Right-wing fundamentalist's dilemma

[Strife767]

Come on Strifey, we all know that you have no idea what you are talking about.

Say it enough times, and maybe it'll become true?

How about give it a try, at least you won't look so dumb! 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Give what a try?

[Bryan]

Three different sets of last words are not a complement, they are a contradiction. Saying that they aren't doesn't make it true.

But saying that they are (especially if you attach a URL) does make the opposite true.

Except that these excerpts of these three accounts are of the same aspect, the same moment in time.

... and as everyone knows, witnesses to automobile accidents never describe the same aspect, the same moment in time.

And if they heard three very different reports of the last words, they would conclude that at least two of those reports must be inaccurate.

They would if the witnesses were pressed to provide every detail they could remember, perhaps, depending on the circumstances.

But it's the details that Strife will not wish to discuss, since that will go badly for him.

There is no getting around it--all three of them can't all be correct.

Why isn't there any getting around it?

When there are contradictions, every side can't be true at the same time, no matter how much you claim they can.

Seems like we had a "Guest" here who was willing to entertain the idea that other dimensions could make contradictions possible.

But I agree with Strife in principle, here--I simply disagree that he has shown any contradiction.

Not when you look at the big picture. There is zero written about Jesus's life during it, despite the fact that if someone was going around performing fantastic miracles, common sense would dictate that not only would there be contemporary evidence (of which there isn't any), but that there would be tons of it compared to other figures of the time.

That depends on where the fantastic miracles were performed, doesn't it?

Most of Jesus' ministry was conducted in the relative boondocks. A tiny portion of his relatively short (about three years) ministry occurred in Jerusalem. Which of the miracles in Jerusalem should be remembered by writers there, and why? Did the Romans have an interest in memorializing Jesus' life? How about the Jewish hierarchy?

In fact neither has any clear motivation for writing about Jesus--but if Strife has any good suggestions why anybody except the followers of Jesus should have reported his miracles I'd love to hear it.

Put that together with the fact that the first person to actually write about him (Saul of Tarsus) speaks with NO knowledge of any of the supposed events of Jesus's life except from the crucifixion onward, and even THEN places the events not on Earth, but in a mythical realm, and THEN suddenly there is the Gospel of Mark, where all of these details about Jesus's life just pop up out of nowhere.

Somebody's been reading up on Jesus-myth crackpottery.

It is the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam to conclude from Paul's writings that he had no knowledge of the earlier events in Jesus' life, not that it matters anyway. Even supposing that Paul had no knowledge of Jesus' earlier life, that would only matter if Paul had reason to know about Jesus earlier life as well as a reason to mention it in his writings.

Strife seems to have skipped all of the important steps.

Also, the gospel is an anonymous work (in fact, it was only in the 2nd century that it was first attributed to Mark, and this Mark was a disciple of Peter's, so he was an eyewitness to NOTHING himself even if it was written by this Mark (but there's no real evidence of that--it was simply Papias's attribution).

On what basis would you conclude that the anonymous author was not an eyewitness without Papias' testimony?

Even less could be said about the other gospels, which are derivative of that gospel and therefore even further hearsay.

The evidence is equivocal regarding the priority of Mark, as I have already shared. Funny how Strife clings to the priority of that book as though it were a point of deeply held religious doctrine.

In fact, when you're able to look at the actual situation objectively, it is much more "quite a stretch" to take anything in the gospels as historical/literal as opposed to the kind of 'storytelling' used to convert people that one would expect from someone writing a gospel, after all.

In that case, wouldn't we expect to find accounts contemporary with the gospels intent on contradicting the lies therein? Wouldn't those Jews who opposed the early Christian sect have a special interest in preserving documents of that type?

Except that:

1. The body could easily have been moved.

Not without ignoring the texts from which you take the idea that there was a body to be moved.

Soldiers on guard, and a Jewish hierarchy motivated to prevent anything of the kind from happening.

2. The location of this tomb could have already been a mystery by this time, because the gospels were written several decades after Jesus's alleged death, and it would be hard to find the tomb/body (in the first place) of someone who they just made up, so if that's the case, then it would be pretty easy for them to 'set up.'

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Plus the Enterprise could have gone through a time warp and Scotty beamed up Jesus' body. Don't forget that one.

[Bryan]

That is a rank admission that these are not divinely inspired writings and not inerrant.

Why is that?

If they were, they wouldn't suffer from this problem.

Why not?

You can't have it both ways, but if you don't have it both ways you can't defend your position.

Why can't the different gospels convey different aspects of the story while still being inspired?

Your point would make sense, except that the nature of your claim is that the Bible is perfect down to the last jot and iota.

That's not the way I understand inspiration or inerrancy. Perhaps if you describe exactly what you mean by "perfect down to the last jot and iota" we can make some sense of your claim. Or maybe you'll choose to explain the reasoning above instead, which might serve just as well.

You can't just drop that position in those moments when it doesn't suit your purposes. Ergo your position is indefensible.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't think that he was changing his position at all. I think maybe you misunderstand his position.

Are you willing to reason it through?

