I think this must be a difference of perspective. For example, I have no problem in stating that I am choosing not to be with/folow allah. I'm not sure what implication you apply to me on that. I don't think there is an implication, but at best guess, your previous posts would suggest that implies that I desire Islam hell. I disagree. I don't feel that intent is there. Similar to the criminal who doesn't want jail.



Go back to message 259. Maybe that will help bring my views on this better.

I went back and read post 259 after suggested I do so a few posts back.  And I did so again just now.  It doesn't make me understand what I'm trying to figure out.

Let me be clear:  I know you think I am making a choice not to follow God.  I agree that I am making that choice.  I am NOT saying that there is no choice, and I am NOT saying that I don't choose not to follow God.  Pointing out that I am making a choice doesn't get us anywhere, because we both agree that I am.  Pointing out that I choose not follow God doesn't get us anywhere, because we both agree on that.  Pointing out that I will go to hell because of my choice not to follow God doesn't get anywhere, because I accept that that is your view, and I'm not arguing against it right now.

What is at issue here is that you've phrased something in a way that offends me (and other non-christians).  You don't see why it should offend anyone, so you don't want to change your choice of words.  What I'm trying to get you to understand is why your choice of words offend.  You might still not change your wording after that, but I would at least like you to be able to reach the point where you say "Okay, I understand why that offends you."  That's all I'm looking for here.  This isn't a theological debate.  I'm not saying "What you believe is wrong," though I'm sure we'll get into that kind of debate again at some point. ;)  I'll I'm trying to accomplish is to make you realize why what you said offends me.  It might not offend you, and that's okay.  I'm not asking you to be offended by the same things as me.  I'm just trying to get you to understand why something is offensive to me, even if it doesn't bother you.

One thing that stands out in this discussion, is that you repeatedly seem to change your wording when referring to yourself.  You seem to (intentionally or not) avoid the phrasing you used that offend me, when talking about yourself.  This, to me, seems to indicate that at some level, you do sort of get where I'm coming from, even if you don't realize it.

Also, the "God chooses for people to murder" example seems to indicate that you do see intent in the phrasing.  Which gives me hope that you can see intent when you use another example.

I'm going to ask some questions again.  These are real questions, and I'm looking for real answers.  I know this seems pedantic, and to a degree it is.  I'm hoping that by answering these questions in this particular order, you'll start to see where I'm coming from.  So please don't just skip these questions.  Please answer them, just as they are:

Does God choose for people to murder?
Does the criminal choose to go to jail?
Do you choose to go to muslim hell?
Does Tycho choose to go to christian hell?

I'm going to leave it there, so you can answer those before reading where I'm headed next.  I'll try to take this one, small step at a time.

Sorry Tycho, but I'm not interested in going over the same things I've already stated.

What this comes down to is you've stated the implication is that by choosing not God, you said you equate that as choosing desiring hell. I've denied that, and gave the example of a criminal who chooses easy money, but doesn't desire jail.

Unless you've changed your mind about what I'm implicating, I've addressed this already. I disagree with you. I'm cutting out of this debate because I am not so sure we will come to an agreement. I see no benefit to me repeating my statements that I have already made.

TitL, please just answer the questions.  It'll take no longer to do so than it did to write your last post.  It's easy.  Four words.


No, that's NOT what I'm saying!  I'm saying "choosing not to be with God" implies desiring not to be with God.  I'm not bothered because it implies desiring hell.  I'm bothered because it implies desiring to not be with God.


Funny, neither do I. ;)  If you reach a point where you're just repeating what you've already said, it's probably because you're not addressing what I'm really asking about.  If I say "what color are your shoes?" and you say "My hat is red!" and I ask "no, what color are your shoes!" if you keep answering "my hat is red!" we'll never get anywhere.  You keep repeating yourself, but don't realize that what you're answering is a different question to the one I'm asking.

I've addressed that as well. post # 267




Yea, I disagree.

