Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest Paul

What the extremist-fundamentalists ignore

Recommended Posts

Guest Paul

It's very revealing to follow the posts and see which ones the fundamentalist-extremists ignore. Pretty much anything that proposes any kind of reconciliation, or that poses a question even they can't dodge.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=58415

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=58419

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=58500

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=58435

And that's not even mentioning all the times they have been asked to come up with some purpose that an eternity in hell would serve.

In the film "A Beautiful Mind," the brilliant mathematician John Nash becomes delusional, imagining that a CIA operative and a small girl (about 8 or 9 years old) visit him from time to time. Years into his illness, he goes off his medication and becomes unstable. His wife hurries into the car and is starting to drive off when Nash comes running out of their house and jumps onto the windshield. The wife thinks he is becoming violent because that is how it appears. But as Nash jumps onto the hood of the car, he shouts "she never gets older!" We look into his face and eyes to see not anger, but fear. Nash has realized that his image of these two people is a delusion - the girl has not aged in several years, even though she is only 8 or 9 years old. It can't be real.

What will it take to get you die-hard fundies to realize that hell can't be real? Must you see an image of your own child being paraded to the gates of hell? Let's play it out. What is your child's name? Tom? John? Michelle? Let's get personal here, because it is personal. You're harming the world with this sickness. Step back, look at what you don't answer, and think. You are in this world, and we need your contribution for the good, not for something that is profoundly evil.

And don't you dare complain about being preached to. You've been preaching to the world for a long time. For your sake and ours, do not run from the truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's very revealing to follow the posts and see which ones the fundamentalist-extremists ignore. Pretty much anything that proposes any kind of reconciliation, or that poses a question even they can't dodge.

It's pretty funny to see Paul continue his trend toward fallacies of distraction.

"Guest," just like Paul, argues inconsistently, thinking that his premise of a requirement for a justification for values itself requires no justification. Paul and "Guest" continue to dodge that issue, and now Paul points the finger away from himself as a distraction.

Paul succeeded in linking to the same spot as the first URL. Practice makes perfect.

Same spot again. When is four examples really only two?

Post #57 in that thread? After three days it's being ignored? And the argument that might as well be from the Monty Python sketch about arguments is supposed to be something that is tough to address?

Funny stuff--useful as a distraction, but nothing else AFAICT.

And that's not even mentioning all the times they have been asked to come up with some purpose that an eternity in hell would serve.

And yet again I'll remind Paul that he's trying to force the premise of ends-based ethics where he has not established it as an appropriate premise.

Paul's complaint here is the equivalent of one who asks the fallaciously complex question "Have you stopped beating your wife" where he continues to belabor the fact that he hasn't received a straight answer, even after the fallacy has been exposed.

In the film "A Beautiful Mind," the brilliant mathematician John Nash becomes delusional, imagining that a CIA operative and a small girl (about 8 or 9 years old) visit him from time to time. Years into his illness, he goes off his medication and becomes unstable. His wife hurries into the car and is starting to drive off when Nash comes running out of their house and jumps onto the windshield. The wife thinks he is becoming violent because that is how it appears. But as Nash jumps onto the hood of the car, he shouts "she never gets older!" We look into his face and eyes to see not anger, but fear. Nash has realized that his image of these two people is a delusion - the girl has not aged in several years, even though she is only 8 or 9 years old. It can't be real.

What will it take to get you die-hard fundies to realize that hell can't be real?

How about an argument that shows hell to contradict the perfect goodness and justice of god where the argument doesn't fallaciously beg the question?

Oh, that's right--you can't do that (even though you made the claim that it was contradictory).

Must you see an image of your own child being paraded to the gates of hell?

Trusting that by then we'd be prepared to fallaciously argue from outrage instead of via reason?

Why do you laud reason so much and then abandon it for your arguments, Paul?

Let's play it out. What is your child's name? Tom? John? Michelle? Let's get personal here, because it is personal.

Could the abandonment of reason in favor of fallacious appeal be expressed any clearer than that?

You're harming the world with this sickness. Step back, look at what you don't answer, and think. You are in this world, and we need your contribution for the good, not for something that is profoundly evil.

Amazing that the guy with no foundation for morality could say such a thing, isn't it?

We get the big claim regarding his "objective" and "universal" morality, and then after just a handful of probing questions we find out that Paul's spinning a tall tale--and he keeps right on spinning.

And don't you dare complain about being preached to. You've been preaching to the world for a long time. For your sake and ours, do not run from the truth.

The truth is that you have never established any basis for judging morality--and you're running from it, you spectacular hypocrite.

Though I cut you a bit of a break since it seems apparent that you simply don't have the ability to make the argument. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to stop you from pretending that you know what you're talking about.

Let's start with something easy. Are you familiar with Kant's categorical imperative?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Red-Letter Edition
It's very revealing to follow the posts and see which ones the fundamentalist-extremists ignore. Pretty much anything that proposes any kind of reconciliation, or that poses a question even they can't dodge.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=58415

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=58419

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=58500

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=58435

And that's not even mentioning all the times they have been asked to come up with some purpose that an eternity in hell would serve.