[Guest bewildered]

That's the point.  Did you need someone to hold your hand and tell you these things.

Warnings have been on cigarettes for 30+ years.  Yet people are making money off of tobacco lawsuits today. 

I don't know how the Framers would view the current state of the "wall of seperation", but I'm sure they'd be appalled by the lack of common sense that has taken over the legal profession.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm talking about people who started smoking before the warnings. The warnings themselves were not strong enough. They said that "smoking may cause cancer of the lungs". What they should have done is show the statistics comparing lung cancer rates for smokers and non-smokers. A lot of people who were smoking in the early 70s had been smoking for years. The damage had already been done.

There are also underage smokers who started before or after the warnings were put in place who did not have the capacity of making a rational choice about smoking.

The framers's intent is basically irrelevant because they did not all agree on what the first amendment was supposed to mean. Some of the Founding Fathers seemed to contradict themselves. When "Christian America" people quote-mine they only choose the quotes that seem to present their side.

[Guest bewildered]

Yes Paul, we do.  In fact, a rather famous quote among us fundamentalists is "context is king."  What we mean by this is verses have to be interpreted by their context.  Context includes the paragraph as well as the overall message of the book they are found in.  In answer to the question you pose concerning Jesus' second coming, the Bible does not say it would occur before all those then living would die.  What it does say is this,

"I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away untill all these things have happened."  Jesus in Mathew 24:34

Chapter 24 is about the events of the "end times" before Jesus' second coming.  These Events include:

Nations rising against nation

Famines

Earthquakes

Christians persecuted

Christians hated by the nations

The Gospel of the Kingdom preached to all nations as a warning

An abomination standing in the Holy Place of the temple  (This requires the temple to be rebuilt)

Great distress unequaled since the beginging of the world

False Christs and false prophets

The sun being darkened and the moon not giving its light.

Stars falling from heaven

Heavenly bodies being shaken

The context of Mathew 24:34 dictates that the "generation" that sees these catrastrophic events will see Christ's return.  To date, these things haven't happened, at least I can't remember the sun and moon being darkened and stars falling, or the heavenly orbs shaking.  They are yet future.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What a distortion of the text. Jesus is clearly talking about the people who are listening to him at that time. If he meant a different generation he would have referred to "that generation".

The concept of "stars falling from the heavens" shows the misconception that people had about stars at that time. They believed that the stars were little lights that twinkled in the night skies.

[Guest Paul]

That's the point.  Did you need someone to hold your hand and tell you these things.

Warnings have been on cigarettes for 30+ years.  Yet people are making money off of tobacco lawsuits today. 

I don't know how the Framers would view the current state of the "wall of seperation", but I'm sure they'd be appalled by the lack of common sense that has taken over the legal profession.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The cigarette manufacturers have been making huge profits off a product that kills hundreds of thousands of people every year, and they deliberately market it to our children, hooking them on what is essentially a drug before the age of consent. Why aren't you outraged by that?

[Guest Guest]

Paul get a fu?#ing life and get off this board. Please! You really make me sick when you try to sound intellectual. Oh God smote this mother fu?#@%

[Guest Tom Ram]

Actually, there are serious arguments among Bible scholars for regarding Matthew as the original gospel work, in accord with the canonical tradition.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hey friends - been reading KOTW for about a year or so and particularly love the "conversation" between Paul, Strife, Bryan and "2smart". clearly you are all pretty smart and pointedly witty. I can't help but envision all of you running around with your fingers in your ears shouting la,la,la,la,la,la,la,la, when the other guy is talking - very frustrating AND entertaining.

This particular thread meanders and includes discussions about the accuracy/intent of particular books of the bible. My question to the believers is pretty simple - how do you believe that Jesus is the one and only god of all mankind? Also, do you believe he was born of a virgin? walked on water? healed the sick? multiplied the loaves? brought about famines, floods and disease on his whim? Simply put, how do you justify, let alone prove in ANY fashion, that these things ever happened? That's just my question re: supernatural events which happen repeatedly by the hand of god.

Second, after you somehow rationalize these claims of the supernatural, how to account for older religons? millions/billions of people who do not believe and have never encountered your King of Kings. We are not even talking about the frailty and inaccuracy of human story telling - 2000 years ago? stories written deacdes and centuries later taken today as literal truth? how can a person be a believer let alone an arrogant believer?! Yes, i suppose i am asking you to tell us how in the world you believe your religion to be the only one. We can talk about eternal damnation forever (and apparently will) but man oh man, lets talk about the forest instead of the trees. how are you able to devote your life, substantial intelligence and energies to a set of beliefs seemingly fabricated out of whole cloth with zero "proof", none, zippo: just well organized (and often well-intentioned) propaganda/missionary work - we can agree to omit little blips like the Inquisition, the Crusades and various other genocides in the name of god - really we can. How do you believe in your god and all the supernatural claims. please, no ninja turtle figurine metaphors or orange not being orange, or Paul is stupid comments. just tell me how you devote your life to this fable to the vehement exclusion of all others.