Take a closer look at the two things.  In post 267 you said "I am choosing not to follow Allah."  I've said over, and over that I don't have a problem with you saying I choose not to follow God.  What you said in 267 doesn't apply to what I'm talking about.  If you said "I choose not to be with Allah" that'd be different, that would be an analogy to what I'm talking about.  But you didn't, you said "I choose not to follow Allah."  Do you see the difference?  One is an action, one is a consequence.  This is an example of what I'm talking about when I say you change your wording when you talk about yourself, relative to when you talk about others.  You say that Tycho chooses not to be with God, but say that TitL chooses not to follow Allah.  Do you see that the wording has changed?



Heh.  Yeah, I guess you do.  It's funny that you disagree with me about what I am asking.  Seems like I might have a better position to say on that one! ;)

Again, TitL, why not just answer the questions?  I'm trying hard to give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you just don't understand what I'm saying.  But it's seeming more and more that you don't want to understand what I'm saying.  Please show me that's not true.

It's easier for you to answer the questions I ask, than it is for you to explain why you're not going to answer them.  I'm intentionally making them very quick and easy to answer.  Please just answer them.  Please just try to understand what I'm saying.

  I am choosing not to be with allah. This isn't the first time I've said it. Back in post 288, I said it then too. I associated myself in not wanting to be with allah. I think for whatever reason Tycho you feel that I wouldn't put myself in the opposite choice you have made, and I'm not sure why you have come to that conclusion. It cannot be based on my words, as I've stated otherwise. I'm choosing not to be with buddha, not to be with krishna, not to be with allah, etc. There have been lots of posts, and it's easy to overlook something, but releastically speaking, it doesn't remove that we make a choice.

I'm not sure why you're focusing on that wording, when I have associated the two words before.


I've given about 50 or so posts, and have repated my answers now multiple times. I do not feel we will come to an agreement on this. I'm ok that we disagree. Not everyone will agree on all things, so I'm ok, and accept that this is one of them.

[emphasis added by Tycho]
Okay, this is good progress.  You want to not be with Allah, so you feel it's fine to say you choose not to be with Him.  I agree.  If you want to not be with Allah, then it's fine to say you choose not to be with Him.  Tycho, however, DOES NOT want to not be with God.  So if you say "Tycho chooses not to be with God" you imply that Tycho wants to not be with God, which is inaccurate.  Do you see the difference?  You really do want to not be with Allah.  I really DO NOT want to not be with God.  Is it becoming more clear now?  You're implying something about what I want that's not true, when instead you should be talking about what I do (ie, choose not to follow).

[note: there are, unfortunately, a lot of double negatives in the last paragraph.  read carefully!]


Yes, you have chosen not to be with them, and it's okay to say that, because you don't want to be with them.  I, on the other hand, don't feel the same way.  I do not want to not be with God.  So it's not accurate to say I choose not to be with Him, because that implies something about what I want, not just about what I do.

Put another way, hopefully with less double negatives:  It is your goal to not be with Allah.  It is not my goal to not be with God.  You do want to not be with Allah, I do not want to not be with God.  So you're okay with saying you choose not to be with Allah, because you do.  That statement accurately reflects your goals, and what you want.  When you say "Tycho chooses not to be with God," I get bothered, because it doesn't accurately reflect my goals and wants.  It implies I want something other than I do.  It implies that I have a goal that I don't have.

Are you starting to see the difference now?

I get this impression that you are placing a value of wants with choices. I've stated as far back as post 259 that wants, or desires can make choices easier, but it doesn't change that you are choosing. I have addressed this in previous posts, #267 touches on it best. #279 talks about how I feel your own assumptios are making the implication rather than what I have said.



At some point you are going to have to recognize that If you choose to be with God, then hell is not an issue, which is what I said, and stand by. If you feel that you are choosing to be with God, then I state hell is not an issue.


Tycho, it's getting tough to keep coming back when you keep changing what the implications mean. You first stated that the implication was that it meant it was desiring to go to hell. You've since stated it is not the problem. you then made the comparison to it not being the same as not wanting heaven, as you would want that. But the new implication is that you are not wanting to be with God is the same as you do not choose God.

I've already addressed this difference in between wants and choices as early as post 259. Tycho, I think I accept that we do not agree.