In the film "A Beautiful Mind," the brilliant mathematician John Nash becomes delusional, imagining that a CIA operative and a small girl (about 8 or 9 years old) visit him from time to time. Years into his illness, he goes off his medication and becomes unstable. His wife hurries into the car and is starting to drive off when Nash comes running out of their house and jumps onto the windshield. The wife thinks he is becoming violent because that is how it appears. But as Nash jumps onto the hood of the car, he shouts "she never gets older!" We look into his face and eyes to see not anger, but fear. Nash has realized that his image of these two people is a delusion - the girl has not aged in several years, even though she is only 8 or 9 years old. It can't be real.

What will it take to get you die-hard fundies to realize that hell can't be real? Must you see an image of your own child being paraded to the gates of hell? Let's play it out. What is your child's name? Tom? John? Michelle? Let's get personal here, because it is personal. You're harming the world with this sickness. Step back, look at what you don't answer, and think. You are in this world, and we need your contribution for the good, not for something that is profoundly evil.

And don't you dare complain about being preached to. You've been preaching to the world for a long time. For your sake and ours, do not run from the truth.

Paul, why do you feel so compelled to make us believe there is no hell? You say you watched "A Beautiful Mind," didn't you learn anything about obsession and the damage it does?

Really Paul, the fundamentalist believes in hell because he believes that the Scriptures are true. He is motivated out of love for Christ as well as his fellow man. He evangelizes because those that trust Christ escape judgment. There is a sense of great urgency to spread the Gospel, a man's eternal destiny depends on it. Now Paul, what is this great "urgency" that you operate under? What is your motivation? Does the salvation of man's soul depend on it? Paul, you waste a great deal of time proclaming that something that doesn't exist (hell), doesn't exist. Perhaps, you just don't want it to exist. I don't believe little green men exist, yet I am secure enough in my belief not to feel compelled to convince the world.

"If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire." Revelation 20:15

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Paul
Paul, why do you feel so compelled to make us believe there is no hell?  You say you watched "A Beautiful Mind," didn't you learn anything about obsession and the damage it does?

Really Paul, the fundamentalist believes in hell because he believes that the Scriptures are true.  He is motivated out of love for Christ as well as his fellow man. He evangelizes because those that trust Christ escape judgment.  There is a sense of great urgency to spread the Gospel, a man's eternal destiny depends on it.  Now Paul, what is this great "urgency" that you operate under?  What is your motivation?  Does the salvation of man's soul depend on it?  Paul, you waste a great deal of time proclaming that something that doesn't exist (hell), doesn't exist. Perhaps, you just don't want it to exist. I don't believe little green men exist, yet I am secure enough in my belief not to feel compelled to convince the world.

"If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire."  Revelation 20:15

I told you the urgency. When you define justice like that, you make injustice easy. You practically invite it. When you have 3,000 years of history behind it most people can't even see it because it's so deeply engrained in the culture.

How can you explain the United States of America being founded supposedly on freedom for all, and then enslaving one race of people and nearly annihilating another? What does it tell us about ourselves that it took until the 20th century for women to begin to gain equality with men in one of the most (supposedly) civilized nations on Earth? Don't you think the ethic that had informed and misinformed that culture had something to do with it? Can you look past your assumptions long enough to see the bigger picture?

Do you actually see yourself? Every time anyone tries to discuss anything, you quote the Bible back at them. You don't see an obsession there? The difference is that I am obsessed with what is real and important in life. Our happiness depends in part on getting past this way of looking at things. And unlike "salvation" of an eternal soul that may or may not exist, we know that happiness is real, and so are misery and suffering. So I plead guilty to making a very big deal out of it, and it's not a waste of time. This belief screws up my life and the world because we have to live together in this culture, and what you believe affects my life.

Why no answer to any of the other questions, and really no answer to this one? Why can't you see that loving god would have no need and no place for hell in his universe? Why isn't it obvious that this isn't true? Why isn't it obvious that your scriptures are no better and have no better claim on truth than anyone else's?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Paul
Paul, why do you feel so compelled to make us believe there is no hell?  You say you watched "A Beautiful Mind," didn't you learn anything about obsession and the damage it does?

Really Paul, the fundamentalist believes in hell because he believes that the Scriptures are true.  He is motivated out of love for Christ as well as his fellow man. He evangelizes because those that trust Christ escape judgment.  There is a sense of great urgency to spread the Gospel, a man's eternal destiny depends on it.  Now Paul, what is this great "urgency" that you operate under?  What is your motivation?  Does the salvation of man's soul depend on it?  Paul, you waste a great deal of time proclaming that something that doesn't exist (hell), doesn't exist. Perhaps, you just don't want it to exist. I don't believe little green men exist, yet I am secure enough in my belief not to feel compelled to convince the world.

