Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 28, 2024, 3:51 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
My reasoning in rejecting eternal torture/hell...
#71
RE: My reasoning in rejecting eternal torture/hell...
(April 5, 2013 at 9:03 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote:
(April 5, 2013 at 4:32 am)Godschild Wrote: The questions not stupid, you can't go to scripture and find the answer. God made hell, when Lucifer fell and long before God said He was a jealous God. I do not cherry pick through the scriptures, I don't need to, I study enough that I do not have to stoop to that practice.

Actually G-C man made Hell and we have found the gateway to Hades.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/travel/news/...6611365115

So your religion isn't that wonderful afterall G-C. It has it's beginings in paganism.
And another myth bites the dust Big Grin

How ridiculous, Pluto's gate brings physical death, hell is a place where there is no physical death, there is spiritual death in hell. Read scripture and you will know when these ridiculous things come to light. With scripture, as it states, you shall know the Truth and the Truth will set you free, especially from the ridiculous.
God loves those who believe and those who do not and the same goes for me, you have no choice in this matter. That puts the matter of total free will to rest.
Reply
#72
RE: My reasoning in rejecting eternal torture/hell...
Brian37 Wrote:Oh and the old COMMIE dictator bullshit. You do realize that for oppression to work it requires an unmovable absolute power, like God?

So, since oppression must work with an unmovable, absolute power, like God... and you believe that there is no God... Do you believe in oppression?

Just trolling.

Seriously though, Rome had a deal while republic that in times of emergency, there would be someone who would act as emperor, fix the issue at hand, then step down. This worked wonders for the longest time. Then the butthole Julius walks up and refuses to sit down. Basically, if the unmovable absolute power is a good guy, then things work AMAZING. There is no bureaucracy to cut through, good things get done quick, bad things are rejected immediately. If the absolute power is a bad guy, then things work TERRIBLY. There is still no bureaucracy, but the good things are put off till later and the bad things are indulged in immediately. The best type of government is an unconstitutional monarchy because of how fast things can move. However, the worst type of government is a dictatorship. What's the difference? The guy in charge. Some times good, some times not. Just think how much Obama could do if there were no Supreme Court or Legislative branch. All the "1st 100 days of office" could potentially be done on the first day.

Note: I don't vote, but I couldn't support Obama anyway because of abortion.
The Lord bless you and keep you; the Lord make his face to shine upon you and be gracious to you; the Lord lift up his countenance upon you and give you peace.
Reply
#73
RE: My reasoning in rejecting eternal torture/hell...
(April 5, 2013 at 3:11 am)Rhythm Wrote: In sourcing that bit (and it's author) the thing that strikes me firstly is that it was written in 1944.

Other than the discovery of even older NT copies since then, I would guess you are guessing. Details/facts would help because I could try to answer them.

Quote:Seeing David even included here very plainly shows the disadvantage this authors position in time conferred. David, in stark contrast to Hammurabi, has a grand total of two (2) pieces of what might be corroborating evidence...and the archaeological record tells a tale so different than the one recounted in the OT that it's difficult to conceive of a David that is anything less than legend, and probably approaching a great deal more (myth).

Again it would help a lot if we did not have to take your word for it. I don't need primary sources, but am willing to read the Wikipedia take on it if that works.

Quote:Socrates, well, IIRC there are more words attributed to him in plays (that we don't accept as historically accurate depictions of the man) than anywhere else. Nevertheless, the evidence for a historical socrates isn't what I would call knockdown by any stretch-with many folks simply accepting that there was some socrates..accepting that what we know of socrates may not, strictly speaking, be true of whoever the man was.

Possibly, but an awful lot of authors say the same things about his life.

Quote:I suppose I can only ask whether or not the embarrassing details in mormon scriptures are convincing to you, or the embarrassing details in norse epic?

Those are not a very good choice because they seem to lack embarrassing details, nor do they read like the Gospel record to me. But to your point, if you ask me if the embarassing/negative details in the Koran, or some of the early hadith make me believe it, yes absolutely. They were written (mostly) by people who knew Muhammed, so I accept it as essentially true for the same reasons Durant listed.

