Telling children that they are going to hell is abusive?

[ColdComfort]

The new testament is a story, regardless of whatever else you might believe it is.  Bart Ehrman studies how that story came to be the way it is as we have it.  He believes the story.  That Bart Ehrman believes a story that he studies is in no way evidence for hell.  It is completely irrelevant how many new testament scholars believe in hell.  No one doubts that there are people who believe in hell.  

I'm not sure what evidentiary value scripture or fatima is supposed to represent, but here again you could clarify.

I would have thought it is obvious but one last time. If the NT is a true record of God becoming man and Jesus tells us there is a hell that is irrefutaable evidence there is a hell. At Fatima, as I've already pointed out, Our Lady shows the children a vision of hell and speaks of it a real. That's evidence. and you will have to look at the evidence yourself and tell me why I should reject it. I've already looked at the evidence and the arguments surrounding both scripture and Fatima. You can too. Very easily. But just stating a conclusion without evidence or argument is not a debate or even a conversation.

---

You are being intentionally dishonest.

You are being dishonest because you are using logical fallacies. Like this:

Or just not very smart. Perhaps a bit of both.

Ad Hominem fallacy.

Then this

Calling the NT a story with no truth to it is a conclusion from the evidence that you have made not evidence itself. Like a verdict of guilty or not guilty after hearing the evidence. The verdict is not evidence and verdicts from juries are sometimes wrong.

Logical fallacy of Avoiding the Issue and changing topic.

Then

Mr. Erhman he started his scholarly career accepting the truth of the NT. So at that point in his life he had evidence of hell but later he didn't? He studied with one of the great biblical scholars of the day in Bruce Metzger who lived and died a Christian.

Argument from authority logical fallacy and you don't even know that his name is Ehrman.

You are wrong. I'm in a take no prisoners mood so I'm not going to give you a break by saying you misunderstood my post. Bart does have evidence for the existence of hell. He's a biblical scholar. If he, after considering the evidence which you claim does not exist, concludes there is no hell that is another matter. You must get the drift. It's not a difficult point I'm making.

And to continue with the in your face attitude: Our Lady appeared to three humble peasant children at Fatima. She showed them hell and spoke of it to them. The claim is evidence. Get it? After reading a lot of the evidence that is readily available to anyone these days I am convinced that the claim is true. If it is true that that the Mother of Jesus appeared to people at Lourdes, Fatima and elsewhere then your atheism disappears in dust. But you have to examine the evidence with an open mind, don't you? You can't even get to the simple and indisputable point of admitting that there is any evidence.

Yeah Bart has so much evidence that you had to quickly  change the topic to some ramble about Fatima and Lourdes and Ad Hominem attack.

1) Ad Hominen applies to arguments not to comments. I was making a comment.


2) Avoiding the issue is not a logical fallacy. It's just evasiveness. And I was using an analogy to illustrate the difference between evidence and a conclusion.


3) Arguments from authority are not logical fallacies either. In any event I wasn't using one. 

4) Just pathetic. That's not an argument but a comment on your post.

[Peebothuhlu]

I'm not really new. It's just been a while and I lose patience with most of you guys so I don't post very often or check in to read.. If your question implies what my dear friend Fake is saying, that there is no evidence, then you are intellectually negligent. See. I lose patience even though your post was perfectly polite.

In criminal trials judges instruct juries to consider all the evidence so to answer your question would require a very long post. But to zero in on one specific point: Often you read ' most biblical scholars say...' at which point the eyes roll back in my head. I'm in my sixties and the number of different historical Jesus's this tribe has come up with makes a very long list. That should give anyone pause instead of accepting what is being said by these professors in the same manner as Catholics accept what is said by Popes speaking ex cathedra. And they almost always state their conclusions with such certainty even though the conclusions change as often as they change their underwear. 

To be more specific: Most biblical scholars will tell you that the synoptics were written by anonymous Christians and the names of apostles or apostolic men were added in the second century. I don't believe a word of it and I find the arguments surprisingly weak. I accept the evidence of Papias, Iraneaus the Muratorian canon and other early Christian writings. So St. Mark was the secretary of St. Peter, St. Luke the companion of St. Paul, and St Matthew an apostle. It's an important point and one you should think about for yourself rather than just repeating the conclusions of biblical scholars especially as those conclusions change so often.

In any event, it's evidence to be considered. To say there is none or to ask a question that implies you're not aware of any just won't do.

Hello and thank you for the reply.

So... That's what you consider the 'Strongest' information you have? Or just the infromation you're leading with in an 'Off the cuff' kind of reply?

Cheers.

Not at work.

[The Grand Nudger]

Neither of those two things are evidence, Comfort. They are claims.

