Simple truths.

Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Simple truths.

Hell is permanent.  Damnation to hell is eternal and irrevocable.  Hell is torture.

Hell is the consequence of not believing in Jesus.

Heaven is the reward for believing in Jesus. 

God created the universe.  God created earth.  God created man.  God created Satan.  God created hell.

God created morals. 

God created man with the choice to be moral or immoral.

Some people believe in Jesus.

Some people do not believe in Jesus.

Some people who believe in Jesus are moral. *

Some people who do not believe in Jesus are moral.

Some people who believe in Jesus are immoral. *

Some people who do not believe in Jesus are immoral.

All people who believe in Jesus will go to heaven.

All people who do not believe in Jesus will go to hell.

Logically, some people who are moral will go to heaven, and some to hell.

Also logically, some people who are immoral will go to heaven, and some to hell.

 

So...

any theists want to demonstrate that any of my simple statements are false?

 

 * By saying "some people are (im)moral" I mean to say that their overwhelming tendencies are (im)moral.  I'm well aware that everyone commits both moral and immoral acts.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: good

Hambydammit wrote:

good luck, vastet, but I'll wager dimes to dollars you'll get another No True Scotsman.

todangst wrote:

More than likely. I saw an opening though, and had to try.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
 Wow.  Where to start. 

 Wow.  Where to start.  See it already became a "I'm right and you're wrong"....got a cliche for that one?

Hambydammit wrote:
so that maybe you'll see that your position is illogical and I can stop repeating myself.

Illogical to you.  Is that my fault? I can't help it if I believe differently than you do and I cannot understand your position on saying I'm illogical...I really wish you knew, I do, so you could understand me.

Hambydammit wrote:
I interpreted the bible the way I wanted to? Guilty. Isn't that what you're doing?

Demonstrate for me the method by which you learned that your interpretation is correct. Demonstrate how any of my "simple truths" are taken out of context. Stop asserting without any evidence.

Sit. Pick up the bible.  Read it.  Research what I read.  Discuss it with other christians to see where their interpretations are.  Find other interpretations from history.  compare.  see who really is accurate in context with the passage/chapter, in context with the full message, and move on.  Only PhD's need to pass off their resumes every time they speak; as for me it's not to say I'm going to sit here and justify myself when being taught by other theologians or critics of what the bible says until the truth of it is discovered, but I have this feeling that even if I went into that, you'd find a way to discredit me anyway...

Hambydammit wrote:
You're still trying to tear apart my interpretation based on the fact that you have a different interpretation.

Exactly.  I'm trying to tell you that your interpretation is wrong because without using the full bible in context, you can make use of it for your purpose which is not the purpose of the book.

Hambydammit wrote:

Here are the choices left by Romans 2:

1) Belief in Jesus is irrelevant. God will judge everyone based on whether they are moral or immoral.

2) Belief in Jesus is relevant for those who have heard of Jesus. Those who are ignorant of Jesus will be judged based on morality.

Nowhere in Romans 2 does it say that belief in Jesus leads to morality. In fact, it says the opposite. Clearly, vs. 6-8 can be interpreted to say that god's judgement is based universally on morality. Also, 12 and 13 back up this statement.

Thing is, you take the one part of Romans 2 and leave out the other 15 chapters.  How is that not taking it out of context.  Why did I do it?  Because I had to in order to show your out of context conclusions were wrong and what part of the bible applies.  Now you went into a different line of thought, the line of Jesus and belief irrelevant so now we have to go down a different line....

Hambydammit wrote:
So... you have a choice. Is belief in Jesus necessary for salvation? If it is not, then I accept your admission, and we can end this discussion, and we can agree that Christianity is an irrelevant and useless religion.

If belief in Jesus is necessary for salvation, then would you please give up on your position that morality is somehow linked to salvation, or demonstrate for me that only people who believe in Jesus are moral.

My belief is that believing in Jesus is necessary for salvation.  For those who do not believe or have not heard of Jesus, I cannot say you are going to hell because I simply don't know what tomorrow will bring.  I don't know what God's purpose is for you so this morality issue is NOT what salvation is about....but since it was brought into the thread, I addressed it. 

Hambydammit wrote:
Still want to take the whole bible, or would you like to leave this passage out. It's Paul's own writing, and it's the New Testament. Can't throw it out as being OT law, so pick your poison. Whole bible, or pick and choose?

Who said anything about leaving parts out?  When you submit to God's word, you take all of it.  That's why I wonder about "Gays for God" because if you take God's word, that is a contradiction.  Of course I don't know anyone from that group so I can't say they are living a contradictionary life... 

Hambydammit wrote:
How would you know how moral I am? Are you suggesting that because I don't believe in Jesus, I must be immoral? How judgemental of you!

Putting words in my mouth (or should it be keyboard) now?  Why did you look more into the question than you had to?  I asked a simple question I thought...how moral are you when you don't believe....the other questions are NOT to you specifically or any single person here specifically, but asking are they moral or not. 

Hambydammit wrote:
I dunno. Why do you keep equating morality with criminal behavior? Are you so unimaginative that you can't think of lots of moral ways to commit crimes?

If there were moral ways to commit a crime, they wouldn't be called crimes to begin with would they? Driving without a license is a crime as determined by other men.  Doing so while helping someone else doesn't dismiss the crime but that doesn't mean that because it is man's law it will be applied.  Last I heard there aren't exceptions to any law; if there were they wouldn't be laws would they?

Hambydammit wrote:
Quote:
Is prejudging and insulting a group of people because of different beliefs considered moral?

Interesting question. I wonder what America's religious leaders think about this one. Seems like I remember a few of them saying some pretty nasty things about quite a few groups of people...

Ask them.  They are just as guilty for insulting atheism as well as other groups of individuals as well.  It is one thing to say where you are wrong in your interpretations but another to direct prejudgments about specific people without knowing them.  Without saying a word, I have nothing against you.  Once you open your mouth, if I don't agree with what you said that's when I will voice my stance and inform you as to where you are wrong.  It still does not mean that I am telling you, Hambydammit, or any other atheist as "immoral" or "evil" or "going to hell" because we don't believe the same thing.  Hell I won't even tell you that I feel sorry for you but while I'm alive, you are just a brother in life.  If I saw you in need of medical help or something like that I would not deny you that help even if I had to give it with my own two hands because you don't believe in God.  

Romans 12: 17-21 Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord. On the contrary:  "If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head." Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

 

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Wow. All that writing, and

Wow.

All that writing, and not one constructive thing to say.

In that whole rant, the only thing you managed to say is, "This is my opinion. Stop telling me I'm wrong because you're wrong."

I'm afraid I can't debate on that level.

If you want to bring something to the table, please feel free, but I care very little about comparing the size of each others, um... opinions.

If you want to demonstrate (see, you keep ignoring me when I use that word) that your interpretation is correct, feel free. I'd like to know what method you use to conclude that you're right and everyone else is wrong. Must be some rock-solid logic or you wouldn't feel so sure of yourself.

If you are just going to keep mouthing off about the correct interpretation, I have no time for you.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: In that

Hambydammit wrote:
In that whole rant, the only thing you managed to say is, "This is my opinion. Stop telling me I'm wrong because you're wrong." I'm afraid I can't debate on that level.

I didn't write any of those words....interesting how you managed to conclude that is what I wrote.  But you asked me to write it and you dismiss it....funny how I knew that would happen.

You asked the question, I answered it but I suppose because either my answer made you question or even perhaps fear the result, easier to dismiss than to understand right?  Easier to use earthly justification instead of trying to understand it from the spirtual point of view... 

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
One last try. I'll just

One last try. I'll just quote the same paragraph you keep ignoring.

Quote:

If you want to demonstrate (see, you keep ignoring me when I use that word) that your interpretation is correct, feel free. I'd like to know what method you use to conclude that you're right and everyone else is wrong. Must be some rock-solid logic or you wouldn't feel so sure of yourself.

If you are just going to keep mouthing off about the correct interpretation, I have no time for you.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


ShaunPhilly
High Level ModeratorSilver Member
ShaunPhilly's picture
Posts: 473
Joined: 2006-03-15
User is offlineOffline
This whole thng about jesus

This whole thng about jesus being necessary for salvation really gets me.  Others here have said much of what I have to say, but when I read things such as when one accepts and believes in jesus, they don't feel the temptation of sin, I don't know what to make of it.