Lastly, don't say i missed your whole point from a posting last month, or that i misrepresent some obscure psalm, or that i must be some Kool aid drinking fool blah blah....how in the world do you believe you and your brethren are the saved ones to the exclusion of the rest of the world? don't distract with perceived flaws in evolution, or take the focus away from the question or talk about the 19 dimensions we may live in - explain the belief in the supernatural qualities of your god. I know enough to admit i don't know the answers but for some reason (a shot at eternal life?) you seem incapable of reasonable concessions. your thoughts? and i can't wait for you to break my comment down into little pieces and then make irrelevant snide remarks. -tom

[Guest Guest]

And you have no clue that your position fallaciously begs the question, do you?

. . . .

I'll remind "Guest" that a just hell is its own justification.

. . . .

Guest makes this argument after admitting that values require no outside justification.  The value is justice.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In other words, hell is just because it's just because it serves justice, which is what is just.

And this clown accuses someone else of begging the question!

[Guest Guest]

QUOTE(Guest @ Jun 24 2007, 12:07 AM)

This is a perfect example of what is wrong with religious fundamentalism. Values are their own justification: Things like honesty and compassion, pretty much all the values on Paul's list. We don't need an explanation to know why they are good. Living provides all the explanation we need.

(Bryan) And you have no clue that your position fallaciously begs the question, do you?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But it doesn't. Everyone posting here is a human being, not a robot. We're not talking about X's and O's on a tic-tac-toe board. We're talking about life and values and justice. Certain things are reasonably taken as given, such as:

Being adequately nurtured is better than starving to death.

Being healthy is better than being sick.

Being happy is better than being miserable.

Unless you're interminably miserable, being alive is better than being dead.

That is the shape of the good. It is based on the nature of human life itself.

Now let's add just a little sophistication.

Wisdom is better than foolishness.

Kindness is better than misanthropy.

Love is better than both hate and indifference.

Generosity is better than greed.

Honesty is better than dishonesty.

Reason is better than irrationality.

Responsibility is better than irresponsibility.

It's long list. Now add this one:

Justice is better than injustice.

OK, sounds good, but what is justice? Paul answers the question. Bryan doesn't. It is not enough to pick holes in the other person's position without really having one of your own. In the thousands of years of written philosophy, no one has ever devised a perfect system of justice. But at the end of the day, we have to make decisions how we're going to live and act in the world. A system of justice that is founded and focused on basic human values seems like an excellent place to start. It's quite ironic that a biblical fundamentalist would argue agaisnt it.

Bryan, it's so sad what you're doing. You seem to imagine that you've won every argument because you never accept the other person's position. And you never lose an argument because you never offer anything of your own. I hope you don't live your life that way. Is that really how you want to present yourself here?

[Guest Guest]

In fact, a rather famous quote among us fundamentalists is "context is king." 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I didn't realize these apparent contradictions were in the Bible. Several passages say that God actually wants some people to go to hell, and deludes them to make sure they will.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/all_saved.html

How do you explain that?

[Guest Red-Letter Edition]

That is a rank admission that these are not divinely inspired writings and not inerrant. If they were, they wouldn't suffer from this problem. You can't have it both ways, but if you don't have it both ways you can't defend your position. Your point would make sense, except that the nature of your claim is that the Bible is perfect down to the last jot and iota. You can't just drop that position in those moments when it doesn't suit your purposes. Ergo your position is indefensible.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Guest,

I fail to see a "rank" admission. None of the Gospels is in error, they are written by four different individuals concerning events in the ministry of Christ. Three of the Gospels are considered "synoptic" Gospels, or "seen together" Gospels. They are similar in that they cover much of the same material and events. They are Mathew, Mark and Luke. It is possible that Mathew and Luke used Mark as source material. There is nothing in the doctrine of biblical inspiration which would not allow this. In fact, Luke, in his introduction states:

"Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught." Luke 1:1-4

You see, Luke admits interviewing eyewitnesses and using source material. In fact, I see this as adding credibility to the text. Inspiration does not disallow the use of source material. God chose men to write the Scriptures. Their individual writing styles and personalities permeate the texts that they wrote. As individuals observing history taking place, the things they recorded as individuals were the things that impacted them and fit into their purpose for writing.

The Bible explains inspiration this way:

"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness." 2 Timothy 3:16

"Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." 2 Peter 1:20-21.

The central teaching in these verses is that God used men to write and that these men were carried along by His Spirit. The implication is that God spoke through them and insured the accuracy of their writings. I'll leave Jesus with the last word on the subject, this is what He says:

"I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." Mathew 5:18

In this passage, I think its clear, Jesus claims innerancy.

Following your logic, because there are hundreds of volumes written about the Battle of Gettysburg, and each volume includes different aspects of the battle. They are untrue and perhaps the battle never happened.

[Bryan]

Hey friends - been reading KOTW for about a year or so and particularly love the "conversation" between Paul, Strife, Bryan and "2smart".  clearly you are all pretty smart and pointedly witty.  I can't help but envision all of you running around with your fingers in your ears shouting la,la,la,la,la,la,la,la, when the other guy is talking - very frustrating AND entertaining.

