On Hell and Forgiveness

[polymath257]

---

P1-P6 make the unreasonable assumption that the Biblical texts give an accurate and reliable description of what occurred. Any other text from that time period with similar claims would be and is interpreted as exaggeration on the part of the author or as superstition.

You clearly don't know what you are talking about and your statement is an assertion based on...nothing--because you don't even have a handle on the basic facts.  I'll bet you $100 that you don't know of any other group of texts (let alone 27)with extraordinary claims from that time period. The resurrection of Jesus was firmly believed by churches across the Roman empire by 50AD--before any of the books of the NT were even written. How do you account for that? Really--I would like to hear an answer. 

It isn't unreasonable to assume an itinerant preacher roughly saying some of the things in the Gospels existed. What *is* unreasonable is to think that person was in any way related to a deity.

Unless of course he rose from the dead after being crucified. Your incredulity (which is all you have) does not carry any weight against facts of the matter. I'll wait to hear your answer above.

P7-P10 are nothing short of reasoning about garden gnomes being required to explain why the garden grows.

Ah. Your analogy fails. Garden Gnomes are contingent objects, denizens of the universe. Anything objects in the universe are subject to the scrutiny of science. Your Gnomes would fail the scientific test. God, by definition is not a contingent being. You have a category error problem with your analogy. 

P11-P13 are, again, special pleading on the basis of irrationally accepting P1-P10.

Again, *any* evidence from any other source making claims of this type would be summrily dismissed. To not do so is exactly the type of confabulation seen in delusional thinking.

I just showed a rational argument from start to finish. I don't even have to be right. But I am certainly rational. You simply assert crap. After seeing the responses in this thread to RR you seem incapable of holding up your end of an argument. All you have are assertions that other people's reasons are somehow defective. You don't/can't even articulate why?  Can't you see that?

Read Livy (the history of Rome) for any number of remarkable claims and corresponding messages from the Gods.

Special pleading concerning 'contingency' is just another aspect of confabulation. To exist *means* to be in the universe. Garden gnomes cannot be detected by ordinary science because of their magical abilities.

Again, firm belief in a delusion isn't evidence of the truth of that delusion. Most of those in the first 500 years had NOTHING to do with the original evidence. Even the *legend* of the resurrection should be held at least as skeptically as the *legend* that the god Pan lead Caesar across the Rubicon.

[Neo-Scholastic]

To exist *means* to be in the universe.

Believing that reality is bigger than the physical universe is not delusional.

[polymath257]

To exist *means* to be in the universe.

Believing that reality is bigger than the physical universe is not delusional.

Really? What is your definition of the term 'physical'? What is your definition of the verb 'to exist'?

And why, precisely, is belief in garden gnomes delusional? They are just a larger part of the physical universe that we cannot detect, right?

[Amarok]

Believing that reality is bigger than the physical universe is not delusional.

Really do tell

[John V]

That people actually believe a delusion isn't evidence it isn't a delusion.

If you have two suggested phenomena, and:

1. For the first, you have otherwise sane witnesses attesting that they've experienced it, despite suffering from such attestation

2. For the second, you have no such witnesses

The first is better supported than the second. You can choose not to believe either if you like, but to claim that there's no difference is ridiculous.

[The Grand Nudger]

Otherwise sane indeed, lol.

[Bob Kelso]

To exist *means* to be in the universe.

Believing that reality is bigger than the physical universe is not delusional.

What is there other than the physical universe? I’m genuinely curious.

[polymath257]

That people actually believe a delusion isn't evidence it isn't a delusion.

If you have two suggested phenomena, and:

1. For the first, you have otherwise sane witnesses attesting that they've experienced it, despite suffering from such attestation

2. For the second, you have no such witnesses

The first is better supported than the second. You can choose not to believe either if you like, but to claim that there's no difference is ridiculous.

No, once again, we have *stories* of 'sane witnesses', but no writings from those witnesses. NONE of the gospels were written by the claimed authors. Paul never interacted with Jesus. And it is very far from clear that there was any resurrection story initially (before Paul).

[John V]

No, once again, we have *stories* of 'sane witnesses', but no writings from those witnesses. NONE of the gospels were written by the claimed authors.

Can you prove that?

Paul never interacted with Jesus.

Road to Damascus.

And it is very far from clear that there was any resurrection story initially (before Paul).

LOL - it's unclear that there was a resurrection account before the earliest Christian documents?

[polymath257]

No, once again, we have *stories* of 'sane witnesses', but no writings from those witnesses. NONE of the gospels were written by the claimed authors.

Can you prove that?

Paul never interacted with Jesus.

Road to Damascus.

And it is very far from clear that there was any resurrection story initially (before Paul).

LOL - it's unclear that there was a resurrection account before the earliest Christian documents?

Standard historical research into the documents proves what I said.

Paul's 'interaction' was certainly NOT with the Jesus of the gospels. It is much easier described as an epileptic fit.

It is unclear there was a resurrection story between the death of Jesus and the conversion of Paul.