"If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire."  Revelation 20:15

By the way, Nash didn't get sick because he was obsessive. He was obsessive and worse because of an organic abnormality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paul, why do you feel so compelled to make us believe there is no hell?

Well, for one thing, having such an unjust concept as one of your central tenets is an example of why this religion is inherently divisive/destructive.

You say you watched "A Beautiful Mind," didn't you learn anything about obsession and the damage it does?

Really Paul, the fundamentalist believes in hell because he believes that the Scriptures are true.

And the only way someone could take literally these meandering, contradictory, insane scriptures in full is through brainwashing or immense ignorance. The tiniest bit of objective scrutiny blows huge holes in the 'logic' of Hell. Face it--it makes no sense for a god that is both loving and omnipotent to even allow such a place to exist. The only possible 'out' you have is to claim that your god is either malicious/vindictive or not omnipotent (by virtue of being unable to save others from Hell), because that's really the only way Hell would make sense--at least, as much sense as God makes to begin with.

He is motivated out of love for Christ as well as his fellow man.

No one who believes "God is love" would ever believe that "He" would be willing to condemn any of his creations to eternal torment, no matter what they did.

He evangelizes because those that trust Christ escape judgment.  There is a sense of great urgency to spread the Gospel, a man's eternal destiny depends on it.  Now Paul, what is this great "urgency" that you operate under?  What is your motivation?  Does the salvation of man's soul depend on it?

Uh, it doesn't really count as you being more urgent when the cause of your urgency is something that isn't real. :P

Paul, you waste a great deal of time proclaming that something that doesn't exist (hell), doesn't exist. Perhaps, you just don't want it to exist. I don't believe little green men exist, yet I am secure enough in my belief not to feel compelled to convince the world.

You would if people who believed in little green men were trying to change your laws so that they aligned with their beliefs...

"If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire."  Revelation 20:15

Bible-quoting in an attempt to justify your beliefs is the ultimate in question-begging. It's amazing that you don't see how foolish it is. "I'm right because I say I'm right" is the amazingly/obviously faulty logic that lies at the core of every such attempt.

"How do you know Hank dictated this list?" "Right there, number five, 'Hank dictated this list himself.'"

Unbelievable. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, for one thing, having such an unjust concept as one of your central tenets is an example of why this religion is inherently divisive/destructive.

How do you know it's unjust (without committing a logical fallacy, please)?

Bible-quoting in an attempt to justify your beliefs is the ultimate in question-begging.

It seems to me in light of the fact that RLE said that he wasn't going to try to justify his beliefs that it isn't proper to take the subsequent verse as an attempt by RLE to justify his beliefs ... in which case Strife's reply is a straw man fallacy.

It's amazing that you don't see how foolish it is. "I'm right because I say I'm right" is the amazingly/obviously faulty logic that lies at the core of every such attempt.

"How do you know Hank dictated this list?" "Right there, number five, 'Hank dictated this list himself.'"

Unbelievable. :rolleyes:

It is unbelievable, given that RLE said he wasn't trying to justify his beliefs and did not follow the pattern that Strife suggests above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Red-Letter Edition
I told you the urgency. When you define justice like that, you make injustice easy. You practically invite it. When you have 3,000 years of history behind it most people can't even see it because it's so deeply engrained in the culture.

How can you explain the United States of America being founded supposedly on freedom for all, and then enslaving one race of people and nearly annihilating another? What does it tell us about ourselves that it took until the 20th century for women to begin to gain equality with men in one of the most (supposedly) civilized nations on Earth? Don't you think the ethic that had informed and misinformed that culture had something to do with it? Can you look past your assumptions long enough to see the bigger picture?

Do you actually see yourself? Every time anyone tries to discuss anything, you quote the Bible back at them. You don't see an obsession there? The difference is that I am obsessed with what is real and important in life. Our happiness depends in part on getting past this way of looking at things. And unlike "salvation" of an eternal soul that may or may not exist, we know that happiness is real, and so are misery and suffering. So I plead guilty to making a very big deal out of it, and it's not a waste of time. This belief screws up my life and the world because we have to live together in this culture, and what you believe affects my life.

Why no answer to any of the other questions, and really no answer to this one? Why can't you see that loving god would have no need and no place for hell in his universe? Why isn't it obvious that this isn't true? Why isn't it obvious that your scriptures are no better and have no better claim on truth than anyone else's?

1. Concerning Hell. This is a topic that has been covered exhaustively on this forum. You reject it because you think justice is rehabilitation. I define it as fairness. I also pointed out earlier that God is also interested in rehabilitation. He calls it redemption. In redemption, man's old sinful nature is exchanged for Christ's righteous nature. Man is therefore made new and holy.