Uh ... what did you say again? I was busy saying "la, la, la, la."

This particular thread meanders and includes discussions about the accuracy/intent of particular books of the bible.

And now cigarettes.

My question to the believers is pretty simple - how do you believe that Jesus is the one and only god of all mankind?  Also, do you believe he was born of a virgin? walked on water? healed the sick? multiplied the loaves? brought about famines, floods and disease on his whim?  Simply put, how do you justify, let alone prove in ANY fashion, that these things ever happened?  That's just my question re: supernatural events which happen repeatedly by the hand of god.

That's not a simple question, Tom. I mean, it's simple enough to ask, but the answer is a thing of which books are made. You're asking a question that covers epistemology and evidences, and would require a great deal of detail to answer satisfactorily.

If you're interested in the answer and not in creating more work for Christians posting to this board, then I refer you to Glen Miller's Christian Think Tank.

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/

It's extensive, pretty well-written, and it's free.

Second, after you somehow rationalize these claims of the supernatural, how to account for older religons? millions/billions of people who do not believe and have never encountered your King of Kings.  We are not even talking about the frailty and inaccuracy of human story telling - 2000 years ago? stories written deacdes and centuries later taken today as literal truth? how can a person be a believer let alone an arrogant believer?!

Because it makes more sense than the alternatives, in a nutshell.

Yes, i suppose i am asking you to tell us how in the world you believe your religion to be the only one.  We can talk about eternal damnation forever (and apparently will) but man oh man, lets talk about the forest instead of the trees.  how are you able to devote your life, substantial intelligence and energies to a set of beliefs seemingly fabricated out of whole cloth with zero "proof", none, zippo: just well organized (and often well-intentioned) propaganda/missionary work - we can agree to omit little blips like the Inquisition, the Crusades and various other genocides in the name of god - really we can. How do you believe in your god and all the supernatural claims.  please, no ninja turtle figurine metaphors or orange not being orange, or Paul is stupid comments. just tell me how you devote your life to this fable to the vehement exclusion of all others.

Again, in a nutshell: Philosophical coherence and experiential confirmations.

Lastly, don't say i missed your whole point from a posting last month, or that i misrepresent some obscure psalm, or that i must be some Kool aid drinking fool blah blah....

You're misrepresenting the whole Kool-aid thing, so obviously you've missed the point.

how in the world do you believe you and your brethren are the saved ones to the exclusion of the rest of the world?

I don't know who is saved and who isn't. I don't think I've claimed otherwise.

don't distract with perceived flaws in evolution, or take the focus away from the question or talk about the 19 dimensions we may live in - explain the belief in the supernatural qualities of your god.

That's a book topic, not a discussion-board topic. You really should have put this in a separate thread, IMHO ("Right-wing fundamentalist's dilemma").

I think you should identify a handful of key issues contained in your question (such as the issue of sufficient evidence for miracles) and focus on those if you're serious about having this discussion on a message board.

I know enough to admit i don't know the answers but for some reason (a shot at eternal life?) you seem incapable of reasonable concessions.

What reasonable concession should I have made that I did not?

your thoughts?  and i can't wait for you to break my comment down into little pieces and then make irrelevant snide remarks. -tom

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Your wish is granted.

[Guest bewildered]

Paul get a fu?#ing life and get off this board. Please! You really make me sick when you try to sound intellectual. Oh God smote this mother fu?#@%

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wow. I am awestruck by your brilliant remarks. Who is forcing you to read anything on this board? Get a life and get an education.

[Strife767]

Paul get a fu?#ing life and get off this board. Please! You really make me sick when you try to sound intellectual.

Oh, dry your eyes already, sheesh.

Oh God smote this mother fu?#@%

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Looks like someone forgot to read Matthew 7:1. Tsk tsk.

[Guest Paul]

Guest,

I fail to see a "rank" admission.  None of the Gospels is in error, they are written by four different individuals concerning events in the ministry of Christ.  Three of the Gospels are considered "synoptic" Gospels, or "seen together" Gospels.  They are similar in that they cover much of the same material and events.  They are Mathew, Mark and Luke.  It is possible that Mathew and Luke used Mark as source material.  There is nothing in the doctrine of biblical inspiration which would not allow this.  In fact, Luke, in his introduction states:

"Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word.  Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught."  Luke 1:1-4

You see, Luke admits interviewing eyewitnesses and using source material. In fact, I see this as adding credibility to the text.  Inspiration does not disallow the use of source material.  God chose men to write the Scriptures.  Their individual writing styles and personalities permeate the texts that they wrote.  As individuals observing history taking place, the things they recorded as individuals were the things that impacted them and fit into their purpose for writing. 

The Bible explains inspiration this way:

"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness."  2 Timothy 3:16

"Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation.  For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."  2 Peter 1:20-21.

The central teaching in these verses is that God used men to write and that these men were carried along by His Spirit.  The implication is that God spoke through them and insured the accuracy of their writings.  I'll leave Jesus with the last word on the subject, this is what He says:

"I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."  Mathew 5:18 

In this passage, I think its clear, Jesus claims innerancy.

