Telling children that they are going to hell is abusive?

[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.  


.