 The no=true-Scottsman fallacy, which razor seems to have misunderstoof above, is taht only people who actually fit the ideal of a Christian are Christians.  The idea that if you still feel the temptation to backslide (or whatever term you want to use) makes you not a true Christian defines a Christian in such a way that makes the claim unfalsifiable.  That is, anyone who does give in to temptation becomes a false Christian automatically, no matter how much they believe or have otherwise been virtuous.

So what then? Do "true" Christians receive some changed emotional state where they no longer feel the "pull of the weasal" (that tugging of taht part of you that makes you wnat to do bad things)?  Do real Christians simply no longer feel temptation at all?  I doubt that anyone stops feeling temptation, while some may be able to withstand the desire.  

A further point is that some people don't consider what the Bible calls wrong to be wrong at all.  Others don't feel the desire to do bad things like steal, kill, or rape.  Then again, some do.  Sociopaths may need to fight against their urges in order to not hurt others.

 The bottom line is that whatever our desires are, they have a seat in the hormones, physiology of the brain, and other physical factors.    So, either true Christians have the right brain chemistry to not want to do what the Bible says is sinful, meaning that they are not struggling at all but have simply won the religious lottery, or God gives people who really believe a physiology make-over.  So, which is it?

because if the things I love to do, being the result of physiology, taste, and hormone levels are sinful, then the responsibility still falls on the one who designed me.  If God designed you to not desire things the Bible abhors, then you're life is not a struggle to live up to the Bible, and so you've really just gotten lucky.  But if you ever do want to, say, have sex with a woman who is not your wife, then you are as susceptable to temptation as anyone slse, and it is what you actually do that decides your moral worth, not what you believe.

Shaun 

I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
That reminds me of a woman

That reminds me of a woman (Pentecostal, I think), who witnessed to me that once you are saved by jesus, you cannot lose your salvation, i.e., unsave yourself.  Which is to say, if you are saved, then go out and commit a sin, you were never actually saved in the first place. 

 At least they're trying to keep their bases covered.

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
ShaunPhilly wrote:

ShaunPhilly wrote:
The no=true-Scottsman fallacy, which razor seems to have misunderstoof above, is taht only people who actually fit the ideal of a Christian are Christians. The idea that if you still feel the temptation to backslide (or whatever term you want to use) makes you not a true Christian defines a Christian in such a way that makes the claim unfalsifiable. That is, anyone who does give in to temptation becomes a false Christian automatically, no matter how much they believe or have otherwise been virtuous.

Maybe I did misunderstand what it meant but to me it sounded more like "wait for the 'you'll never understand this part because you have to believe to understand it'." No Christian is perfect and the first one that claims to be is what the bible describes as a "false prophet." The only perfect person was not born of the flesh which is what exempts that; the belief that Jesus was from God. All Christians will fall to sin but that does not make them any less of a person just the same as if any atheist falls to sin/evil/illegal act.

ShaunPhilly wrote:
So what then? Do "true" Christians receive some changed emotional state where they no longer feel the "pull of the weasal" (that tugging of taht part of you that makes you wnat to do bad things)? Do real Christians simply no longer feel temptation at all? I doubt that anyone stops feeling temptation, while some may be able to withstand the desire.

As a Christian, it's not a changed emotional state but rather a change in lifestyle if you will. I didn't feel like a serial killer one minute and holier than thou the next. It's more likened to someone who truly quit smoking; even one look at a cig will make them feel ill and resist the temptation to smoke again. When you believe, and it becomes your life, you don't act the same or speak the same. That's about the best way I know how to describe it....

ShaunPhilly wrote:
So, either true Christians have the right brain chemistry to not want to do what the Bible says is sinful, meaning that they are not struggling at all but have simply won the religious lottery, or God gives people who really believe a physiology make-over. So, which is it?

That would imply there are perfect people running around right now. Every person is not perfect. Every person on this planet has little devils on their shoulder telling them to do something against their better judgments. You really think that the pope never thought about sex or that [name a Christian] didn't ever have a "hate" thought at some point? No person is perfect and not one person will ever meet the laws of God as set from the old testament (Psalm 14, Romans 3). As Christians believe however, the way to stop acting like a fool is Jesus.

ShaunPhilly wrote:
because if the things I love to do, being the result of physiology, taste, and hormone levels are sinful, then the responsibility still falls on the one who designed me. If God designed you to not desire things the Bible abhors, then you're life is not a struggle to live up to the Bible, and so you've really just gotten lucky. But if you ever do want to, say, have sex with a woman who is not your wife, then you are as susceptable to temptation as anyone slse, and it is what you actually do that decides your moral worth, not what you believe.

Earthly desires are just that. Every person has them and they will never end until God says so. The point however is understanding why Jesus came and what that gives you when you believe. That's where it changes along with your life. Earthly struggles, while never gone, are easier to confront (Romans 6)....this is what Christianity and the bible teach. 

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


mouse
Posts: 129
Joined: 2007-02-21
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak, what do you

razorphreak, what do you think about the fact that so many people have different readings of the Bible, to the point that even Christians don't agree amongst themselves how to read it. It is, to say the least, a confusing book. here your are telling us that you have found truth apparently in the Bible, when people who believe in the Bible don't even agree on the same truth (your posts show this disconnect among Christians).

Ethics and aesthetics are one
-Wittgenstein


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
mouse wrote: razorphreak,

mouse wrote:
razorphreak, what do you think about the fact that so many people have different readings of the Bible, to the point that even Christians don't agree amongst themselves how to read it. It is, to say the least, a confusing book. here your are telling us that you have found truth apparently in the Bible, when people who believe in the Bible don't even agree on the same truth (your posts show this disconnect among Christians).

It is a confusing book, believing in it or not.  This is why you have various denominations. Each form of Christianity took the book, decided they didn't agree with something the other churches did, and ran with it how they saw fit.  One of the most difficult things to describe much less understand is WHY.  Most denominational churches today became businesses instead of houses of worship and it's difficult to break out of that mindset at times.  I do not hate any of my Christian brothers because beyond the differences, which are all semantics, we are all believers in Jesus, which is the most important part.  Once you move beyond that though, it does get tough and sometimes, a bit argumentative.  I am by no means an expert on the book because obviously I had to learn what I know from someone else in study together, and though this the group I participate in study with we are all growing in understanding what it takes to actually understand what it is this book actually says.

A good example is the idea that you do not have control over your ability to believe to be saved; its not easy to accept that you don't have the ability to know God unless God wants you to know him.  But it is in the bible, and it removes the question of can we simply choose to believe.  You can LOSE your salvation, but to gain it is not accomplished by works or actions or even choice (Ephesians 2).  No one likes to think they do not have control over their lives and their eternal salvation is usually put into that mix.  

I guess the thing that probably causes the most interesting of discussions is when the bible is used to make a statement or point out of context, or worse, the driving force of traditions that even Jesus told us not to do.  Transforming it to mean something it does not is probably what causes the biggest issues between Christians and probably to a far greater degree, between theists and atheists (usually the problem is trying to differentiate if faith should exist vs. if the bible is correct - somehow those get intertwined and the discussion gets...ugly). I don't want to sound long winded but many of the issues between Christians deals with omissions of the text for the purposes of self and tradition.  Why people get caught up on the issues such as baptism (one says at birth, one says when adult, one says sprinkle water, one says dip head, one says dip whole body, and so on and so on) is why you see disagreement.  God's word translated and interpreted for man's use instead of God's use...and it will go on until the end of time.  Even today, seeing churches ignore parts of the bible to be politically correct...it was not what was intended.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


mouse
Posts: 129
Joined: 2007-02-21
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote:

razorphreak wrote:

A good example is the idea that you do not have control over your ability to believe to be saved; its not easy to accept that you don't have the ability to know God unless God wants you to know him. But it is in the bible, and it removes the question of can we simply choose to believe. You can LOSE your salvation, but to gain it is not accomplished by works or actions or even choice (Ephesians 2). No one likes to think they do not have control over their lives and their eternal salvation is usually put into that mix.

so, i definitely think that I am not one of the ones whom God in your theism paradigm wants to know because the paradigm of Christianity, especially heaven and hell is really quite foreign and absurd to me. This is not to be insulting, its just that I have not been engaged and inculcated so much with the Christian narratives such that ideas like heaven and hell have any intrinsic meaning to me. These place-ideas are as arbitrary as place-ideas like say Atlantis, or Mordor. The whole Christian tradition to me is not more than an interesting narrative (though perhaps not the most interesting narrative) along the lines of other narratives in that tradition.