Following your logic, because there are hundreds of volumes written about the Battle of Gettysburg, and each volume includes different aspects of the battle. They are untrue and perhaps the battle never happened.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're advancing contradictory positions simultaneously. The accounts of the Battle of Gettysburg are not claimed to be inerrant. This is what you're overlooking. You must choose. You cannot have it both ways.

[Guest Paul]

Wow.  I am awestruck by your brilliant remarks.  Who is forcing you to read anything on this board?  Get a life and get an education.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You don't understand, bewildered. They're used to having no one oppose them. They don't realize it's because most people just roll their eyes and think "why bother!" They're not used to this.

[Guest bewildered]

"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness." 2 Timothy 3:16

I think a better translation of "God-breathed" is "inspired by God". This is what the King James and the New Oxford Bible show. There is a huge difference between the two translations.

"Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." 2 Peter 1:20-21.

Here, too, is a subtle but important mistranslation. "As they were carried along by the Holy Spirit" is "as they were moved by the Holy Spirit".

The central teaching in these verses is that God used men to write and that these men were carried along by His Spirit. The implication is that God spoke through them and insured the accuracy of their writings. I'll leave Jesus with the last word on the subject, this is what He says:

"I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." Mathew 5:18

In this passage, I think its clear, Jesus claims innerancy.

Jesus is not claiming innerancy. For one thing, he is only talking about one part of the Hebrew Scriptures. He himself changed the Law concerning cleanliness and working on the sabbath. He also continually broke with Jewish custom by allowing a woman who had a bloody discharge to touch him, talking to the Samaritan woman, by eating with sinners and tax collectors. Very few Christians follow the Mosaic Law, except when it fits their agenda.

Read the Bible with commentaries from both sides to find out what it is really saying and not what you believe beforehand it means.

[Guest Paul]

And still the central question is ignored:

Several of us have asked the question before, and always the right-wing fundamentalists have dodged, ducked, avoided and flat-out refused to address it: If we are to take Jesus (God's divine son according to them) as our moral, ethical and spiritual example, by what values can we believe in a god whose concept of justice includes eternal torment? 

I predict this question will not be answered by the right-wingers who have posted on this site calling themselves Christians. They may respond with some evasion or attack, but they will not provide any explanation of values that addresses this question for the obvious reason that they can't. Let any or all of them prove me wrong.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Let’s imagine that the God of the Bible exists. What would have to happen for someone to be tormented eternally in hell?

First, God, having created you, having given life to you, having loved you, would have to abandon you for eternity after a single human lifetime. What act or omission would cause him to do so? Calling God by the wrong name? Sincerely believing that there is no god, or that the story of a savior having come to save you from a fiery hell is not true? Murdering millions of people? Just what offense of a finite lifetime would merit eternal punishment? If belief is the criterion, does sincerity count for anything: does it at least ameliorate the punishment? Does it matter that you have spent a lifetime helping the poor, tending to the sick and feeding the hungry, keeping nothing for yourself, all at the cost of your own pleasure and in service of others and God as you believe God to be? According to the fundamentalists, the answer is no. Have you ever known a person to whom you would assign such a fate?

Second, having determined to condemn you, after your death God would have to revive your consciousness and transport you, body and/or soul as the case may be, into a place of fiery torment, knowing that you are to remain there forever, completely alone, with no hope of redemption, even if the fiery torment causes you to repent of whatever has brought you to this state in the first place.

Third, God would have to set you in a burning fire, causing you to experience the most intense pain imaginable. Were you in your human life, you would pass out from this pain in a matter of moments.

Fourth, however, God would have to alter the terms of your consciousness so that you did not pass out, but explicitly so you could continue to suffer. Were you in your human life, you would die from such an intense fire, or from the pain’s effects on your nervous system in a matter of minutes.

Fifth, however, God would have to alter for you the conditions of life itself and ensure you that you did not die. He would either have to regenerate your entire body every few seconds, or alter its nature so that the fire would cause pain but never harm a living molecule of your body, especially those precious nerve endings.

Sixth, a person undergoing such intense suffering would quickly lose his sanity and his grasp on reality. His natural defense mechanisms would help him retreat from the intolerable reality. God would have to reconstitute your consciousness to make sure that you could continue to suffer the spiritual torment of hell as well as the physical torment.

Seventh, God would have to continue doing this forever.

10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (ten billion billion billion) years – no, not even a beginning

10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (superscript 99) (ten billion billion billion years to the ninety-ninth power) --- and still you have not even begun. You are no nearer the end of your suffering than you were the moment you started. There will be no end to your suffering. God will continue to regenerate your body and inflict this pain on you forever for the sole purpose of inflicting suffering on you.

This you call justice.

But how is it justice? Will it make you a better person? Help you in any way? No, you are condemned.

Will your mother know? Your father? Your child? Your spouse? Will they be better or happier for the knowledge?

Will it help God or make God happy to know that his child is suffering in torment?

To those of you who are parents: most of you who raise your children to believe in Jesus and the Bible will be rewarded, but some of you will not be rewarded. Some of your children will turn away from the faith despite your best efforts. You cannot afford to let this happen. You must tell your children what fate awaits them for turning from God. Read to your child, word for word, what is written above. Begin at a tender age, because you never know when God will take your child home, and perish the idea that your child is not ready. Read this to them every night before bed and on awakening in the morning. Better that they should fear God now than suffer his wrath eternally. If you cannot bear to do this, then you cannot truly say that you love your child.

*****

And if you cannot see how sick and how wrong and how perverted this idea of eternal torment in hell is; if you cannot see that a loving parent would never do this to a child, or to anyone; if you cannot see that it is a product of your own existential doubt and fear; then you are not yet ready to see, and there is nothing more I can tell you.

[Bryan]

You're advancing contradictory positions simultaneously. The accounts of the Battle of Gettysburg are not claimed to be inerrant. This is what you're overlooking. You must choose. You cannot have it both ways.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Non sequitur (yet another fallacy for the lawyer).

Paul's claim presupposes a contradiction, not a difference in reported facts.

[Bryan]

And still the central question is ignored:

And still the undermining of the supposed "central question" is ignored.

Paul think others need justification for values. Paul doesn't think he needs any, judging from his behavior (indicative of a fallacy of special pleading).

Let’s imagine that the God of the Bible exists. What would have to happen for someone to be tormented eternally in hell?

First, God, having created you, having given life to you, having loved you, would have to abandon you for eternity after a single human lifetime. What act or omission would cause him to do so? Calling God by the wrong name? Sincerely believing that there is no god, or that the story of a savior having come to save you from a fiery hell is not true? Murdering millions of people? Just what offense of a finite lifetime would merit eternal punishment? If belief is the criterion, does sincerity count for anything: does it at least ameliorate the punishment? Does it matter that you have spent a lifetime helping the poor, tending to the sick and feeding the hungry, keeping nothing for yourself, all at the cost of your own pleasure and in service of others and God as you believe God to be? According to the fundamentalists, the answer is no.

Well, to the last question, anyway.

It's true not only of fundamentalists but of mainstream Christianity that doing good works will not result in salvation. As I've mentioned before, however, good wor[k]s and ill works do matter. Hell is not described as a one-size-fits-all punishment, and neither is heaven the same for all.

Have you ever known a person to whom you would assign such a fate?

No, but then I've never claimed to be perfectly just.

Second, having determined to condemn you, after your death God would have to revive your consciousness and transport you, body and/or soul as the case may be, into a place of fiery torment, knowing that you are to remain there forever, completely alone, with no hope of redemption, even if the fiery torment causes you to repent of whatever has brought you to this state in the first place.

Okay.

So? Does the point end with the fallacious appeal to outrage, or what?

Third, God would have to set you in a burning fire, causing you to experience the most intense pain imaginable. Were you in your human life, you would pass out from this pain in a matter of moments.

Now Paul is making stuff up in order to give his fallacious appeal to outrage more outrageousness.

There's nothing in the Bible, AFAICT, about hell consisting of the most intense pain imaginable. Though there may be section in hell where the inhabitants are forced to listen to Paul LaClair's pathetic arguments--and that would be pretty horrible.

Fourth, however, God would have to alter the terms of your consciousness so that you did not pass out, but explicitly so you could continue to suffer. Were you in your human life, you would die from such an intense fire, or from the pain’s effects on your nervous system in a matter of minutes.

Fourth point based on the stuff Paul made up for point #3. The same refutation applies (it's made up).

Fifth, however, God would have to alter for you the conditions of life itself and ensure you that you did not die. He would either have to regenerate your entire body every few seconds, or alter its nature so that the fire would cause pain but never harm a living molecule of your body, especially those precious nerve endings.

Point five simply states the obvious. The resurrection of the dead to either glory or hell should be expected to have some differences from the present existence.

I suppose it's supposed to be an appeal to outrage just like points 1-4.

Sixth, a person undergoing such intense suffering would quickly lose his sanity and his grasp on reality. His natural defense mechanisms would help him retreat from the intolerable reality. God would have to reconstitute your consciousness to make sure that you could continue to suffer the spiritual torment of hell as well as the physical torment.

Yet another point based upon stuff Paul made up at point #3.

Isn't anybody else surprised at the way the lawyer routinely resorts to fallacious appeals?

Seventh, God would have to continue doing this forever.

10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (ten billion billion billion) years – no, not even a beginning

10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (superscript 99) (ten billion billion billion years to the ninety-ninth power) --- and still you have not even begun. You are no nearer the end of your suffering than you were the moment you started. There will be no end to your suffering. God will continue to regenerate your body and inflict this pain on you forever for the sole purpose of inflicting suffering on you.

This you call justice.

And you're outraged, right?

Okay, we've established that you're outraged, and it only took 7 points for you to get there. Are you ready to argue using logic and reason yet?

But how is it justice? Will it make you a better person? Help you in any way? No, you are condemned.

Presuming, without argument, that ends-based morality is correct. How did Kant go in the trash bin based on presuppositions? And all the other moral frameworks?

We have a strong hint here that Paul's argument begs the question it presumes to address.

He's done this so often that it encourages me to conclude that he does not have the ability to argue his point cogently in philosophical terms--not even in the philosophical terms of the layman.

Will your mother know? Your father? Your child? Your spouse? Will they be better or happier for the knowledge?

Will it help God or make God happy to know that his child is suffering in torment?

Outrageous, isn't it?

What would you do without fallacies?

To those of you who are parents: most of you who raise your children to believe in Jesus and the Bible will be rewarded, but some of you will not be rewarded. Some of your children will turn away from the faith despite your best efforts. You cannot afford to let this happen. You must tell your children what fate awaits them for turning from God. Read to your child, word for word, what is written above. Begin at a tender age, because you never know when God will take your child home, and perish the idea that your child is not ready. Read this to them every night before bed and on awakening in the morning. Better that they should fear God now than suffer his wrath eternally. If you cannot bear to do this, then you cannot truly say that you love your child.

*****

And if you cannot see how sick and how wrong and how perverted this idea of eternal torment in hell is; if you cannot see that a loving parent would never do this to a child, or to anyone; if you cannot see that it is a product of your own existential doubt and fear; then you are not yet ready to see, and there is nothing more I can tell you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Front to back, a fallacious appeal.

Small wonder lawyers get such a bad rap, if Paul's methods are anything close to standard.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/a...to-emotion.html

Evidently the secularist has abandoned logic and reason, unless it be the reasoning that his fallacious appeals might be effective in convincing the type of person who accepts poor reasoning.

The latter strikes me as the epitome of disingenuousness.

[Guest Guest]

I think you should identify a handful of key issues contained in your question (such as the issue of sufficient evidence for miracles) and focus on those if you're serious about having this discussion on a message board.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good idea. While we're at it, let's open a topic on the effects of instellar monkey-dominas on the supernatural powers of Sykgories on Pluto.

[Guest 2smart4u]

And still the central question is ignored:

Let’s imagine that the God of the Bible exists. What would have to happen for someone to be tormented eternally in hell?

First, God, having created you, having given life to you, having loved you, would have to abandon you for eternity after a single human lifetime. What act or omission would cause him to do so? Calling God by the wrong name? Sincerely believing that there is no god, or that the story of a savior having come to save you from a fiery hell is not true? Murdering millions of people? Just what offense of a finite lifetime would merit eternal punishment? If belief is the criterion, does sincerity count for anything: does it at least ameliorate the punishment? Does it matter that you have spent a lifetime helping the poor, tending to the sick and feeding the hungry, keeping nothing for yourself, all at the cost of your own pleasure and in service of others and God as you believe God to be? According to the fundamentalists, the answer is no. Have you ever known a person to whom you would assign such a fate?

Second, having determined to condemn you, after your death God would have to revive your consciousness and transport you, body and/or soul as the case may be, into a place of fiery torment, knowing that you are to remain there forever, completely alone, with no hope of redemption, even if the fiery torment causes you to repent of whatever has brought you to this state in the first place.

Third, God would have to set you in a burning fire, causing you to experience the most intense pain imaginable. Were you in your human life, you would pass out from this pain in a matter of moments.

Fourth, however, God would have to alter the terms of your consciousness so that you did not pass out, but explicitly so you could continue to suffer. Were you in your human life, you would die from such an intense fire, or from the pain’s effects on your nervous system in a matter of minutes.

Fifth, however, God would have to alter for you the conditions of life itself and ensure you that you did not die. He would either have to regenerate your entire body every few seconds, or alter its nature so that the fire would cause pain but never harm a living molecule of your body, especially those precious nerve endings.

Sixth, a person undergoing such intense suffering would quickly lose his sanity and his grasp on reality. His natural defense mechanisms would help him retreat from the intolerable reality. God would have to reconstitute your consciousness to make sure that you could continue to suffer the spiritual torment of hell as well as the physical torment.

Seventh, God would have to continue doing this forever.

10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (ten billion billion billion) years – no, not even a beginning

10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (superscript 99) (ten billion billion billion years to the ninety-ninth power) --- and still you have not even begun. You are no nearer the end of your suffering than you were the moment you started. There will be no end to your suffering. God will continue to regenerate your body and inflict this pain on you forever for the sole purpose of inflicting suffering on you.

This you call justice.

But how is it justice? Will it make you a better person? Help you in any way? No, you are condemned.

Will your mother know? Your father? Your child? Your spouse? Will they be better or happier for the knowledge?

Will it help God or make God happy to know that his child is suffering in torment?

To those of you who are parents: most of you who raise your children to believe in Jesus and the Bible will be rewarded, but some of you will not be rewarded. Some of your children will turn away from the faith despite your best efforts. You cannot afford to let this happen. You must tell your children what fate awaits them for turning from God. Read to your child, word for word, what is written above. Begin at a tender age, because you never know when God will take your child home, and perish the idea that your child is not ready. Read this to them every night before bed and on awakening in the morning. Better that they should fear God now than suffer his wrath eternally. If you cannot bear to do this, then you cannot truly say that you love your child.

