If everything has a purpose then evil doesn't exist

[Mister Agenda]

Sounds like you're a JW. Is that correct?

I'm a non denominational believer going to a baptist church.

I believe King's Cross Station in London is real, I don't think that gets me halfway to believing in the Wizarding World of Harry Potter.

I'm not convinced that Jesus was an authority on hell.

Do you believe the author of Harry Potter JK Rowling is an expert on Her books? If she says some previously unknown realm existed in her world would she not be uniquely qualified to amend HP canon? Jesus being the author of CHRISTianity is also in a similar position. He is the authority of this religion for no other reason that this religion is based on His teachings. 

You do not have to believe in Christ, to acknowledge his authority in Christian canon. Meaning even if you don't think he was real, The theology surrounding The teachings of this figure real or not are the basis for in universe christian canon. Making all who believe or even want to discuss christian canon beholden to the teachings ascribed to him real or not.

All you're saying is Jesus knows there's a hell in the religion he invented, like Rowling knows Hogwarts exists in the world she invented. I don't disagree.

I'm not even convinced he was a real person, though I lean about 51% in that direction. You have to believe the Bible is true before any of the stories can be convincing; and I have found the Bible to be very unconvincing in the first place. I reject the idea that I should accept some promise without evidence just because it was made before fact checking was a thing.

Whether the Bible is true or not for the purpose of discerning whether or not something is apart of Christian canon or not is irrelevant. Because before you can test the validity of the claims concerning the bible, you must approach it canonically. (by the established rules and stories) If you just randomly decide to just pick a 2000 to 6000 year old story and try and make it conform to modern scrutiny then you are intentionally poisoning the well. 

If you think that not taking a story that's thousands of years old at face value as true, you don't understand the concept of 'poisoning the well'. If you think that I'm arguing that the story that's thousands of years old isn't true because it's thousands of years old, you're misunderstanding me entirely.

I believe that if I asked and prayed hard enough for a vision of a Buddhist hell, I might get a vision of it.

This is a perfect example of my above point. In that, what in Buddhist canon would lead you to believe that your thought/prayer experiment would work? is there any prescribed mechanism in buddhist cannon that would lend itself to support your earnest efforts? If not then why would you think this is a valid test? Which again is why I'm suggesting to approach a given religion canonically if you are going to seriously study it.

I didn't derive that from Buddhist canon, I derived it from human nature. We can believe anything if we try hard enough.

If I went on a vision quest, I might have a vision of a talking animal. Visions seem to be very culture specific for some reason. It's almost like they come from inside the petitioner's own brain and are shaped by what they already believe.

are you dismissing vision quests outright?

I'm not dismissing their potential psychological value, but there's no convincing evidence that the visions originate from anywhere but inside our own brains.

Here's what I believe: a person's belief in something should be proportional to the evidence for it.

There were lots of things written before scientific standards of evidence  were formulated, and that's a terrible reason to believe them.

and it is worse reason to dismiss something just because it was written before what we deem to be modern science. why? because science is not absolute. it's just out best understanding so far.

Again, I never said that a story being old is sufficient cause to dismiss it.

Hearsay is terrible evidence.

I never suggested hearsay. I suggested that you go straight to the source.

The source is hearsay: information received from other people (the authors of the Bible) that one cannot adequately substantiate.

Visions are terrible evidence (problem of contradictory revelations).

why would you assume all dreams and visions produce contradictory revelation? Would you considered a vision that provided a revelation completely unknown to you but completely supported by a much older source? like for instance you never read or studied the Bible, but you have a dream/vision of a principle or in this case the place of hell, that is biblically accurate, verses dogmatically accurate. (What the church supports of Hell is not the same as what the Bible says of it. So lets say you get the Bible's version without having ever read or heard it.) would this be a valid vision or is it dismissed in your mind because of the format the information was conveyed? 

Why would you assume I assumed that? I never claimed that every single vision contradicts every single other vision, that would be improbable in itself. The other source would have to be inaccessible to the person having the vision for me to even start thinking it was significant. As an American, even if I never read or studied the Bible, I'd have absorbed most of the highlights from my culture. I would think YOU would find it more significant how many people's visions of hell match the most common conceptions of hell rather than the version you've derived from scripture through careful reading.

It's okay that you don't have good arguments for your religious beliefs, no one else does either.

lol.. I have what is called a theologicaly sound argument. as this is a theology based question/subject. Why would you expect me to produce a scientifically sound argument on a non scientific subject?

If you're not claiming the things you say you believe are actually true but only 'theologically true', why should I be interested? I'm not a theologist, and although I've read the Bible cover-to-cover 2.8 times, I'm no biblical scholar. You're describing something of only academic interest, and like most people, I'm not an academic. And someone who radically disagrees with you can have a 'theologically sound' argument.

Do you not understand that scientific methodologies do not have the tools or processes needed to study or discuss non scientific subjects? Do you try and apply science to all the other subject matters? do you look for scientific proof of Historical subjects? Do you try and disprove the validity of case law that does not lend itself to the scientific method? Then why would you demand a theological subject be held to a scientific standard, if you recognize that other fields of study have their own rules and expectations?

Apparently you think history is not a science, and that case law does not rely on verifiable evidence; that's not very impressive. If your theology is not actually true (does not conform to reality as best as we can determine it), I'm not actually interested.

I don't blame you for believing what you were raised to believe that's also what the people you love believe.

Actually I was not raise Christian. my father was a humanist/spiritualist He got that from his girlfriend, and applied it to us. Up until the last year of his life. then my mother got him to switch back to Christianity. He was a christian as a boy.

That's interesting. I think I meet (online or in real life) more Christians who say they weren't raised Christian than atheists who do.

That's very human. But I'll be very surprised if you have anything persuasive to anyone who doesn't already accept your premises.

Not if they demand scientific evidence for theological matters.. I would not suspect so.