That I don't have control of my life in this respect according to you in terms of salvation isn't an issue I suppose since I don't accept this paradigm for understanding the world. Although I guess this is something you worry about, so that's why we're talking about it(?) obviously, i don't have access to it in the same way that you do. It is meaningless to me.

I appreciate Buddha's conclusion of universal compassion as a model for 'good' in the same way that I appreciate Jesus' compassion, but I don't interpret Jesus' compassion within the context of Christianity, because I find some aspects of Christianity-like hell- absurd (I can go into more detail about these aspects if you want).

what do you think about this razorphreak?

 and, what does this discussion mean to you if we don't have control over whether God wants us to know him?

Ethics and aesthetics are one
-Wittgenstein


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
mouse wrote: i definitely

mouse wrote:
i definitely think that I am not one of the ones whom God in your theism paradigm wants to know because the paradigm of Christianity, especially heaven and hell is really quite foreign and absurd to me.

Because you think that way today does not mean you will tomorrow (and I don't mean in the next 24 hours).  God will use whom he will and when he wants to and when that day comes is anyone's guess. My point...no one should worry about that, only what you have to deal with today.

mouse wrote:
I appreciate Buddha's conclusion of universal compassion as a model for 'good' in the same way that I appreciate Jesus' compassion, but I don't interpret Jesus' compassion within the context of Christianity, because I find some aspects of Christianity-like hell- absurd (I can go into more detail about these aspects if you want).

Universal compassion is central to Christianity as well though it is hard to see that when you have some of the followers like the group at the Westboro Baptist Church and their site titled godhatesfags.com.  Perfect example of what I can only describe as fools perverting God's word for attention.

mouse wrote:
and, what does this discussion mean to you if we don't have control over whether God wants us to know him?

I'm not sure I understand you.  What do I think of God's control?  It is what it is...I'm not going to concern myself on that because God has me a bit more involved with a lot of other stuff... 

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


mouse
Posts: 129
Joined: 2007-02-21
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote:

razorphreak wrote:

mouse wrote:
i definitely think that I am not one of the ones whom God in your theism paradigm wants to know because the paradigm of Christianity, especially heaven and hell is really quite foreign and absurd to me.

Because you think that way today does not mean you will tomorrow (and I don't mean in the next 24 hours). God will use whom he will and when he wants to and when that day comes is anyone's guess. My point...no one should worry about that, only what you have to deal with today.

i'm not worried.

razorphreak wrote:
mouse wrote:
I appreciate Buddha's conclusion of universal compassion as a model for 'good' in the same way that I appreciate Jesus' compassion, but I don't interpret Jesus' compassion within the context of Christianity, because I find some aspects of Christianity-like hell- absurd (I can go into more detail about these aspects if you want).

Universal compassion is central to Christianity as well though it is hard to see that when you have some of the followers like the group at the Westboro Baptist Church and their site titled godhatesfags.com. Perfect example of what I can only describe as fools perverting God's word for attention.

i disagree; many people are Christian because they fear hell, and this fear is something that they have understood their entire lives, so it becomes a part of their reality. if this is a part of their reality, compassion for its own sake becomes distorted.


I think buddhism is a better example of a worldview in which compassion is actually central. Buddha said your own ignorance can be a 'hell' in that it causes suffering. but it is not eternal punishment. that doesn't logically fit into this particular paradigm at all--precisely because it is absurd. from the perspective of buddhism compassion is unending, and there is no fatal choice you make which you can't turn back from. i think this framework is consistent with itself. in this paradigm, compassion doesn't have an expiration date after our arbitrarily finite time on this planet. in principle, buddhists have nothing to fear. in principle, christians fear hell.

hell negates universal compassion.

also, almost any Christian I know would say Buddha is in Hell. What do you think?

 

razorphreak wrote:
mouse wrote:
and, what does this discussion mean to you if we don't have control over whether God wants us to know him?

I'm not sure I understand you. What do I think of God's control? It is what it is...I'm not going to concern myself on that because God has me a bit more involved with a lot of other stuff...

you said

"A good example is the idea that you do not have control over your ability to believe to be saved; its not easy to accept that you don't have the ability to know God unless God wants you to know him. But it is in the bible, and it removes the question of can we simply choose to believe."

so my question to you is, what does this conversation mean to you if no one can simply choose to believe?

also, i want to reemphasize the point that it is easy to accept that you don't have the ability to know god, especially the Christian God, if you were not inculcated with that narrative tradition.

Ethics and aesthetics are one
-Wittgenstein


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
mouse wrote: i disagree;

mouse wrote:
i disagree; many people are Christian because they fear hell, and this fear is something that they have understood their entire lives, so it becomes a part of their reality. if this is a part of their reality, compassion for its own sake becomes distorted.

 I don't agree with that.  People are not Christian because they are afraid of going to hell; they are Christian for two reasons: they were born into it so that's all they know OR they were called.  That's it.  Hell has nothing to do with it at all.  Those who were born in it can be some of the best followers of Jesus but the traditions are what might hold them back from God's will.  That is why you see groups that distort the idea of "judging" beyond their church and do silly boycotts of companies.

mouse wrote:
also, almost any Christian I know would say Buddha is in Hell. What do you think?

 1 Corinthians 5: 12-13 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you."

It is not for me to say who is in hell or who isn't and it should be that way for all Christians. 

 

mouse wrote:
you said

"A good example is the idea that you do not have control over your ability to believe to be saved; its not easy to accept that you don't have the ability to know God unless God wants you to know him. But it is in the bible, and it removes the question of can we simply choose to believe."

so my question to you is, what does this conversation mean to you if no one can simply choose to believe?

also, i want to reemphasize the point that it is easy to accept that you don't have the ability to know god, especially the Christian God, if you were not inculcated with that narrative tradition.

I still don't quite understand the question.   I know may Christians that say they believe because it's what they grew up with or some, like sapient, didn't know God, may have found God, and then rejected God (I don't know him so I can't say one way or another).  Because you don't choose to believe, anyone called to believe is not an automatic shoe in and those never called to believe are not automatically going to hell either.  People following tradition however are probably the most dangerous as that is typically not from God but from man.  Those traditions can go from the silly to the extreme in a heartbeat and somehow, and this is the worst part, they use them to judge someone's faith.  

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: People are not

Quote:
People are not Christian because they are afraid of going to hell; they are Christian for two reasons: they were born into it so that's all they know OR they were called. That's it. Hell has nothing to do with it at all.

No shit? Hell has nothing to do with it? Have you even paused for ten seconds to think about the implications of that?

1) Hell is not a motivator for people to become Christian.

a) Hell, therefore, is not a deterrent to non-christians

2) Therefore, one of the following must be true:

a) Hell is unnecessary

b) Hell serves some purpose other than deterrence.

3) If 2a, then God created a place of eternal torture for no reason and sends millions if not billions of people there -- FOR NO REASON!

4) If 2b, then the message, "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved" is meaningless, since it addresses the desire of people to be saved from something... but since hell is not what they're worried about, then... um...

So, what's the purpose of hell? Punishment for non-believers? Can't be. Punishment is a consequence of an action. Punishment is a means of instruction and/or manipulation. The threat of punishment overwhelms the desire of the subject to do something else, and they do what the threatener wants.

So, what is hell for?

Quote:
they are Christian for two reasons: they were born into it so that's all they know

Here, I agree with you totally. This is why my favorite saying is, "Reading is Magic! Jesus is a Myth!"

Something about how education is inversely proportional to religiosity... I wonder why that would be important...

Quote:
OR they were called.

So some people hear the voice of god in their head, and he says, "Suzy Q.... Suzy Q... Listen very carefully... Once upon a time, there were three little deities... God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit... God the Father thought it would be fun to make a universe and create a tiny little planet in a tiny little corner, and make this one kind of animal, called humans. He would love the humans so much that he would create Satan and let Satan tempt one of the two humans so that she would sin, and forever and ever after that, women's vaginas would hurt really bad when they have babies.