[ColdComfort]

I'm not really new. It's just been a while and I lose patience with most of you guys so I don't post very often or check in to read.. If your question implies what my dear friend Fake is saying, that there is no evidence, then you are intellectually negligent. See. I lose patience even though your post was perfectly polite.

In criminal trials judges instruct juries to consider all the evidence so to answer your question would require a very long post. But to zero in on one specific point: Often you read ' most biblical scholars say...' at which point the eyes roll back in my head. I'm in my sixties and the number of different historical Jesus's this tribe has come up with makes a very long list. That should give anyone pause instead of accepting what is being said by these professors in the same manner as Catholics accept what is said by Popes speaking ex cathedra. And they almost always state their conclusions with such certainty even though the conclusions change as often as they change their underwear. 

To be more specific: Most biblical scholars will tell you that the synoptics were written by anonymous Christians and the names of apostles or apostolic men were added in the second century. I don't believe a word of it and I find the arguments surprisingly weak. I accept the evidence of Papias, Iraneaus the Muratorian canon and other early Christian writings. So St. Mark was the secretary of St. Peter, St. Luke the companion of St. Paul, and St Matthew an apostle. It's an important point and one you should think about for yourself rather than just repeating the conclusions of biblical scholars especially as those conclusions change so often.

In any event, it's evidence to be considered. To say there is none or to ask a question that implies you're not aware of any just won't do.

Hello and thank you for the reply.

So... That's what you consider the 'Strongest' information you have? Or just the infromation you're leading with in an 'Off the cuff' kind of reply?

Cheers.

Not at work.

off the cuff. Off the top of my pointed head. It's a response to the 'no evidence' claim which bothers me when what people mean, or ought to mean if they were informed, is evidence they don't accept. I think it saves them from having to give reasons for their conclusions.

---

Neither of those two things are evidence, Comfort.  They are claims.

I'm sorry you don't understand. The NT is not a claim . It is evidence. The testimony from Fatima is evidence as surely as any evidence given in a court of law. You think this evidence is made up, the product of hallucinations. Whatever. It is evidence. You or someone else said there was no evidence of hell which is demonstrably false. This is just another internet thread where people are not reading carefully and a very simple point has turned into a mess of useless words.

No more from me on this except to say that when you( I mean the generic you) write there is 'no evidence of something' you usually should be saying there is evidence but I don't accept it. It's important because you have to give reasons why you don't accept it.  Internet Atheists rarely do that in my experience.  


.

[Fake Messiah]

The NT is not a claim . It is evidence. The testimony from Fatima is evidence as surely as any evidence given in a court of law. 

Then you don't know what is evidence. No wonder you're a Christian.

You or someone else said there was no evidence of hell which is demonstrably false.

Again, avoiding to give us evidence of hell.

No more from me on this except to say that when you( I mean the generic you) write there is 'no evidence of something' you usually should be saying there is evidence but I don't accept it. 

So there's evidence that elves exist I just don't accept it - I don't think so.

[The Grand Nudger]

All this preening, and still no evidence for hell. Doesn't this ever seem counterproductive to you, Comfort?

[ColdComfort]

All this preening, and still no evidence for hell.  Doesn't this ever seem counterproductive to you, Comfort?

Counterproductive? Not really. I don't expect to change anyone 's mind here. It helps put my own ideas in order. It also reminds me that atheists are a particularly irrational bunch. My guess is very few atheists have ever looked at the evidence from Fatima. Of course the same may be true for other Christians who do not share the Catholic devotion to the Mother of Jesus. Either way there is evidence for hell. I have mentioned some of it to you. That you continue to deny it just mean you are unwilling to honestly examine the truth.

[Silver]

Evidence? You know, there's a popular meme used for people who misunderstand what the word means, but it is not as though it will benefit you in any way. Suffice it to state that your idea of evidence is underwhelming and non-credible.

[The Grand Nudger]

Counterproductive? Not really. I don't expect to change anyone 's mind here. It helps put my own ideas in order. It also reminds me that atheists are a particularly irrational bunch. My guess is very few atheists have ever looked at the evidence from Fatima. Of course the same may be true for other Christians who do not share the Catholic devotion to the Mother of Jesus. Either way there is evidence for hell. I have mentioned some of it to you. That you continue to deny it just mean you are unwilling to honestly examine the truth.

You keep saying that there's evidence for hell, you say as much in the post above..but you continue to fail to present whatever that evidence is.  

I was asking you whether you thought that was counterproductive.  I think that it is.

Just lay it out there.  What about fatima is evidence of hell, in your estimation?

[Silver]

And it would take a real miracle for theists to comprehend what the word evidence means.