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.