Then, he would love them so much that he would send a flood to kill all of them except for one family, who he put in charge of taking care of two of everything that ever lived on the planet.

Then, after sending this one little group of humans who he loved the most out to kill lots of other humans who he didn't love as much, he decided to send Jesus down to earth to be killed. Since Jesus was killed by the people God the Father loved the most, and since Jesus wasn't really dead, since he was god, he came back out of the tomb after three days and told everybody to believe in him or they would go to hell, which is a really nasty place.

Since then, there's been a book that has been mistranslated and misquoted so much that nobody can agree on what it really means. This book is the absolute, completely true word of god... (That's me, by the way, Suzy Q... I'm the Holy Spirit. It's my job to tell you about this wonderful story.)

So, Suzy Q... Believe in me, and don't worry about that hell thing, because you won't be going there because you've been called to believe that I did all of this just for little old you.

And then, Suzy Q believes, because she's been "called."

 

Or, maybe Suzy Q just really wants to believe in this fairy tale because some other brainwashed fella keeps telling her that her life will get better if she'll only believe this nonsense.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


mouse
Posts: 129
Joined: 2007-02-21
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote: mouse

razorphreak wrote:

mouse wrote:
i disagree; many people are Christian because they fear hell, and this fear is something that they have understood their entire lives, so it becomes a part of their reality. if this is a part of their reality, compassion for its own sake becomes distorted.

I don't agree with that. People are not Christian because they are afraid of going to hell; they are Christian for two reasons: they were born into it so that's all they know OR they were called. That's it. Hell has nothing to do with it at all. Those who were born in it can be some of the best followers of Jesus but the traditions are what might hold them back from God's will. That is why you see groups that distort the idea of "judging" beyond their church and do silly boycotts of companies.

Many, many people are Christian because they fear hell. They  are taught this fear since early childhood, so its hard for them to separate this fear from their sense of reality. When I was younger, this was their first warning to me if we ever got into discussion; this is a fear with which they live their lives and instill in others to spread their faith. Even when I was ten though, I thought that living life with that kind of fear is absurd. hell is absurd.

razorphreak wrote:
mouse wrote:
also, almost any Christian I know would say Buddha is in Hell. What do you think?

1 Corinthians 5: 12-13 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you."

It is not for me to say who is in hell or who isn't and it should be that way for all Christians.

You can deduce from the Bible (and people have showed me this reasoning) that if there is a hell, Buddha is in it. Buddha sinned. (he never claimed to be a prophet who transcended sin--his life was a process of becoming better). He lived 600 years before Jesus. The only way to heaven is through Jesus. so, this is why its easy for other Christians to tell me that Buddha (and Gandhi) is in a place/idea called Hell. Gandhi even lived after Jesus, and in his spiritual journey he didn't go through Jesus, but he did have a universal compassion for mankind. so, since he didn't arrive at his spiritual state through jesus, according to Jesus (says Christians), he's in hell.

 

Also, you haven't addressed the point that hell is incompatible with universal compassion (an idea which is reconciled in other faiths in the world)

again, in principle, buddhists have nothing to fear, and in principle Christians have hell to fear if they do not 'choose' to accept Jesus as their savior.

razorphreak wrote:
People following tradition however are probably the most dangerous as that is typically not from God but from man. Those traditions can go from the silly to the extreme in a heartbeat and somehow, and this is the worst part, they use them to judge someone's faith.

The interpretation of these traditions is that jesus said the only way to heaven is through him; according to them, jesus is the one judging people's faiths.

Ethics and aesthetics are one
-Wittgenstein


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
So, yeah... razor... how is

So, yeah... razor... how is it that you're so hung up on people judging?

If I go watch a trial, and the judge sentences somebody to jail, I can leave the courtroom and go tell my friends that some dude just went to jail.  Am I judging him?  No.  I'm reporting what I have seen.  Similarly, my friends can go report to someone else that they know that this dude went to jail.  Are they judging?  NO.

 The Bible says people are going to go to hell.  That's the word of God, right?  So could you please stop getting so antsy about people judging others?  By my estimation, you're the only one in this conversation who judges yourself to have irrefutable knowledge.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: So,

Hambydammit wrote:
So, yeah... razor... how is it that you're so hung up on people judging?

Gee...I wonder if it could be that most on this site post on how Christians [as individuals] are...oh nevermind. 

Hambydammit wrote:
If I go watch a trial, and the judge sentences somebody to jail, I can leave the courtroom and go tell my friends that some dude just went to jail. Am I judging him? No. I'm reporting what I have seen. Similarly, my friends can go report to someone else that they know that this dude went to jail. Are they judging? NO.

So...what's your point? 

Hambydammit wrote:
The Bible says people are going to go to hell. That's the word of God, right? So could you please stop getting so antsy about people judging others? By my estimation, you're the only one in this conversation who judges yourself to have irrefutable knowledge.

Na...I'm just a big hung up on misinterpretations and the use of scripture to mean something it doesn't.  Speaking of which, wasn't I asked by mouse about it?  Oh, and if I'm antsy about it...reactionary...

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Well, for the record, I'm

Well, for the record, I'm hung up on your complete avoidance of questions.

Please do something other than just say the same baseless assertion again.  I, as well as everyone else on this thread, know that you believe that you've got a lock on the correct interpretation of the bible, and that you are immune from taking things out of context.

How do you know that?

 

Also, how about answering my question from an earlier post... What is hell for?

Or did you just skim over that one?

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
mouse wrote: They are

mouse wrote:
They are taught this fear since early childhood, so its hard for them to separate this fear from their sense of reality.

That's my point of being Christian because it's what you grew up with.  It wasn't Jesus' point to fear hell; his point was to change your life so hell isn't even in your thoughts.  Putting back there was not the purpose of Jesus at all.

mouse wrote:
You can deduce from the Bible (and people have showed me this reasoning) that if there is a hell, Buddha is in it. Buddha sinned.

I think that depends on what point of view you are coming from.  If you are coming from the Jewish point, that is to say the Old Testament, sure.  But if you are coming from the Christian point, that is the New Testament, then no that's not true.

mouse wrote:
Gandhi even lived after Jesus, and in his spiritual journey he didn't go through Jesus, but he did have a universal compassion for mankind. so, since he didn't arrive at his spiritual state through jesus, according to Jesus (says Christians), he's in hell.

Says Christians but not his word or the word of the NT.  Read Romans 2 and 1 Cor 5 (again).  It is not for a Christian to say who is or who isn't; only God. 

 

mouse wrote:
Also, you haven't addressed the point that hell is incompatible with universal compassion (an idea which is reconciled in other faiths in the world)

Hell is after death so what would it matter?

mouse wrote:
The interpretation of these traditions is that jesus said the only way to heaven is through him; according to them, jesus is the one judging people's faiths.

Depends on the tradition.  If someone is shouting you are going to hell because you are an athiest, that's not Jesus speaking at all. 

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:

Hambydammit wrote:
Well, for the record, I'm hung up on your complete avoidance of questions.

I've answered your questions according to my beliefs. Sorry if you didn't like the answers or disregarded them as answers.

Hambydammit wrote:
Please do something other than just say the same baseless assertion again.

See what I mean.

Hambydammit wrote:
I, as well as everyone else on this thread, know that you believe that you've got a lock on the correct interpretation of the bible, and that you are immune from taking things out of context.

How do you know that?

Considering what you just told me about how I give my answers...wow who knows how I should answer that question. Damned if I do and Damned if I don't right? Uh oh I'm avoiding...ok lemme see....I don't believe I have a lock on any such thing nor am I immune from making mistakes. I am not talking about the whole of the bible when I respond to posts....I'm trying to stay on topic. I do look for the answers in the bible however before I respond.....so I guess my answer to how do I know would be...research?

Hambydammit wrote:
Also, how about answering my question from an earlier post... What is hell for?

Or did you just skim over that one?

I missed your post entirely. After reading it though I gotta say I really don't know how to respond to it but I'll just stick to the one question, what is hell for.