Quote:Even so, some of these "embarrassing details" are very plainly narrative devices. They serve to keep the plot moving forward-or to present the protagonist with an opportunity to do his thing, some even appear to be very clever ways of humanizing the character of christ or endearing him to us (which is important, since we need to care about this character).

You know, when you tell me fisherman can write like similies to rival Shakespeare if they feel like it, and people make up and spread stories fully aware they will be crucified, burnt to a crisp or killed, I take strong exception in the name of logic, and I might say any jury's logic. Durant doesn't mention that logical conundrum, but he should have.


Quote:Next up is the contention that the story of jesus was invented by a few simple men in one generation. I don't know what would compell the author to state this as a position of others (except, perhaps, that maybe this was the position of someone in his experience. I'm of the opinion that the christ narrative took a bit more than a single generation to put together

There is hardly any proof of that, at least for 3 of the Gospels and Paul's writings. All the critics say it, but supply no convincing proof. And when they do provide "proof" it nullfys Occum's razor. They also have to completely ignore the early fathers' writings if they go beyond 100 years, from which writings you can reconstruct probably 2/3 of the NT. They had New Testaments.



Quote:I suppose that would be a matter of opinion. I don't share the authors opinion. I don't think that the ethics described are so lofty (after all, we have a reaffirmation of thought crime and the introduction of vicarious redemption through human sacrifice/deicide - just to point out two examples), and I definitely don't think that the narrative presents me with any inspiring vision of brotherhood.

It is a matter of opinion, but H.G. Wells, Locke, Ghandi, Jefferson and a host of other non-Christian luminaries have a different opinion than yours. You might read H.G. Wells take on Jesus in "A Short History of the World," available on Bartleby.com (He was an atheist and says the same things Durant does.)

Quote: the dead rising from their graves (and I suspect that this statement has at least a touch of hyperbole to it).

You might be surprised to learn that my opinion of Matthews "walking dead" story is hearsay.

Quote:Now, I want to clarify something here. Durant (in his other works, and even on the subject of christ) was pretty reliable with regards to removing magic from the equation. So, claiming that he "believed in the gospels" is a tad disingenuous.

I did not say that, nor do I believe he believed as I do. In fact, I wrote that he denied the resurrection, claiming Jesus swooned.

Quote: But whether or nt Durant was willing to propose that there was some jesus - the man and whether he had any evidence for jesus the-man would be an entirely different proposition.

He does indeed supply other evidence, i.e. quoting records that indicate there was a great darkness on the day of Jesus' crucifixion. (There was a big dispute about that, but one should wonder why, if nothing happened.) Smoke usually = fire. You know it only takes one piece of evidence to blow an entire anti-Christian theory. Which is why Durant, Jefferson, Locke, Ghandi and a host of non-Christians would call Jesus-mythers nut balls.

Ever wonder why there is such a huge and rather cynical effort to disprove the Gospels? I can make a convincing argument that the big todo has absolutely nothing to do with a lack of proof, merely by asking you a question. If Jesus returned and healed 94% of all the terminal patients in all the hospitals of the world, would you follow him and change your mind about the wisdom and divinity of his person?
Reply
#74
RE: My reasoning in rejecting eternal torture/hell...
(April 6, 2013 at 11:42 pm)radorth Wrote: Other than the discovery of even older NT copies since then, I would guess you are guessing. Details/facts would help because I could try to answer them.
I don't have to guess, printers put dates on the things they print.......1944.

Quote:Again it would help a lot if we did not have to take your word for it. I don't need primary sources, but am willing to read the Wikipedia take on it if that works.
Don't take my word for it, research it yourself.

Quote:Possibly, but an awful lot of authors say the same things about his life.
Say what things?