This new nature is accessed through trusting Christ as Savior. As Creator, God is justified in sending men to Hell, doubly so if they reject His redemtion. Man's Salvation was purchased by the blood of the Creator. (See: Roman's chapter five)

2. In answer to your question about the US, a nation being founded on freedom, allowing such things as slavery and the annihilation of Native Americans, my answer is simple, the sin nature. Men are born sinners and are all capable of doing terrible things. Racial slavery and the annihilation of innocents cannot be justified. However, Christians were at the forefront of all the Great reform movements in US History.

Concerning Abolition:

Charles Finney- The revivalist, fundamentalist preacher largely resposible for America's Second Great Awakening of the 1830s popularized the abolitionist movement in his preaching. He often condemned slavery.

Lyman Beecher and Nathaniel Taylor- Renouned New Enland Pastors of the Mid 19th century who were famous for preaching abolition.

William Lloyd Garrison- A committed Christian and editor of "The Liberator", the famous abolitionist newspaper of the time.

Harriet Beecher Stowe- Novelist and sister of Lyman Beecher. She wrote Uncle Tom's Cabin. This book exposed the evils of slavery to Northerners. Prior, most northerners did not like slavery, but because it was not in their backyard, they tolerated it. "Uncle Tom's Cabin" was filled with Scripture references condemning the evils of racial slavery. It actually reads like a sermon. The idea was essentially, How can one call themself a Christian who condones the practice. In fact, Uncle Tom, the main character, is a Christ figure in the novel. This book tipped the balance in the North and made northerners willing to support a war to end slavery. In fact, Lincoln called Stowe, "The little woman who started a big war!"

Aside, it should be remembered also that the theme song of the Grand Army of the Republic became, "The Battle Hymn of the Republic." One of the most powerful lines in the song is, "As he (Christ) died to make men holy let us die to make men free!"

Concerning Native Americans:

There were certainly great evils perpetrated against them which cannot be justified and some of these evils were not just propogated by individuals but by our government itself which is even more disturbing, however, it was Christians who were at the forefront of not only evangelizing the Indians but seeing to it that Native Americans were treated fairly.

A few of the many examples include:

Jonathan Edwards

David Brainard

John Brainard

Samuel Worcester

Marcus and Narcissa Whitman

Concerning Woman's Suffrage

The Women's Christian Temperance Union- was at the forefront of three movements actually: Woman's Suffrage, Prohibition and ending child labor.

Lastly, concerning your assertion that anytime anyone tries to discuss anything with me, I simply throw the Bible back at them. This is blatantly untrue. I make my argument and then I back it up with Scripture. You can see this in all my responses. I also challenged your mistaken generalizations about scientists rejecting the Bible by listing the great scientists (not exhaustively by the way) who were believers. So I think your criticism is unfair.

Why should it upset you that a fundamentalist would use Scripture in their response? You invited dialogue with fundamentalists didn't you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1.  Concerning Hell. This is a topic that has been covered exhaustively on this forum.  You reject it because you think justice is rehabilitation.  I define it as fairness.

Infinite punishment for finite transgressions isn't fair. Even by your own definition, Hell fails the 'justice test.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Paul
1.  Concerning Hell. This is a topic that has been covered exhaustively on this forum.  You reject it because you think justice is rehabilitation.  I define it as fairness.  I also pointed out earlier that God is also interested in rehabilitation.  He calls it redemption.  In redemption, man's old sinful nature is exchanged for Christ's righteous nature. Man is therefore made new and holy.

This new nature is accessed through trusting Christ as Savior.  As Creator, God is justified in sending men to Hell, doubly so if they reject His redemtion.  Man's Salvation was purchased by the blood of the Creator. (See: Roman's chapter five)

2.  In answer to your question about the US, a nation being founded on freedom, allowing such things as slavery and the annihilation of Native Americans, my answer is simple, the sin nature.  Men are born sinners and are all capable of doing terrible things.  Racial slavery and the annihilation of innocents cannot be justified.  However, Christians were at the forefront of all the Great reform movements in US History.

Concerning Abolition:

Charles Finney- The revivalist, fundamentalist preacher largely resposible for America's Second Great Awakening of the 1830s  popularized the abolitionist movement in his preaching.  He often condemned slavery. 

Lyman Beecher and Nathaniel Taylor- Renouned New Enland Pastors of the Mid 19th century who were famous for preaching abolition.

William Lloyd Garrison- A committed Christian and editor of "The Liberator", the famous abolitionist newspaper of the time.

Harriet Beecher Stowe- Novelist and sister of Lyman Beecher.  She wrote Uncle Tom's Cabin.  This book exposed the evils of slavery to Northerners.  Prior, most northerners did not like slavery, but because it was not in their backyard, they tolerated it.  "Uncle Tom's Cabin" was filled with Scripture references condemning the evils of racial slavery.  It actually reads like a sermon.  The idea was essentially, How can one call themself a Christian who condones the practice.  In fact, Uncle Tom, the main character, is a Christ figure in the novel.  This book tipped the balance in the North and made northerners willing to support a war to end slavery.  In fact, Lincoln called Stowe, "The little woman who started a big war!"