First I'll tell you what hell is not for; it is not for those who have accepted Jesus, it is not for those who do God's will, and I'd dare to say it is not for those who are not immoral in how they live their lives. What hell is for, from what I've gathered from the bible, is for the liars of the spirit. What I mean by that are those who talk of God but have not accepted him in their hearts. For those who do not do God's will when they know damn well where the request comes from. Think of the parable of of the two sons when their father asked them to do a task (Matthew 21:28-32). That is blasphmy against the holy spirit.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote:

Quote:
I'm trying to stay on topic. I do look for the answers in the bible however before I respond.....so I guess my answer to how do I know would be...research?

Awesome. I hear tell that most people who study things do research.

Would you mind providing me with some of the proofs you discovered in your research? If your position is the most logical, then there must be some proofs somewhere, since anything that is logical can be demonstrated.

Quote:
First I'll tell you what hell is not for; it is not for those who have accepted Jesus, it is not for those who do God's will, and I'd dare to say it is not for those who are not immoral in how they live their lives.

I didn't ask what it's not. It's also not a six inch high gremlin name Howard. We could list things that are not other things all day.

Quote:
What hell is for, from what I've gathered from the bible, is for the liars of the spirit. What I mean by that are those who talk of God but have not accepted him in their hearts. For those who do not do God's will when they know damn well where the request comes from. Think of the parable of of the two sons when their father asked them to do a task (Matthew 21:28-32). That is blasphmy against the holy spirit.

So it's for punishing those people?

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote: If your position is

Quote:
If your position is the most logical, then there must be some proofs somewhere, since anything that is logical can be demonstrated.

I hope by this you don't mean physically demonstrable.. because that would be demonstrably false. Smiling

So hopefully all you meant by it was logically demonstrated and "some logical proof."

Don't mind me.. just trying to help out my fellow-theist.


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: Would

Hambydammit wrote:
Would you mind providing me with some of the proofs you discovered in your research? If your position is the most logical, then there must be some proofs somewhere, since anything that is logical can be demonstrated.

What kind of proofs do you mean? The kind that as I was reading the book and it said "holy bible" it was in fact a bible or something more profound like as I read the book I discovered the old testament, while relevant, no longer applies to a Christian?

Hambydammit wrote:
So it's for punishing those people?

Being without God for eternity can only be punishment.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


mouse
Posts: 129
Joined: 2007-02-21
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak

razorphreak wrote:

Hambydammit wrote:
So it's for punishing those people?

Being without God for eternity can only be punishment.

eternal punishment is not compassion.

Ethics and aesthetics are one
-Wittgenstein


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
mouse wrote: eternal

mouse wrote:
eternal punishment is not compassion.

Compassion means nothing after death.  It's only relevant during your time on Earth. 

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


mouse
Posts: 129
Joined: 2007-02-21
User is offlineOffline
mouse wrote:


mouse wrote:
Also, you haven't addressed the point that hell is incompatible with universal compassion (an idea which is reconciled in other faiths in the world)

you still haven't addressed this point.

razorphreak wrote:

mouse wrote:
The interpretation of these traditions is that jesus said the only way to heaven is through him; according to them, jesus is the one judging people's faiths.

Depends on the tradition. If someone is shouting you are going to hell because you are an athiest, that's not Jesus speaking at all.

the 'tradition' runs on quoting the scripture where Jesus says, the only way to heaven is through Jesus. you can attribute the discrepancy between different traditions to unclear writing in the NT or something, but it's in there.

 

Ethics and aesthetics are one
-Wittgenstein


mouse
Posts: 129
Joined: 2007-02-21
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote:

razorphreak wrote:

mouse wrote:
eternal punishment is not compassion.

Compassion means nothing after death. It's only relevant during your time on Earth.

why wouldn't compassion be relevant after your time on earth?

why shouldn't compassion be an eternal principle?

why would compassion end after our arbitrarily finite time on this planet? 

Ethics and aesthetics are one
-Wittgenstein


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
mouse wrote:

mouse wrote:

mouse wrote:
Also, you haven't addressed the point that hell is incompatible with universal compassion (an idea which is reconciled in other faiths in the world)

you still haven't addressed this point.

Because your "point" makes no sense. As I just put, compassion means nothing after you're dead.  The reason?  You've already received it.  God has compassion to those who are alive but, just like with anything else, nothing is infinate.

mouse wrote:
the 'tradition' runs on quoting the scripture where Jesus says, the only way to heaven is through Jesus. you can attribute the discrepancy between different traditions to unclear writing in the NT or something, but it's in there.

That's not tradition, it's just sccripture. "Tradition" is more like what you do on earth to ensure your salvation on top of what scripture says such as confession or doing the rosary - things not in scripture.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


mouse
Posts: 129
Joined: 2007-02-21
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote: mouse

razorphreak wrote:
mouse wrote:

mouse wrote:
Also, you haven't addressed the point that hell is incompatible with universal compassion (an idea which is reconciled in other faiths in the world)

you still haven't addressed this point.

Because your "point" makes no sense. As I just put, compassion means nothing after you're dead. The reason? You've already received it. God has compassion to those who are alive but, just like with anything else, nothing is infinate. 

it makes sense to faiths outside of your narrative tradition. if compassion means nothing after your dead, then it directly follows  that whatever makes up you or your soul also means nothing after your dead.

 compassion can be infinite, even in your narrative tradition. hell is not necessary.

 

(do you think hell is necessary?) do you think living life with the fear of hell is necessary? do you think knowledge of hell is necessary?

razorprheak wrote:
 

mouse wrote:
the 'tradition' runs on quoting the scripture where Jesus says, the only way to heaven is through Jesus. you can attribute the discrepancy between different traditions to unclear writing in the NT or something, but it's in there.

That's not tradition, it's just sccripture. "Tradition" is more like what you do on earth to ensure your salvation on top of what scripture says such as confession or doing the rosary - things not in scripture.

nevertheless, it says clearly in the bible (and on the signatures of some posters in this site) that the only way to heaven is through jesus.  if this is to be understood clearly and directly, it would follow that gandhi is in hell. 

Ethics and aesthetics are one
-Wittgenstein


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
razor, the cool thing about

razor, the cool thing about being me right now is that everyone who's reading this thread can see that I've made my point and that you haven't refuted it.

The thing that's not very cool about being you is that either you can't see that, or you're not addressing it because you don't want to feel like you "lost."

I don't care which it is. I'm not here to win or lose. I'm here to discuss what's rational and what's not. Your inability (or unwillingness) to enter a rational debate is clear at this point, so I'm not going to bother with re-asserting the same points you haven't refuted.

Enjoy your delusion.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
mouse wrote: it makes sense

mouse wrote:
it makes sense to faiths outside of your narrative tradition. if compassion means nothing after your dead, then it directly follows that whatever makes up you or your soul also means nothing after your dead.

compassion can be infinite, even in your narrative tradition. hell is not necessary.

tell me, would living in paradise be considered compassion? If so then it is infinite.  I have never considered that to be compassion but, as written, the promise. 

mouse wrote:
(do you think hell is necessary?) do you think living life with the fear of hell is necessary? do you think knowledge of hell is necessary?

razorprheak wrote:

mouse wrote:
the 'tradition' runs on quoting the scripture where Jesus says, the only way to heaven is through Jesus. you can attribute the discrepancy between different traditions to unclear writing in the NT or something, but it's in there.

That's not tradition, it's just sccripture. "Tradition" is more like what you do on earth to ensure your salvation on top of what scripture says such as confession or doing the rosary - things not in scripture.

nevertheless, it says clearly in the bible (and on the signatures of some posters in this site) that the only way to heaven is through jesus. if this is to be understood clearly and directly, it would follow that gandhi is in hell.

Nevertheless?  You just skipped my point entirely and frankly then it's pretty obvious you don't even understand the scripture I posted for you to understand.  Shame you are stuck on the single point because you miss the rest. 

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: razor,

Hambydammit wrote:
razor, the cool thing about being me right now is that everyone who's reading this thread can see that I've made my point and that you haven't refuted it.

The thing that's not very cool about being you is that either you can't see that, or you're not addressing it because you don't want to feel like you "lost."

I don't care which it is. I'm not here to win or lose. I'm here to discuss what's rational and what's not. Your inability (or unwillingness) to enter a rational debate is clear at this point, so I'm not going to bother with re-asserting the same points you haven't refuted.

It's odd that, like mouse, you skip the point I'm making and claim that I don't address yours.  If that's what you call rational discussion...ok.  You've asked questions about what the bible does or doesn't say.  I've told you.  What more were you looking for? 

