Baldeee outside of these so I don't have a personal issue with him.

One doesn't need to know someone outside of this forum to have personal issues with someone, but thanks for the non sequitur. One simply needs to make the issue about the person rather than what they say. and given thatyou seem to be ignoring that Baldeee has responded to you, has answered your questions, it therefore seems personal on your part. So why is that?

 

[Syne]

I know I am asking for evidence of something I already reject so that may put off true believers participating.

However I am interested to know where the concept of hell comes from.

Hell is the result of bad choices. And since the original, biblical notion for hell comes from a real place on earth (Gehenna), there's good reason to believe hell is just what people suffer, in this life, who have made bad decisions.

 

[Jan Ardena]

There were 2 elements to Baldeee's post that you quoted, to which you asked "is that true?".
1.
Baldeee responded to your question with regard this in post #235.

2. Baldeee responded to this in post #231.

So, to reiterate the question Baldeee asked: what more are you looking for? if yon don't think he has answered your question, what is it about his answers do you not like, or what do you think he is failing to answer?
Given that he has answered, where is the evasion?
One doesn't need to know someone outside of this forum to have personal issues with someone, but thanks for the non sequitur. One simply needs to make the issue about the person rather than what they say. and given thatyou seem to be ignoring that Baldeee has responded to you, has answered your questions, it therefore seems personal on your part. So why is that?

It's old hat now Sarkus.

jan.

 

[Sarkus]

It's old hat now Sarkus.

Yes, just another example of you obfuscating, evading and avoiding until such time as people move on. Is it any wonder why people consider you dishonest?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Yes, just another example of you obfuscating, evading and avoiding until such time as people move on. Is it any wonder why people consider you dishonest?

How is this an example of you obfuscating, evading and avoiding?

jan.

 

[Sarkus]

How is this an example of you obfuscating, evading and avoiding?

It's not, Jan. Why would you think it is???
But it as very much much an example of you obfuscating, evading and avoiding, as is your ongoing effort to wander further away from the initial issue. Ah, well. Time to do the dishes, I think.

 

[Jan Ardena]

It's not, Jan. Why would you think it is???
But it as very much much an example of you obfuscating, evading and avoiding, as is your ongoing effort to wander further away from the initial issue. Ah, well. Time to do the dishes, I think.

Sorry I put ''you'' instead of ''me''.

jan.