Aside, it should be remembered also that the theme song of the Grand Army of the Republic became, "The Battle Hymn of the Republic."  One of the most powerful lines in the song is, "As he (Christ) died to make men holy let us die to make men free!"

Concerning Native Americans:

There were certainly great evils perpetrated against them which cannot be justified and some of these evils were not just propogated by individuals but by our government itself which is even more disturbing, however, it was Christians who were at the forefront of not only evangelizing the Indians but seeing to it that Native Americans were treated fairly.

A few of the many examples include:

Jonathan Edwards

David Brainard

John Brainard

Samuel Worcester

Marcus and Narcissa Whitman

Concerning Woman's Suffrage

The Women's Christian Temperance Union- was at the forefront of three movements actually:  Woman's Suffrage, Prohibition and ending child labor.

Lastly, concerning your assertion that anytime anyone tries to discuss anything with me, I simply throw the Bible back at them.  This is blatantly untrue.  I make my argument and then I back it up with Scripture.  You can see this in all my responses.  I also challenged your mistaken generalizations about scientists rejecting the Bible by listing the great scientists (not exhaustively by the way) who were believers.  So I think your criticism is unfair.

Why should it upset you that a fundamentalist would use Scripture in their response?  You invited dialogue with fundamentalists didn't you?

I’ll begin by responding to your ending points. I don’t think my criticisms are unfair at all. What you’re describing is exactly what I’ve described, but you're using different words. Regarding your quotation of scripture, I was pointing out to you that those quotations don’t carry any weight just because they come out of the Bible. There is a certain disrespect in quoting them without acknowledging that these are your beliefs but not mine. This goes along with a pattern that has long been reinforced in our culture, based on the assumption that Christian theology is entirely and exclusively true. That applies also to your second point about what you call man’s sin nature; that is a concept that I share with you.

The remainder of my response goes to your first item. For starters, you’re not stating my position accurately. Justice isn’t merely rehabilitation. Justice is the best response to a given situation, i.e., the response that best promotes the good. Hell does not promote the good. It abandons a human being to eternal torment, and not only abandonment, it imagines a god who would go out of his way to make sure his children suffer for no purpose whatsoever. You haven’t identified one, which is exactly as I predicted. All you keep saying is that it’s fair, and now that God is justified. But fair how? Your argument seems to be that man has sinned, so God is justified in punishing man in any way and to any degree. To me that suggests that a low level of moral operation at least as it pertains to your religious beliefs. I doubt that you operate at that low a level in your life, so why here? And justified to whom? On what scale is this justification measured, and why would an omnipotent and loving god consider that to be the most important thing?

You’re missing the point. A loving parent wouldn’t think or act like that. I can say that to you over and over, but until you’re willing to open your mind you won’t see it. You’re obviously too invested in continuing to believe what you’ve chosen to believe. The tragedy is that you’ve allowed yourself to define God in a way that eliminates the distinction between good and evil, and when you do that you become not a messenger of the good, but a messenger for something that is profoundly evil.

You’re saying that if a person lives an exemplary life, sincerely believes that he is serving the divine (which you call God, but he may not) and in every way lives in accordance what he believes to be the good and the right, in your concept of fairness he merits eternal torment in a fiery hell. OK, you’ve made yourself clear, but what that sounds like to me is not a person speaking or writing the truth, but a person defensively trying to maintain his belief system; and willingly tossing his brothers and sisters under the wheels of the eternal bus to do it. To my eye, that isn’t about the truth or the good; it’s about your own ego and your own insecurities.

You’re saying that a person is obligated to choose among the various religions in the various human cultures, pick the right story and worship the right god on penalty of eternal torment if he makes the wrong choice. You call that justice. I don’t. An almighty, loving and just god wouldn’t allow even one person’s eternal fate to hinge on something like that. You want to know how I know: it's my Faith, and it's based on the little bit that I do know about Love. You want it both ways: you want to believe in a perfect and almighty god, but the minute you have to explain the limits imposed by our world as it actually is, you have no choice but to limit your god in some way. That’s what you’re doing. You just don’t see it.

You and Bryan write of “perfect justice.” What does that mean, exactly? Do you know? Can you define it? I doubt it, but what does come through your writing is the notion that justice is measured on a score sheet. Is there going to come a time when the balance sheet will be righted and all will be as it should be? Not if God’s children are in hell, so obviously it's not perfect. How can you not see that? And if you did define "perfect justice," would you be doing anything except making up a definition that best allows you to maintain your belief system? I don’t think so.

And you have no problem that this torment is forever. You imagine that God, supposedly the loving creator and parent of us all, would think it fair to him, let alone to us, that his children are suffering in that fashion. Being a parent, I tell you without doubt that wouldn’t be fair to me, let alone to my children, whose welfare would not allow me to rest until that situation was profoundly altered. As I told you before, if you can’t see what’s wrong with the picture you’ve drawn, I can’t explain it to you. I assure that a great many of us see it very plainly.

When you become so rigid and so dogmatic in your religious beliefs that you allow them to eliminate the distinction between good and evil, you do real and palpable harm to your brothers and sisters in this world. If you can live with that, then there’s not much more that I can tell you, except this: all you’re doing is preserving your own belief system at the expense of your brothers and sisters. There’s nothing religious or holy about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Radagast
1.  Concerning Hell. This is a topic that has been covered exhaustively on this forum.  You reject it because you think justice is rehabilitation.  I define it as fairness.  I also pointed out earlier that God is also interested in rehabilitation.  He calls it redemption.  In redemption, man's old sinful nature is exchanged for Christ's righteous nature. Man is therefore made new and holy.

This new nature is accessed through trusting Christ as Savior.  As Creator, God is justified in sending men to Hell, doubly so if they reject His redemtion.  Man's Salvation was purchased by the blood of the Creator. (See: Roman's chapter five)

2.  In answer to your question about the US, a nation being founded on freedom, allowing such things as slavery and the annihilation of Native Americans, my answer is simple, the sin nature.  Men are born sinners and are all capable of doing terrible things.  Racial slavery and the annihilation of innocents cannot be justified.  However, Christians were at the forefront of all the Great reform movements in US History.

Concerning Abolition:

Charles Finney- The revivalist, fundamentalist preacher largely resposible for America's Second Great Awakening of the 1830s  popularized the abolitionist movement in his preaching.  He often condemned slavery. 

Lyman Beecher and Nathaniel Taylor- Renouned New Enland Pastors of the Mid 19th century who were famous for preaching abolition.

William Lloyd Garrison- A committed Christian and editor of "The Liberator", the famous abolitionist newspaper of the time.

Harriet Beecher Stowe- Novelist and sister of Lyman Beecher.  She wrote Uncle Tom's Cabin.  This book exposed the evils of slavery to Northerners.  Prior, most northerners did not like slavery, but because it was not in their backyard, they tolerated it.  "Uncle Tom's Cabin" was filled with Scripture references condemning the evils of racial slavery.  It actually reads like a sermon.  The idea was essentially, How can one call themself a Christian who condones the practice.  In fact, Uncle Tom, the main character, is a Christ figure in the novel.  This book tipped the balance in the North and made northerners willing to support a war to end slavery.  In fact, Lincoln called Stowe, "The little woman who started a big war!"

Aside, it should be remembered also that the theme song of the Grand Army of the Republic became, "The Battle Hymn of the Republic."  One of the most powerful lines in the song is, "As he (Christ) died to make men holy let us die to make men free!"

Concerning Native Americans:

There were certainly great evils perpetrated against them which cannot be justified and some of these evils were not just propogated by individuals but by our government itself which is even more disturbing, however, it was Christians who were at the forefront of not only evangelizing the Indians but seeing to it that Native Americans were treated fairly.

A few of the many examples include:

Jonathan Edwards

David Brainard

John Brainard

Samuel Worcester

Marcus and Narcissa Whitman

Concerning Woman's Suffrage

The Women's Christian Temperance Union- was at the forefront of three movements actually:  Woman's Suffrage, Prohibition and ending child labor.

Lastly, concerning your assertion that anytime anyone tries to discuss anything with me, I simply throw the Bible back at them.  This is blatantly untrue.  I make my argument and then I back it up with Scripture.  You can see this in all my responses.  I also challenged your mistaken generalizations about scientists rejecting the Bible by listing the great scientists (not exhaustively by the way) who were believers.  So I think your criticism is unfair.

Why should it upset you that a fundamentalist would use Scripture in their response?  You invited dialogue with fundamentalists didn't you?

That is all well and good, however, Christianity was also very responsible for continuing slavery in the South and some even used the Bible as a justification for slavery. All of the officers in the Texas Regiment of the Confederate Army were all Methodist ministers.

I suppose the point is that Christians have been on both side of most of the conflicts the United States has been involved in both internally and externally.

The whole idea of arguing religion and the existence of Heaven, Hell and God seems a bit silly to me ... YOU CAN'T PROVE ANYTHING! ... but I think I said that before ... I'm sorry for the interruption ... go back to what you were doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
It's very revealing to follow the posts and see which ones the fundamentalist-extremists ignore. Pretty much anything that proposes any kind of reconciliation, or that poses a question even they can't dodge.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=58415

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=58419

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=58500

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=58435

And that's not even mentioning all the times they have been asked to come up with some purpose that an eternity in hell would serve.

In the film "A Beautiful Mind," the brilliant mathematician John Nash becomes delusional, imagining that a CIA operative and a small girl (about 8 or 9 years old) visit him from time to time. Years into his illness, he goes off his medication and becomes unstable. His wife hurries into the car and is starting to drive off when Nash comes running out of their house and jumps onto the windshield. The wife thinks he is becoming violent because that is how it appears. But as Nash jumps onto the hood of the car, he shouts "she never gets older!" We look into his face and eyes to see not anger, but fear. Nash has realized that his image of these two people is a delusion - the girl has not aged in several years, even though she is only 8 or 9 years old. It can't be real.

What will it take to get you die-hard fundies to realize that hell can't be real? Must you see an image of your own child being paraded to the gates of hell? Let's play it out. What is your child's name? Tom? John? Michelle? Let's get personal here, because it is personal. You're harming the world with this sickness. Step back, look at what you don't answer, and think. You are in this world, and we need your contribution for the good, not for something that is profoundly evil.

And don't you dare complain about being preached to. You've been preaching to the world for a long time. For your sake and ours, do not run from the truth.

What if your childs name is Adolf Hitler or Charles Manson. Is hell ok for them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Paul
That applies also to your second point about what you call man’s sin nature; that is a concept that I share with you.

To me that suggests that a low level of moral operation at least as it pertains to your religious beliefs.

The above should be corrected as follows:

That applies also to your second point about what you call man’s sin nature; that is NOT a concept that I share with you.

To me that suggests a low level of moral operation at least as it pertains to your religious beliefs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Paul
What if your childs name is Adolf Hitler or Charles Manson.  Is hell ok for them?

Under our law, we do not torture Charles Manson. We imprison him for society's safety, but we do not go out of our way to inflict exquisite suffering on him. If we had captured Hitler the same would be true. So it is not for that reason, but the answer to your question is:

No, not even for them. It would inflict unnecessary suffering for no good purpose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That is all well and good, however, Christianity was also very responsible for continuing slavery in the South and some even used the Bible as a justification for slavery. All of the officers in the Texas Regiment of the Confederate Army were all Methodist ministers.

There was no "the" Texas Regiment in the Confederate Army.

Do you think you can pick out which one was commanded by Methodists, assuming that the unsourced report from "About.com" is accurate?

http://gen.1starnet.com/civilwar/texmain.htm

I suppose the point is that Christians have been on both side of most of the conflicts the United States has been involved in both internally and externally.

Especially the Japanese Christians during WW2 and those North Vietnamese Christians.

http://www.multied.com/wars.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Red-Letter Edition
Infinite punishment for finite transgressions isn't fair. Even by your own definition, Hell fails the 'justice test.'

Infinity has no beginning Strife, your stay in Hell does. It will have no end however. About being fair, the price was paid in full by Christ. He doesn't force men to accept His pardon. Those that go to hell go by their own chosing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Red-Letter Edition
That is all well and good, however, Christianity was also very responsible for continuing slavery in the South and some even used the Bible as a justification for slavery. All of the officers in the Texas Regiment of the Confederate Army were all Methodist ministers.

I suppose the point is that Christians have been on both side of most of the conflicts the United States has been involved in both internally and externally.

The whole idea of arguing religion and the existence of Heaven, Hell and God seems a bit silly to me ... YOU CAN'T PROVE ANYTHING! ... but I think I said that before ... I'm sorry for the interruption ... go back to what you were doing.

Radagast, you're right, Christians were on both sides. Many that used the Bible to justify slavery, used it out of context and to their own advantage, others out of ignorance. Slavery in the Bible was provided for but it was more or less a social wellfare system. Slaves had protection under the law. There were also opertunities for freedom. Slaves could purchase their freedom and the average term of slavery was seven years. In addition, every 50 years, all slaves were freed. Also, slavery was not racial slavery like that which existed in the US. People sold themselves as slaves to live a better life or pay off debts. Others may have been POWS. Slavery wasn't for life unless the slave chose to be what the Bible calls a bond sevant (someone who was so devoted to his/her master they chose to serve for life.) Uncle Tom's Cabin blasts confederate pastors and their justification of slavery. My point is that the Bible was not responsible for slavery in the US, but some misused it to justify racial slavery for life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Paul
Infinity has no beginning Strife, your stay in Hell does.  It will have no end however.  About being fair, the price was paid in full by Christ.  He doesn't force men to accept His pardon.  Those that go to hell go by their own chosing.

I'm sorry, Red, but that is an ignorant remark. Humanists, Buddhists, Muslims, et. al., are not choosing by their beliefs to go to hell. Shame on you for making that argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Paul
Radagast, you're right, Christians were on both sides.  Many that used the Bible to justify slavery, used it out of context and to their own advantage, others out of ignorance.  Slavery in the Bible was provided for but it was more or less a social wellfare system.  Slaves had protection under the law.  There were also opertunities for freedom.  Slaves could purchase their freedom and the average term of slavery was seven years.  In addition, every 50 years, all slaves were freed.  Also, slavery was not racial slavery like that which existed in the US.  People sold themselves as slaves to live a better life or pay off debts.  Others may have been POWS.  Slavery wasn't for life unless the slave chose to be what the Bible calls a bond sevant (someone who was so devoted to his/her master they chose to serve for life.)  Uncle Tom's Cabin blasts confederate pastors and their justification of slavery.  My point is that the Bible was not responsible for slavery in the US, but some misused it to justify racial slavery for life.

I disagree. The Bible explicitly condones slavery. In fact, it's included in the so-called ten commandments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Infinity has no beginning Strife, your stay in Hell does.  It will have no end however.

You've never taken calculus, have you? That's still infinity.

About being fair, the price was paid in full by Christ.

Then why does anyone go to Hell?

He doesn't force men to accept His pardon.

Since when do you have to accept a pardon for it to be valid? What about all of the people who lived and died before Jesus's apparent life (especially those who had their own completely separate and distinct religions and gods)? They never had a chance to accept or reject this pardon. Did they all go automatically to heaven (that's not very fair--and didn't you say that justice is fairness by your own definition?)? Or did they all go to Hell? 'Cause that's really not fair, 'cause they never even had a shot at making the 'right choice!'

Those that go to hell go by their own chosing.

Okay, so Hell is empty, then. 'Cause any sinner could sin his/her ass off and then after he dies say, "Nope, don't wanna go to Hell," and they won't. If it's a choice, what makes you think that anyone would choose it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Two days, no response. Interesting, and revealing.

More revealing than your failure over a period of months to justify your claims to a value system that is objective and universal?

That's got to be a great explanation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Paul
More revealing than your failure over a period of months to justify your claims to a value system that is objective and universal?

That's got to be a great explanation.

I've addressed this many times, and will address it here again not for Bryan who isn't listening but for anyone who might otherwise get the wrong impression. Our common humanity is the objective and universal foundation for all human values.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Red-Letter Edition
You've never taken calculus, have you? That's still infinity.

Then why does anyone go to Hell?

Since when do you have to accept a pardon for it to be valid? What about all of the people who lived and died before Jesus's apparent life (especially those who had their own completely separate and distinct religions and gods)? They never had a chance to accept or reject this pardon. Did they all go automatically to heaven (that's not very fair--and didn't you say that justice is fairness by your own definition?)? Or did they all go to Hell? 'Cause that's really not fair, 'cause they never even had a shot at making the 'right choice!'

Okay, so Hell is empty, then. 'Cause any sinner could sin his/her ass off and then after he dies say, "Nope, don't wanna go to Hell," and they won't. If it's a choice, what makes you think that anyone would choose it?

An (actual) infinity has no beginning or end.

A pardon most certainly has to be accepted to be valid:

"A pardon is a piece of paper, the value of which depends on its acceptance by the person implicated." Chief Justice John Marshall 1829

Concerning who goes to Hell. Those that reject salvation in Christ go to hell. In the OT times, believers looked forward to the coming redeemer. Since the coming of Christ, belivers trust on the finished work of Jesus on the cross to pay for their sins. Throughout the ages God's grace has been accesed by faith.

For example:

Abraham (Old Testament figure)

"Abraham believed the Lord and it was credited to him as righteousness." Genesis 15:6

The Philippian Jailer (New Testament figure)

"...Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" "...Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved..." Acts 16:30-31

By the way Strife, you can't make the choice after you die:

"Just as man is destined to die one, and after that to face judgment." Hebrews 9:27

"If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire." Revelation 20:15

Therefore, concerning your quote "anyone could sin his/her *** off and then after they die decide, Nope, I think I'll go to Heaven." It doesn't work that way. However, there is no sin too great, this side of the grave, for Jesus to forgive if one sincerely desires His forgiveness.

"If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness." I John 1:9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I disagree. The Bible explicitly condones slavery. In fact, it's included in the so-called ten commandments.

Paul is set to commit yet another fallacy of equivocation, based on his apparent lack of knowledge of the Ancient Near East.

There are two main kinds of "slavery".

One is chattel slavery, which is the type practices in the American South leading up to the Civil War. Chattel slavery means that the person is property.

Chattel slavery existed here and there over time in the ANE, but the slavery referred to as an institution in Israel was an entirely different animal.

So what was it?

The slavery that the Israelites were allowed to employ was the sale of labor. Israel's laws allowed a person to sell himself into "slavery" if he needed money--or a family could "sell" the work of a son or daughter.

We do much the same thing today when we take out loans. For most, the ability to repay is connected to their labor. They're still selling their labor; there are just more middle men than there were in ancient times.

Ex. 13:3

Then Moses said to the people, "Commemorate this day, the day you came out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery, because the Lord brought you out of it with a mighty hand. Eat nothing containing yeast

Ex. 20:2

"I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.

Ex. 22:21

"Do not mistreat an alien or oppress him, for you were aliens in Egypt.

Leviticus 25 is usually though of as the most extensive description of slavery in Israel, but the whole of the chapter is actually focused on the year of Jubilee provision in Israel's laws. Those who would read chattel slavery into that chapter have been forewarned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...