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


mouse
Posts: 129
Joined: 2007-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Here is what

Here is what gotquestions.org has to say about salvation:


"Jesus is the only way of salvation because He is the only One who can pay our sin penalty (Romans 6:23). No other religion teaches the depth or seriousness of sin and its consequences."

"Salvation is available only through faith in Jesus Christ! 'Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved'" (Acts 4:12).

 

Are the Christians who say the above wrong or right about salvation? Is what they are saying "tradition" and judgement or simply quoting scripture? Is Romans 6:23 and Acts 4:12 being correctly represented by these Christians or do they have it wrong? Is it unreasonable for these Christians, given the scripture, to believe that Gandhi's in hell?

How do you read those Bible verses which they sited?

Also, here are questions which are still lingering from my last post.

1. Is hell necessary?

2. Is living life with the fear of hell necessary?

3. Is your knowledge of hell necessary? Why?

what role does hell play in your faith? 

Ethics and aesthetics are one
-Wittgenstein


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Exactly, razor.  You've

Exactly, razor.  You've asserted your position.

You've told me.  I've read.  I've comprehended.

I've demonstrated (using proper logic) that your position is not logical.

You've not demonstrated that I'm wrong. 

Tell me again what you believe, and that the bible says so, and I'll tell you again that it's illogical.  That's not debate.  That's simply arguing.  Debate is when you address the point the other person has made.

I've shown you that your statements about hell cannot be true.  You've told me that hell is for punishment, only you said it wasn't for punishment.  That's an internal contradiction, and you haven't fixed it.  You've told me it wasn't a motivation for salvation, yet it is there as a penalty for blasphemy, so it must logically be meant as a deterrent.   You haven't addressed this.

You haven't answered mouse's questions, either.

You're just taking up bandwidth right now, and not contributing anything.

Now, go ahead and say that neither of us is addressing the point, and let's do this dance again.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
For the record, here's my

For the record, here's my refutation of your assertion that hell is not a motivator for salvation. You haven't proven any of my logic faulty. You've just said, "No, I'm right."

If your logic is bad, then your conclusion is at best suspect, and at worst completely wrong.

Will you please address this?

Quote:
Hell has nothing to do with it at all.

No shit? Hell has nothing to do with it? Have you even paused for ten seconds to think about the implications of that?

1) Hell is not a motivator for people to become Christian.

a) Hell, therefore, is not a deterrent to non-christians

2) Therefore, one of the following must be true:

a) Hell is unnecessary

b) Hell serves some purpose other than deterrence.

3) If 2a, then God created a place of eternal torture for no reason and sends millions if not billions of people there -- FOR NO REASON!

4) If 2b, then the message, "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved" is meaningless, since it addresses the desire of people to be saved from something... but since hell is not what they're worried about, then... um...

So, what's the purpose of hell? Punishment for non-believers? Can't be. Punishment is a consequence of an action. Punishment is a means of instruction and/or manipulation. The threat of punishment overwhelms the desire of the subject to do something else, and they do what the threatener wants.

So, what is hell for?

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
hamby,

hamby,

You really are amazing. My first post on this thread is what refutes your post time and time again. Your question, what is hell for, I refuted in the post that had the line "I'll tell you what it's not for"...remember?

Again I'm sorry if you don't like what I give you as answers, but they are answers according to the bible and what I believe as a Christian. Why is it that you simply dismiss them as answers because they are not what you believe? It is not the answer you were looking for you need to be aware of the question you ask.

mouse,

if you are going to ignore my posts with the same questions then, as hamby said, I'm going to stop taking up bandwidth. 

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


mouse
Posts: 129
Joined: 2007-02-21
User is offlineOffline
hi razorphreak,   i am

hi razorphreak,

 

i am not ignoring your posts, sorry if it seems that way. honestly my goal in this dialogue is to do my best to understand your worldview. 

the questions that i posted above were acknowledging your posts above, not ignoring them, and i'm still curious to know your answer. maybe i just didn't get it the first time; in anycase, i separated my questions out point by point so that you could address each one specifically.

could you do that? 

 

 

Ethics and aesthetics are one
-Wittgenstein


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
mouse wrote: 1. Is hell

mouse wrote:

1. Is hell necessary?

2. Is living life with the fear of hell necessary?

3. Is your knowledge of hell necessary? Why?

what role does hell play in your faith?

  1. The best way I can figure it is if heaven isn't for everyone, then there must be where the rest go.  Hell is Satan's domain....so one must assume it must be necessary.
  2. No. Not only is it not necessary, it shouldn't happen.
  3. I think so.  If you don't know what would happen to you if you fail God, then what would be God's purpose?
  4. Hell does not play any role in my life.  I think the proper question is more of a what does evil/temptation play in my life.  With that it's always there and will always be there, trying to make me fail in listening to God and his will for me.  There are times that I do not what I know I should and that makes me more aware of God and his will, if you can believe that...it's like the guy that is married and doesn't want to cheat on his wife but yet gets offers left and right, and those offers, while at times appealing, make him think of his wife more and that keeps him honest.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


mouse
Posts: 129
Joined: 2007-02-21
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote:

razorphreak wrote:
mouse wrote:

1. Is hell necessary?

2. Is living life with the fear of hell necessary?

3. Is your knowledge of hell necessary? Why?

what role does hell play in your faith?

  1. The best way I can figure it is if heaven isn't for everyone, then there must be where the rest go. Hell is Satan's domain....so one must assume it must be necessary.
  2. No. Not only is it not necessary, it shouldn't happen.
  3. I think so. If you don't know what would happen to you if you fail God, then what would be God's purpose?
  4. Hell does not play any role in my life. I think the proper question is more of a what does evil/temptation play in my life. With that it's always there and will always be there, trying to make me fail in listening to God and his will for me. There are times that I do not what I know I should and that makes me more aware of God and his will, if you can believe that...it's like the guy that is married and doesn't want to cheat on his wife but yet gets offers left and right, and those offers, while at times appealing, make him think of his wife more and that keeps him honest.

1. why isn't heaven for everybody?

2 and 3.

if the fear of hell "shouldn't happen," then why mention hell at all?

you said, "if you don't know what would happen to you if you fail God, then what would be God's purpose?" how would God's purpose be different than what it is now if we didn't know about hell? If the fear of hell is 'not necessary' and 'shouldn't happen' during our time on this planet, God's purpose would be the same whether we knew about hell or not.

Why should we know what would happen to us if we failed God if fear is not a way to know God or understand God? What role does this kind of knowledge play in the Christian faith?

 

4. How has the knowledge of hell helped you in your own faith? if this knowledge hasn't helped you in your faith in God, then how has it helped others in their faith in God? If it hasn't helped anyone (and it has for certain harmed many) on their spiritual journeys, then what is it for?

Ethics and aesthetics are one
-Wittgenstein


mouse
Posts: 129
Joined: 2007-02-21
User is offlineOffline
also, hell is God's domain.

also, hell is God's domain.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Thanks, razor. I think I'm

Thanks, razor. I think I'm pretty good, but amazing might be going a little too far. Maybe we can agree that I'm awesome.

Quote:
My first post on this thread is what refutes your post time and time again.

Let me condense your first post a bit...

Quote:
Read Romans 2.

Ok. I've read Romans 2. I've addressed Romans 2. It is unclear, for in some places it seems to say that god will judge people based on their actions/morality, and others it seems to say that god will judge based on belief in Jesus. I don't have a magic 8 ball to tell me which interpretation to believe. Do you?

You've said that I'm taking it out of context. How do you know you're taking it in context? You're not the only one here who's read the bible, you know. Most of us are former Christians, and most of us have read every word of the bible many times.

On top of this dilemma, there's the fundamental question of why the bible should be trusted! Even if you could come up with a proof of your interpretation being the one that Paul intended, why should we believe Paul?

Oh, lucky me... you answer this at the end of the post...

Quote:
For those who don't believe, well I refer you back to Romans 2.

Brilliant. This, razor, is what's known as circular logic, and it's a logical fallacy.

Quote:
Again I'm sorry if you don't like what I give you as answers, but they are answers according to the bible and what I believe as a Christian.

They're answers that you take from the bible. Hundreds of thousands of Christians interpret it differently. Prove them wrong.