Quote:Those are not a very good choice because they seem to lack embarrassing details, nor do they read like the Gospel record to me. But to your point, if you ask me if the embarassing/negative details in the Koran, or some of the early hadith make me believe it, yes absolutely. They were written (mostly) by people who knew Muhammed, so I accept it as essentially true for the same reasons Durant listed.
They don't lack embarrassing details, and they were -modeled- after the gospels. I'd say that you're entirely too gullible, there are embarrassing details about hercules as well. "I'm sure it was essentially true that he hunted the Hind." Jerkoff

Quote:You know, when you tell me fisherman can write like similies to rival Shakespeare if they feel like it, and people make up and spread stories fully aware they will be crucified, burnt to a crisp or killed, I take strong exception in the name of logic, and I might say any jury's logic. Durant doesn't mention that logical conundrum, but he should have.
I'm sure that there's probably a decent author somewhere that was a fisherman, but whether or not the gospels are comparable to the works of shakespeare would be a matter of opinion. Opinion..mind you, about prose...... I don't see it, personally. The whole burnt to a crisp and or killed bit, just more myth, sorry, bubbles been burst.


Quote:There is hardly any proof of that, at least for 3 of the Gospels and Paul's writings. All the critics say it, but supply no convincing proof. And when they do provide "proof" it nullfys Occum's razor. They also have to completely ignore the early fathers' writings if they go beyond 100 years, from which writings you can reconstruct probably 2/3 of the NT. They had New Testaments.
Hardly any proof of what? That the gospels we have today weren't written by a couple of guys in a single generation? I'm not even sure where to begin.



Quote:It is a matter of opinion, but H.G. Wells, Locke, Ghandi, Jefferson and a host of other non-Christian luminaries have a different opinion than yours. You might read H.G. Wells take on Jesus in "A Short History of the World," available on Bartleby.com (He was an atheist and says the same things Durant does.)
[
That's the nice thing about opinions, we all have them, but what would any of our differing opinions have to say about the subject of whether or not the narrative is a factual recounting of any event, or whether or not some godman walked the earth? Nothing.

Quote:
You might be surprised to learn that my opinion of Matthews "walking dead" story is hearsay.
You probably won't be surprised that my opinion of christianity is that it is hearsay. You draw a line where it's important to you, but once you invoke mega-fairy the walking dead are a walk in the park.

Quote:I did not say that, nor do I believe he believed as I do. In fact, I wrote that he denied the resurrection, claiming Jesus swooned.
Which is quaint, to which I respond "jesus who"?

Quote:He does indeed supply other evidence, i.e. quoting records that indicate there was a great darkness on the day of Jesus' crucifixion. (There was a big dispute about that, but one should wonder why, if nothing happened.) Smoke usually = fire. You know it only takes one piece of evidence to blow an entire anti-Christian theory. Which is why Durant, Jefferson, Locke, Ghandi and a host of non-Christians would call Jesus-mythers nut balls.
I'd call Ghandi a nutball, but who cares? Again, "jesus who"? What crucifixion, what day of darkness?

Quote:Ever wonder why there is such a huge and rather cynical effort to disprove the Gospels? I can make a convincing argument that the big todo has absolutely nothing to do with a lack of proof, merely by asking you a question. If Jesus returned and healed 94% of all the terminal patients in all the hospitals of the world, would you follow him and change your mind about the wisdom and divinity of his person?
No, I wouldn't. I'd say "damn nice of jesus, good on him". Proof is not evidence, evidence is not proof. There is neither proof nor evidence for any jesus. It;s true that we have a similar situation for other figures we imagine to have been nestled somewhere in history, but it matters very little in their case. They either lived, or they did not. Stories of a life, or a life of stories. The only way I could sign on with the jesus crowd is if the stories stood on their own without any jesus - or (as is the case we have) if jesus effectively renounced the entirety of both your magic books.

If you had any evidence for this I doubt you'd spend so much time referring to the opinions of others. You're fishing for some figure I might respect, good luck with that. Locke said it, durant said it, ghandi said it, jefferson said it. Who cares? Cut to the chase and present me with the evidence.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply
#75
RE: My reasoning in rejecting eternal torture/hell...
(April 7, 2013 at 8:00 pm)Rhythm Wrote: I don't have to guess, printers put dates on the things they print.......1944.