*****

And if you cannot see how sick and how wrong and how perverted this idea of eternal torment in hell is; if you cannot see that a loving parent would never do this to a child, or to anyone; if you cannot see that it is a product of your own existential doubt and fear; then you are not yet ready to see, and there is nothing more I can tell you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

To say you're consumed with the concept of hell would be an understatement.

Is this your atheistic paranoia rising to the surface ??

[Guest Guest]

And still the undermining of the supposed "central question" is ignored.

Paul think others need justification for values.  Paul doesn't think he needs any, judging from his behavior (indicative of a fallacy of special pleading).

Well, to the last question, anyway. 

It's true not only of fundamentalists but of mainstream Christianity that doing good works will not result in salvation.  As I've mentioned before, however, good words and ill works do matter.  Hell is not described as a one-size-fits-all punishment, and neither is heaven the same for all.

No, but then I've never claimed to be perfectly just.

Okay.

So?  Does the point end with the fallacious appeal to outrage, or what?

Now Paul is making stuff up in order to give his fallacious appeal to outrage more outrageousness.

There's nothing in the Bible, AFAICT, about hell consisting of the most intense pain imaginable.  Though there may be  section in hell where the inhabitants are forced to listen to Paul LaClair's pathetic arguments--and that would be pretty horrible.

Fourth point based on the stuff Paul made up for point #3. The same refutation applies (it's made up).

Point five simply states the obvious.  The resurrection of the dead to either glory or hell should be expected to have some differences from the present existence.

I suppose it's supposed to be an appeal to outrage just like points 1-4.

Yet another point based upon stuff Paul made up at point #3.

Isn't anybody else surprised at the way the lawyer routinely resorts to fallacious appeals?

And you're outraged, right?

Okay, we've established that you're outraged, and it only took 7 points for you to get there.  Are you ready to argue using logic and reason yet?

But how is it justice? Will it make you a better person? Help you in any way? No, you are condemned.

Presuming, without argument, that ends-based morality is correct.  How did Kant go in the trash bin based on presuppositions?  And all the other moral frameworks?

We have a strong hint here that Paul's argument begs the question it presumes to address.

He's done this so often that it encourages me to conclude that he does not have the ability to argue his point cogently in philosophical terms--not even in the philosophical terms of the layman.

Will your mother know? Your father? Your child? Your spouse? Will they be better or happier for the knowledge?

Will it help God or make God happy to know that his child is suffering in torment?

Outrageous, isn't it?

What would you do without fallacies?

To those of you who are parents: most of you who raise your children to believe in Jesus and the Bible will be rewarded, but some of you will not be rewarded. Some of your children will turn away from the faith despite your best efforts. You cannot afford to let this happen. You must tell your children what fate awaits them for turning from God. Read to your child, word for word, what is written above. Begin at a tender age, because you never know when God will take your child home, and perish the idea that your child is not ready. Read this to them every night before bed and on awakening in the morning. Better that they should fear God now than suffer his wrath eternally. If you cannot bear to do this, then you cannot truly say that you love your child.

*****

And if you cannot see how sick and how wrong and how perverted this idea of eternal torment in hell is; if you cannot see that a loving parent would never do this to a child, or to anyone; if you cannot see that it is a product of your own existential doubt and fear; then you are not yet ready to see, and there is nothing more I can tell you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Front to back, a fallacious appeal.

Small wonder lawyers get such a bad rap, if Paul's methods are anything close to standard.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/a...to-emotion.html

Evidently the secularist has abandoned logic and reason, unless it be the reasoning that his fallacious appeals might be effective in convincing the type of person who accepts poor reasoning.

The latter strikes me as the epitome of disingenuousness.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The description of hell accurately expresses what many people think hell is. I've heard Christian clergy describe it exactly that way, as the worst pain imaginable, both physical and spiritual forever without a moment's pause. You can protest that this isn't your definition of hell, but who cares? It's all just a story anyway. None of it is real. The point is that people believe it, and that's the problem. If you don't think hell is quite that bad, then tell us how bad you think it is. We can't talk about your idea unless you tell us what it is.

Bryan is missing the main point. The description goes through the details of what hell would be (if it existed as many people think it does). The invitation is for us to apply our values and think about whether it makes any sense.

This is a discussion about values. In such a discussion, outrage counts.

[Guest Paul]

The description of hell accurately expresses what many people think hell is. I've heard Christian clergy describe it exactly that way, as the worst pain imaginable, both physical and spiritual forever without a moment's pause. You can protest that this isn't your definition of hell, but who cares? It's all just a story anyway. None of it is real. The point is that people believe it, and that's the problem. If you don't think hell is quite that bad, then tell us how bad you think it is. We can't talk about your idea unless you tell us what it is.

Bryan is missing the main point. The description goes through the details of what hell would be (if it existed as many people think it does). The invitation is for us to apply our values and think about whether it makes any sense.

This is a discussion about values. In such a discussion, outrage counts.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In order to be outraged by something, you have to have a sense of values and some common sense. Draw your own conclusions.