Quote:
Why is it that you simply dismiss them as answers because they are not what you believe?

I dismiss them as answers because they're only one interpretation from a vague and contradictory book compiled by a group of politically inspired men hundreds of years after the original texts were supposedly written. Why do you believe a book like that?

Quote:
It is not the answer you were looking for you need to be aware of the question you ask.

I suspect you still don't know what question I'm asking. At the very least, you keep ignoring it when I ask it. Let me try again:

How do you know that your interpretation is correct?

I'll warn you ahead of time, you saying "I read it in context," will just lead to the question, "How do you know you read it in context?"

razor, you haven't answered any questions posed to you satisfactorily. You've given your opinions, and not posted anything that backs up your position. This board is called the Rational Response board for a reason. If you're going to give an answer, you need rational reasons for doing so. All you've done so far is quote one passage of scripture and ignore the fact that your interpretation is contradictory to hundreds of thousands of other Christians.

Further, you've completely avoided the question of why you would believe the bible anyway.

Further, you've completely avoided the question of how you can know when you've read the correct context.

This is my last try, razor, because I know that it's futile to ask you questions. You're too deeply indoctrinated to even see that you've been refuted repeatedly, so I fear there's no real hope of having a conversation with you, but I guess I have a windmill tilting fetish, so I'm asking one more time.

 

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
You know for the first time

You know for the first time you actually answered me directly?  Each time you've responded with the "avoided my question" when I've done no such thing.  This thread is not for me to decipher the bible for you, it's to tell you what it says.

Quote:
=Hambydammit]How do you know that your interpretation is correct?

How do I know?  Thousands, millions have read the bible but it doesn't mean they understand it. How do I know?  Well I could tell you that the holy spirit makes it understandable for me but that would be too cliche for you...

Hambydammit wrote:
I've read Romans 2. I've addressed Romans 2. It is unclear, for in some places it seems to say that god will judge people based on their actions/morality, and others it seems to say that god will judge based on belief in Jesus. I don't have a magic 8 ball to tell me which interpretation to believe. Do you?

 Yep.  It's call the holy spirit and a relationship with God. Romans is THE letter in the new testament that defines what being a Christian is about.  It happens to also be the most difficult to understand because of how thick it is with theology.  The first part of Romans 2 (1-16) deals with the differences of Christians and non-Christians.  The second part (17-29) speaks of what it means to be a believer and how the law of old applies.  If you want me to really break it down for you I will...

Now how do I know what I am speaking of is right?  Well I gave you the cliche answer, now let me give you an answer that you might better understand - as I read Romans the first 10 times, I knew I was in over my head and I started asking others, what did you think of this? What about when he said that?  Most churches won't touch Romans because of the truth that it reveals and how they make it contradict to their teachings (can't tell people they can talk to God directly otherwise what would the pastors be for?..amongst other things).   So it began that way, include several interpretations from other leading bible scholars, see what else are called "sources", and then I determine by the grace of God what did Paul really mean.  How do I know my version is right?  I know because God tells me so...oh and its in line with all bible based scholars to boot not to mention that when I read and re-read the rest of the bible, it flows and, when you understand what is written, you'll see it...  I have a feeling that still isn't good enough, but let me ask you, why do I understand it and you don't?

Hambydammit wrote:
They're answers that you take from the bible. Hundreds of thousands of Christians interpret it differently. Prove them wrong.

... 

I dismiss them as answers because they're only one interpretation from a vague and contradictory book compiled by a group of politically inspired men hundreds of years after the original texts were supposedly written. Why do you believe a book like that?

 Tell me, what interpretations?  I don't know what you are talking about on that...please, how I can prove them wrong if I don't even know what you say they are saying...

The fact that your bias AGAINST the bible speaks volumes as to why you dismiss my answers and it is pretty unfair if anyone who wants to be considered "rational."  Because of your own delusions that the bible is contradictory based on research that is not your own and based on the english versions of the scriptures says quite a bit as well.  You say the men were politically motivated yet I seem to remember that the big players, especially from the new testament, were poor and travelers that didn't live in one place, and were enemies of the Roman empire that for the most part, were killed.  Christianity didn't take the Roman empire by force and Peter, Paul, James, and John all didn't live to see it so I fail to see the political advantage they had.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: This thread is not

Quote:
This thread is not for me to decipher the bible for you, it's to tell you what it says.

huh?

I've read it. Thanks. All the tests say my reading comprehension is remarkably high.

Quote:
How do I know? Thousands, millions have read the bible but it doesn't mean they understand it. How do I know? Well I could tell you that the holy spirit makes it understandable for me but that would be too cliche for you...

cliche? maybe... I was thinking more on the lines of arrogant, but whatever floats your boat.

Quote:
It's call the holy spirit and a relationship with God.

Now I'll officially call you arrogant. Your relationship with sky-daddy is better than thousands, millions who have read the bible? Because you say so. Because you say you know the sky-daddy better than other people. Right.

Quote:
How do I know my version is right? I know because God tells me so...oh and its in line with all bible based scholars

My sky daddy is better than your sky daddy...

and it's in line with all bible based scholars??!?!?! All those ?!s are the international sign for incredulity. I can only assume you mean its in line with all the ones who happen to agree with you, and the ones who don't, aren't real biblical scholars...

and you know this because sky daddy tells you so.

Quote:
it flows and, when you understand what is written, you'll see it...

Interesting. It seems you don't care that I've read the thing, front to back, many times. It seems you don't care that I see a book riddled with inconsistencies and errors, and that it isn't a matter of opinion, it is a matter of what's on the page. This Link

lists quite a few significant contradictions and errors. Maybe you just missed them in your reading?

Probably you don't care, because you know you're right because sky daddy told you so.

Quote:
why do I understand it and you don't?

I don't know that you do. You haven't proven anything. All you've done is arrogantly claim that you're right and everyone else is wrong.

Quote:
Tell me, what interpretations?

Seriously? You honestly don't know that churches everywhere teach that hell is the absence of god's presence?

Quote:
Is Hell Real? - Why Does Anyone Go There?
Is hell real? Hell is a place of eternal separation from God, and people go there when they die because they chose to separate themselves from God while living on earth.

From http://www.allaboutpopularissues.org/is-hell-real.htm

Quote:

Jesus gave a sobering warning on this: "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it. (Matt 7:13-14)

Most will go to hell than go to heaven. This should not surprise us, considering how little Jesus Christ means to people. They say they believe in Him, but only ten percent of the population will even go to church on Sunday. How is it possible, considering that the Church is the house that Jesus built for His family? I think people need to really evaluate their lives, and see if they are really serving Jesus Christ. And unbelievers need to reconsider the claims of Christ. He claimed to be the Messiah and Savior. Either He told the truth or He is the biggest deceiver of all. I choose to believe He is what He claimed to be. I have experienced a changed life as a result of my faith.

From http://www.tbm.org/what_is_hell.htm

There ya go, kiddo. I searched google for "What is Hell" and within the first 3 links I found someone preaching that hell is separation from god, and that most people go to hell.

So there you go. Why don't you do your own google search. There are tons of different interpretations, and I'm not going to hold your hand and spoon feed you each one of them just to prove that I'm aware of them. Do your own research.

Quote:
The fact that your bias AGAINST the bible speaks volumes as to why you dismiss my answers and it is pretty unfair if anyone who wants to be considered "rational."

rational means "using reason." It is unreasonable to believe a 2000 year old document without proof. Since the only evidence for its truth is anecdotal, there is no reasonable basis for belief.

Quote:
Because of your own delusions that the bible is contradictory based on research that is not your own and based on the english versions of the scriptures says quite a bit as well.

I didn't realize you were in possession of an original. Could I read it please?

Quote:
You say the men were politically motivated yet I seem to remember that the big players, especially from the new testament, were poor and travelers that didn't live in one place, and were enemies of the Roman empire that for the most part, were killed.

Um... no. You don't really know much about this, do you?

Christianity wasn't codified until the Council of Nicea in 325. Read all about it here . The bible you read was not codified until the mid 1500s. Read all about it here.

Quote:
Christianity didn't take the Roman empire by force and Peter, Paul, James, and John all didn't live to see it so I fail to see the political advantage they had.

Odd that you don't even know enough of the history of your own religion to know that I obviously wasn't talking about Peter, Paul, James, or John.