Don't be smug please. I am asking what "new" evidence Durant was unaware of as you claimed. That is a sincere, fair and reasonable question is it not?

Quote:Don't take my word for it, research it yourself

I don't research mere assertions that something is there.

Quote:Say what things?

Don't you remember your post? The same things Durant says, and Jefferson, Locke, Pascal and even the atheist Wells. ("We are obliged to say,'Here was a man.'")

Quote:They don't lack embarrassing details, and they were -modeled- after the gospels. I'd say that you're entirely too gullible,

You mean like Locke, Jefferson and Durant? I'll take that as a compliment. The only thing they lacked IMO was a rather typical atheist cynicism, mistaken for the skepticismthat is healty and actually leads one to know Jesus as he is.

Quote:there are embarrassing details about hercules as well. "I'm sure it was essentially true that he hunted the Hind." Jerkoff

As J.R.R Tolkien said, "I know a legend when I see one." You apparently don't have his discernment.

Quote:I'm sure that there's probably a decent author somewhere that was a fisherman, but whether or not the gospels are comparable to the works of shakespeare would be a matter of opinion. Opinion..mind you, about prose...... I don't see it, personally. The whole burnt to a crisp and or killed bit, just more myth, sorry, bubbles been burst.

As if that is all there is. Major straw man there.

Quote:Hardly any proof of what? That the gospels we have today weren't written by a couple of guys in a single generation? I'm not even sure where to begin.

Do try. I am.

Quote:That's the nice thing about opinions, we all have them, but what would any of our differing opinions have to say about the subject of whether or not the narrative is a factual recounting of any event, or whether or not some godman walked the earth? Nothing.

Ah but why do such great thinkers believe? This question you cannot answer without beliittlling their intellect, which only weakens your position of course.

Quote:You probably won't be surprised that my opinion of christianity is that it is hearsay. You draw a line where it's important to you,

Entirely untrue. Instead of presenting facts you seem to question people's motives, claim all they have are opinions with no reasoning behind them, compare Hercules with Jesus when millions of intelligent thoughtful people see a vast difference that Tolkien saw.

Quote:Which is quaint, to which I respond "jesus who"?

You clearly are not interested in a serious discussion so I think I will move on now.

Quote:I'd call Ghandi a nutball, but who cares? Again, "jesus who"? What crucifixion, what day of darkness?

Research it yourself?
Reply
#76
RE: My reasoning in rejecting eternal torture/hell...



TLDR version


"Super duper people I totally think are awesome/you might think are awesome believed" doesn't cut it for me. Shouldn't cut it for you either, but you clearly have lower standards - you are a believer after all.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  HELL or not HELL? Little Rik 91 10949 November 10, 2018 at 12:23 pm
Last Post: Angrboda
  Eternal bliss Cod 135 15915 September 6, 2018 at 10:43 am
Last Post: Bob Kelso
  Why doesn't hell in Islam and Christianity have Cold as torture? Spixri 33 9183 April 7, 2017 at 10:05 am
Last Post: WinterHold
  Nature's reasoning for religion... maestroanth 4 1484 May 20, 2016 at 4:05 pm
Last Post: FatAndFaithless
  Eternal Damnation Hungry Hungry Hippo 14 4981 August 15, 2015 at 4:39 am
Last Post: Hungry Hungry Hippo
  Free Will and Loving/Rejecting God Nope 126 29145 January 26, 2015 at 9:38 pm
Last Post: Cyberman
  An eternal life is a worthless life. Lucanus 47 12314 December 24, 2014 at 5:11 pm
Last Post: dyresand
  The more you attend Church, the more likely you are so support Torture. CapnAwesome 111 15335 December 23, 2014 at 6:53 pm
Last Post: Thumpalumpacus
  Eternal punishment is pointless. Ryantology 497 58590 December 5, 2014 at 9:09 pm
Last Post: Esquilax
  God is not the only eternal one ! (if he exist) reality.Mathematician 16 3393 June 19, 2014 at 3:06 am
Last Post: reality.Mathematician



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)