Yes, wants only affect our choices, but are not the choice themselves, which is sort of my point.  I feel your statement implies that I want something that I don't actually want, rather than implying that something I don't want will be the result of my choice.  When you say "Tycho chooses not to be with God" it implies "Tycho wants to not be with God."  It implies that in the same way that "criminals choose to go to prison" implies criminals want to go to prison and that "God chooses for people to murder" implies that God wants people to murder.  What I object to is not you saying I have a choice, but rather the fact that you're implying that I want not to be with God.


Well, in that case, I apologize for all the hassle.  I seem to have misunderstood you.  I thought you were saying that non-christians are choosing not to be with God.  If you can accept that those who choose not to follow God aren't necessarily choosing not to be with Him, then I misunderstood you, and for that I apologize.

I do not feel that is implied. I really don't see the majority of criminals wanting to go to jail for example.


Been there, done that, disagreed already.

Yes, we both agree criminals don't want to go to jail.  Would you say it's accurate to say "criminals choose to go to jail" then? [this is a real question]




Hmm.  So you're not saying people can choose not to follow God, without choosing not to be with Him?  Perhaps I wasn't misunderstanding you then.

Let's try this:

Have you ever been on a trip with someone, perhaps in a car, and gotten lost?  Have you ever been in one of those situations, where you both are looking at the map, saying "I think we need to go this way to get there!" and "No, I think we need to go this other way to get there!"  You're both trying to get to the same place, but you disagree on the route that will get you there.  Has that ever happenned to you?  If it has, have it ever happened that you tried one way, and it turned out to be the wrong way?  You were trying to get to one one town, and ended up in another?  Most people have, so hopefully even if you haven't, its not too hard to imagine.  Imagine being in that situation.  You and your wife, say, are trying to get to Dallas, but you've taken a wrong turn somewhere, and ended up Houston.  You're both a bit frustrated.  Your wife is especially frustrated, because you decided to go the way you thought would get to Houston, and it's turned out to be wrong.  Now, in that situation, would you say it's accurate for her to say that you chose to come to Houston instead of Dallas?  Is that really what you chose, or was it just an unwanted result of what you did choose (which road to take)?  [these are real questions, an answer would be much appreciated]

Here's another (hopefully it will add some levity):
Imagine you die, and go up to heaven, and St. Peter is standing outside the pearly gates waiting for you (imagine it as a cartoon, it makes it more amusing).  St. Peter smile at you and says "Welcome to heaven, TitL!  We've been waiting for you!  Unfortunately, I can't just let you in.  You have to pass a little test first.  But since you've been such a great guy, I'm going to help you out.  Now, I've got one coin in my left hand, and one in my right.  One of them says "heaven" on it, the other says "hell."  You have to pick a hand, and if you get the one that says "heaven" then in you go, eternal paradise, hanging out with the JC, just what you're after.  If you get the one that says hell, well, you know where that will get you.  He holds out his fists, and says, "all you have to do is pick a hand."  He glances over his shoulder, then whispers, "And just between you and me, if you want to get into heaven, you should pick the right hand."  He gives you a wink and a smile, and holds out his fists waiting for you to pick one.  Since you really want to get into heaven, you point to the right hand and say "Heaven here I come!  Show me that hand there!"  Peter smiles and opens his hand, and then his face goes red.  You look down, and in the hand you picked is a coin that says "hell" on it.  St. Peter stammers for a second, "I...I...I really thought it was in this hand!  Oh man, do I feel like an ass.  Really sorry about that, TitL.  I really am.  Wow, what a screw up I am.  But, rules are rules, I'm afraid.  Down you go."  He pulls a lever, a trap door opens, and you fall down into a big pot next to bugs bunny in a devil costume.  Now, in that case, would you say that you chose to go to hell?  Or was hell an unintended consequence of your decision? [these are real questions]

Okay, that's it.  Just a few very very easy questions to answer.  Please really answer them, TitL.  They're not tricks, they're just meant to illustrate a point.  I'm hoping we agree on the answers to all of them, and that that will give us a building point on making some progress in this discussion.

Tycho, I'm not really up for this anymore. I really don't think this is that confusing. We just disagree. I'm ok with that.

We seem to disagree, it's true.  I'm not 100% what we disagree about, which is part of what I'm trying to figure out.  It's okay that we disagree.  But if that's all we're aiming for, there's really no point in discussing things, is there?  We should be aiming for understanding each others positions at least, even if we don't end up agreeing about them.

But really, why not just answer the questions?  It'll take you one minute, tops.  Probably more like 10 seconds.  You seem uncomfortable answering the questions I'm asking.  Why is that?  If you don't want to answer the questions, can you at least tell me why?

Because it's been near 75 posts since this started. If it's taking so long, then it's really not that simple. Answering the questions intiially won't take that long. It's the over all time it'll take from the posts that go on and on. I keep having flashbacks about when we disagreed about the meaning of words in a dictionary. I don't see the reason for this to keep going on and on.

But what fractions of those 75 posts has been me asking you to answer questions I've already asked, and you telling me you don't want to answer them, telling me you're tired of talking, you telling me "we just disagree" or the like?  I'm not sure what draws you to the forums, but for me, it's trying to understand things that other people think, and getting them to understand what I think.  Me just saying "I think X" and you saying "I think not X!" isn't very interesting to me.  Figuring out why we think those things is what appeals to me.

Instead of trying to avoid the questions, or tell me why I'm wrong for asking them, how about just answering them?  You spend far more time and effort avoiding the questions than you would just answering them.  The reason our conversations tend to go on and on and on is because they always seem to turn into some meta-discussion about why you won't answer the questions, or why I just won't stop asking them.  We spend way too much energy on silly stuff, instead of just getting to the heart of the matter.

If you really don't see any reason for this to go on, how about just because I'm asking the favor of you?  I think there's something interesting to be learned here, and I'm asking to you help me find it.  If you just answer the questions, it probably won't take all that long.  If you make me nag and beg and plead for every answer, it probably will take a long time.

Put it this way:  I'd like you to see my point of view, even if you don't agree with it.  Are you at all interested in knowing why I think what I do?  Do you just come here to tell people what you think, or are you open to learning about what others think too?

Tycho, we've been through this before. Before, you argued against me for using a definition from a dictionary, and kept on that as if it were not typical use.

While I'm here to share and learn, I have my own limits too. This is one of them.

I have to admit, and this isn't meant to be confrontational, but I feel as though I have significant difficulties communicating with you, TitL.  I'm not sure if you don't understand what I'm saying or I don't understand what you're saying, but regardless, we aren't understanding each other, and it's frustrating to the point that, should we hit a serious point of dissention, I simply drop out of the conversation rather than try and work around those problems.  I think Tycho is bringing up the same issue I'm having.  Whether you choose to pursue the issue or not is up to you, but I will validate Tycho's point, that understanding what you're saying has become a chore for me, and it's not something I pursue any longer as I'm not sure you're interested in changing that.

Fair enough. We all have our points where we want to walk away.

Yep, that was a similar case to this one.  In both cases, I get the impression (and please correct me if I'm wrong on this), that you're more concerned about being right than about people understanding you correctly the first time.  It seems like you think "if people don't understand me, they're doing something wrong, not me."  It also sort of seems like you think that if you changed your wording it would be some sort of shameful thing for you.  It seems like a bit of a pride issue.  As if you would rather people have to ask you for clarification than accept someone's advice on how to better present your statements.  Let me emphasize that this is just how it seems to me, and probably not at all what you intend.  I'm not telling you all this to accuse you, but rather to let you know how what you're doing comes off to others.  If you really want people to listen to you, and think about what you're saying, you need to consider not just what you mean, but also how they'll take what you're presenting to them.  It's also a good idea to try and understand why they disagree with you if they do.  People are much more inclined to listen to people they think are listening to them.  They're much more likely to be open-minded to your ideas if they think you're open-minded to theirs.  A good rule of thumb is to be at least as X as you want your listener to be, where X can be "open minded" "honest" "willing to consider the possibility that you're wrong" "humble" "considerate" or anything like that.  You'll often do more to convince people by listening to what they say than you will by telling them something.

With about 75 posts going back and forth, I disagree that it's not about willing to listen. I addressed the points in that time, and even after they were addressed, which I went back and pointed out where, when a new round of potential 75 poists were forthcoming, I stated I have hit my limit. To my view, your arguments changed in that time, and to me it appears you're unwilling to conceed that the way you're looking at it is not typical.

You really can't have two people going back and forth endlessly and state only one is being unwilling.

So am I hearing that you believe that Tycho's view on the subject is not at all what most people think?  Referring to just this discussion board, or the world, or one then the other if it turns out that's not the case?

Have a look at my post again, TitL.  It's not so much whether or not you are listening, but if the other person feels like you're listening.  When I have this sort of back and forth with you, whether it's true or not, I feel like you don't want to understand what I'm saying.  All I'm saying is that you ought to consider that if you want people to listen to what you're saying.

Yes, my arguments have changed in time.  If they hadn't, the conversation would be pretty static.  As I learn more of what you're saying, I pursue different angles to try and get you to see what I'm saying.  As I better understand your position, I adjust my comments to reflect that.  At first I thought you believed people who were non-christian wanted to go to hell.  When I learned that you didn't believe that, adjusted, since I then thought you just believed people who were non-christian wanted to not be with God.  I'm still not sure if you think that or not, but it sort of sounds like you don't think it, so I'm adjusting where I'm coming from again.  Before it was "why do you think that?" because I thought you thought something that I found strange.  When I learned you didn't actually think that, I changed to more of a why "why do you say that" since I thought what you were saying didn't seem to match up with what you thought.  The points under discussion change over the course of the discussion.  That's not trickery or bad form, it's just the natural way conversations go.

As to if I'm willing to concede that my way of looking at this is atypical, I'm certainly open to that possibility.  But some of the things you've said seem to indicate to me that at very least you have the same atypical view in some cases (for example, you don't think it's fair to say "God chooses for people to murder" and I think (though I'm not sure yet), that you also don't think it's fair to say "criminals choose to go to jail").  To be honest, I'm not entirely sure what view you think I have that's not typical.  If you say "Tycho, you may think [here you state what you think my view is clearly] is true, but I don't think anyone else agrees with that view.  Here's why I think that:..." perhaps we'll make some progress.  Maybe my view is atypical, let's see.  Maybe yours is?  Are you willing to consider that possibility?

How about this:  we can start with the assumption that my view is atypical.  We'll say "nobody else may agree with him, but here's what Tycho thinks: ... now lets see if there's any merit to it."  If you think I've been unreasonable about some point, show me why I'm wrong.

My view of it Tycho is that there weren't multiple implications that are automatically assumed to what I said. I know you're changed your arguments, but if the all the arguments were automatically assumed, I think it reasonable that they should have been brought up sooner rather than later. Else to me, it seems like you're just arguing anything just so you don't have to go back on the earlier statement that my words have an insulting implication.

Here's the thing, TitL.  If I felt insulted, then the issue of whether or not there were insulting implications is sort of settled.  There were, from my point of view, if nothing else.  You can't really argue that I wasn't insulted, even if you want to argue that I shouldn't have been.  The question becomes at that point, why did I feel insulted.  That's what I'm trying to get you to see, and I don't think you've reached that point yet.  You seem happy just to know that I shouldn't feel insulted, and don't seem interested in knowing why I felt insulted.  This is what I'm talking about when I say that if you want people to listen to you, you need to worry about more than just being right, and also think about if the people listening to you will hear the same message that you intend them to hear.

This whole meta conversation seems more about justifying your position of not caring why I was bothered by what you said than about anything else.  I guess I'm just having trouble seeing why you don't want to understand my position.  It seems like you should want to know what kind of things put non-christians off, since you want them to listen to your message about christianity.

Let me be clear:  I realize you didn't mean to be insulting when you said what you did.  What I've been talking about this whole time, is how I get offended by those kinds of statements even though you don't intend them to be insulting.  If you're sending a message that you don't mean, it's not helping you communicate with people.  I'm trying to get you to see why I (and possibly others) would take offense at your choice of words, so that you can avoid offending people in the future.  This is for your benefit as much as mine.  All I get out of it is being offended slightly less.  You get to increase your chances of people listening to you.  It's entirely win-win.  I feel like you think seeing my point of view would be some kind of defeat for you, when you should view it as a victory.