It's getting very difficult to take you seriously, razor. You obviously haven't read much outside of church-approved propaganda, and you certainly don't know very much about the history of your own religion.

Tell me again why I should believe anything you say?

 

 

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


mouse
Posts: 129
Joined: 2007-02-21
User is offlineOffline
hi razorphreak, did you get

hi razorphreak, did you get a chance to look at my last post? it's the last one on page three. i'll post it again below since it kind of got lost.

Ethics and aesthetics are one
-Wittgenstein


mouse
Posts: 129
Joined: 2007-02-21
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote: mouse

razorphreak wrote:
mouse wrote:

1. Is hell necessary?

2. Is living life with the fear of hell necessary?

3. Is your knowledge of hell necessary? Why?

what role does hell play in your faith?

  1. The best way I can figure it is if heaven isn't for everyone, then there must be where the rest go. Hell is Satan's domain....so one must assume it must be necessary.
  2. No. Not only is it not necessary, it shouldn't happen.
  3. I think so. If you don't know what would happen to you if you fail God, then what would be God's purpose?
  4. Hell does not play any role in my life. I think the proper question is more of a what does evil/temptation play in my life. With that it's always there and will always be there, trying to make me fail in listening to God and his will for me. There are times that I do not what I know I should and that makes me more aware of God and his will, if you can believe that...it's like the guy that is married and doesn't want to cheat on his wife but yet gets offers left and right, and those offers, while at times appealing, make him think of his wife more and that keeps him honest.

1. why isn't heaven for everybody?

2 and 3.

if the fear of hell "shouldn't happen," then why mention hell at all?

you said, "if you don't know what would happen to you if you fail God, then what would be God's purpose?" how would God's purpose be different than what it is now if we didn't know about hell? If the fear of hell is 'not necessary' and 'shouldn't happen' during our time on this planet, God's purpose would be the same whether we knew about hell or not.

Why should we know what would happen to us if we failed God if fear is not a way to know God or understand God? What role does this kind of knowledge play in the Christian faith?

 

4. How has the knowledge of hell helped you in your own faith? if this knowledge hasn't helped you in your faith in God, then how has it helped others in their faith in God? If it hasn't helped anyone (and it has for certain harmed many) on their spiritual journeys, then what is it for?

Ethics and aesthetics are one
-Wittgenstein


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
hamby,  Now I'm really

hamby,

 Now I'm really wondering what you are talking about when we are talking about Christianity. 

Quote:
Christianity wasn't codified until the Council of Nicea in 325.

What is your definition of what Christanity is?  For me, it's the belief that the person who walked the earth known as Jesus Christ was God on earth and hence the Lord and savior.  Now, I don't know about you, but according to the texts, that was pretty much the same belief of those "apostles" that followed him as well. Soooooo that basically means that Christanity was NOT set in 325 but about 300 years earlier.  When you make ANY reference to Christianity, it's about the folllowing of Jesus' teachings, not what happened in a council 300 years later.  

Quote:
My sky daddy is better than your sky daddy...

and it's in line with all bible based scholars??!?!?! All those ?!s are the international sign for incredulity. I can only assume you mean its in line with all the ones who happen to agree with you, and the ones who don't, aren't real biblical scholars...

Interesting how you keep assuming time and time again.  I really wonder why.

Now last I checked, I don't know of many bible scholars that would disagree with what I said about hell, the bible, or Romans 2.  I'd really like to know what bible scholars you are talking about... 

 

Quote:
rational means "using reason." It is unreasonable to believe a 2000 year old document without proof. Since the only evidence for its truth is anecdotal, there is no reasonable basis for belief.

So even though one more than one person said/wrote the same thing, and not just in the bible, still not enough?  And from what I've read there was Roman proof as well of Christ (misspelled Christus). And then of course the four Gospels....all of them wrong?  Sounds to me like you are denying it for the sake of denying it.

Mouse said: 

Quote:
1. why isn't heaven for everybody?

That's like asking why isn't the NFL for every football player. Not everyone will make it in.

Quote:
if the fear of hell "shouldn't happen," then why mention hell at all?

No one is perfect.  As the scripture says, many are called but few will be chosen so you know many will fall from grace and because they are simply not saved, what would happen to them? 

 

Quote:
how would God's purpose be different than what it is now if we didn't know about hell? If the fear of hell is 'not necessary' and 'shouldn't happen' during our time on this planet, God's purpose would be the same whether we knew about hell or not. Why should we know what would happen to us if we failed God if fear is not a way to know God or understand God? What role does this kind of knowledge play in the Christian faith?

The point however is we DON'T know what will happen to us, fail or not.  We don't know what "failure" is except by the case of being called and then turning your back on God.  That's pretty straight forward I'd think.   

Quote:
4. How has the knowledge of hell helped you in your own faith? if this knowledge hasn't helped you in your faith in God, then how has it helped others in their faith in God? If it hasn't helped anyone (and it has for certain harmed many) on their spiritual journeys, then what is it for?
 

Every word from God helps.  If you believe you can't say it doesn't.  Understanding what awaits if you turn your back from God shouldn't be a thing to fear as, idealy, you won't.  If you did, what's to say you'd believe such a thing anyway.   Hell to me is simple to understand; don't do what God asks, that's what awaits.  It's harder to understand God's word if you ask me.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


mouse
Posts: 129
Joined: 2007-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Quote: 1. why isn't

Quote:

1. why isn't heaven for everybody?

Quote:
That's like asking why isn't the NFL for every football player. Not everyone will make it in.

why is heaven like the NFL? why shouldn't everyone go to heaven? is hell necessary?

 

I don't think every word from God helps. In fact the idea of hell passed down by God does not help. I still don't understand how it is useful to your faith at all, and it is destructive in many other people's lives.  Can you give me an example or an anecdote to show how this knowledge helps people? I can give you examples of how it has hurt people.

Ethics and aesthetics are one
-Wittgenstein


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote: What is

razorphreak wrote:

What is your definition of what Christanity is? For me, it's the belief that the person who walked the earth known as Jesus Christ was God on earth and hence the Lord and savior. Now, I don't know about you, but according to the texts, that was pretty much the same belief of those "apostles" that followed him as well. Soooooo that basically means that Christanity was NOT set in 325 but about 300 years earlier. When you make ANY reference to Christianity, it's about the folllowing of Jesus' teachings, not what happened in a council 300 years later.

The gospels of Thomas and Peter (among others) make the same claims of jesus' divinity -- why are they not included in the bible then?  As we read in Acts, the early church was already debating, about whether to allow Gentiles to join, and whether they should be circumcised.  So also in Paul's letters, where often he has to correct the beliefs and practices of certain communities.  Note further that jesus' divinity was disputed enough that Arianism managed to gain a hold until it was stamped out at the Nicean council in -- ahem -- 325.  So even early on we see that "the following of Jesus' teachings" was not enough to define what xianity was.

razorphreak wrote:
So even though one more than one person said/wrote the same thing, and not just in the bible, still not enough? And from what I've read there was Roman proof as well of Christ (misspelled Christus). And then of course the four Gospels....all of them wrong? Sounds to me like you are denying it for the sake of denying it.

The four gospels differ in various details.  So if we're adhering to strict accuracy, at least 3 of them are wrong.  Tacitus for one makes mention of "Chrestus", as that which was worshipped by the christians in rome.  That suffices as proof for christianity, but not christ.  No more than a news flash about scientologists would suffice 2,000 years from now as proof of xenu.

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
razor, I've said before,

razor,

I've said before, but maybe you missed it.  I'm not here to baby step you through the various sects of Christianity and their beliefs.  If you would like to learn more, go to a library.  If you truly don't understand the enormous differences between current denominations, and the enormous changes that Christianity has undergone since its beginning, then the first thing you need to tackle is your own ignorance.

zarathustra did a good job of informing you of the basic beginnings of Christianity.  Again, go to your local college library and get some reputable texts by real historians.  You're not prepared for a discussion on these boards.

As for the veracity of the gospels, or any of the bible for that matter, I suggest you learn more about the scholarly methods of determining historical accuracy, which include things like contemporary documentation, outside corroboration, historical consistency, internal consistency, and quite a few other litmus tests.  The bible fails on virtually all levels.  But then, you'd know that if you read something other than the bible.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism