The Christian Hell

[Redzeppelin]

I didnt say i didn't "like" the consequences.
You're getting pretty personal now and obviously not understanding what i'm telling you.

The "play" comment - was a comment I made going off of what YOU said, when you assumed how I work, because you know me so well and everything.

And I did follow them out to the end - and it ended with both Skasian and I respecting both each other's beliefs and views, even though we fought to the death at the beginning, and that's enough for me.

When someone lays out the charges you did, and I take the time to answer them and then you simply say "well, I don't believe any of this anyway" instead of dealing with my counterarguments, that strikes me as one of two things:

a) I have refuted my opponent's position and s/he has no counter-argument
b) my opponent really didn't intend to prove his/her position - he/she was merely baiting me to see what I'd say.

If I'm wrong, fine - but that's how I took your response. It has nothing to do with how well I know you - it has to do with how discussion/debate/argument works. It's called the "burden of rejoiner" (or something like that) which means that once your opponent answers you, you carry the burden of moving the argument forward. You decided you weren't going to do that.

You may have followed your argument with skasian, but not me. You need not do so, but walking away with a "well I don't believe this anyway" makes your initial arguments seem merely baiting.

Anyway, if you're done, fine - not a big deal. But I'm disappointed you didn't address any of my refutation of your position. I'm curious how you respond.

[Zee.]

I don't think i can respond to that.

You sorta took me out with your response, considering i thought my big heartfelt post would knock some people off their feet.
Guess not, hey?

[skasian]

Nope, in fact, I don't need proof of anything, which is why I'm not into solipsism at all.

It's always interesting to me that theists worry about science/proof/truth, and often try to cast aspersions at science regarding the level of "truth" or "proof" required, because science is just observation. A scientist will kick back and go, "wonder what happens if I run 1,000,000 amps through this mixture of DNA and toenail clippings", then he flicks the switch and watches what happens. (This is why Mary Shelley wrote Frankenstein.)

Science isn't concerned with a search for truth, that kind of thing is best left to theologians and philosophers.

By constant repetition, we come to accept that many things science has observed are true - in the legal sense of the word.

And that's pretty much where I stand - show me something and then tell me about it.

You have stories about the successes of your god and your religion. That's fine, because you believe in it. On the other hand, I'll list just a few of the subjects where people defend non-material things, and use exactly the same language, arguments, assertions and aspertions that evangelical christianity does:

homeopathy
psychics
astrologers
dowsers
telepaths
telekinetics

(and I repeat, that is just a few of the types)

Now, your religion will exclude some of those as complete rubbish, or work of the devil. I'd be the first to point out that they cannot all be true, and science pretty much guarantees that they cannot. They all work on exactly the same principle - 100% anecdotal stories, with no evidence whatsoever.

When I'm faced with a choice between accepting magic as real or not, I take the simple option, "Show me".

49 years, 10 months and counting....

Is it so much to ask to believe in miracles that someone show me something, anything? ........beyond a book written several thousand years ago?

I don't think that's demanding proof.



On the basis of that claim, then my request for "show me" is going to be a piece of cake!



Nah, like I said, I keep both eyes wide open, and I proved yesterday that they're as good as they ever were, because I could read signs at a greater distance than my kids when we were checking yesterday.

Show me, and I'll believe it. You will only have to satisfy that niggly part of my brain which insists on checking a few minor details.



Why?

What's to fear?

Honestly, have a talk to your pastor and tell him about this bloke who wants to believe in your miracles, but wants to see it with his own eyes, make recordings of them, talk to a few people and find out whather these miracles are true. If he agrees, I will come and do just that!

Hell, if there's a church anywhere which can cure diseases through belief, then I'm a believer! I'm at an age where medical advantages like that would be worth a bit, too. A mate of mine who was (damn, I still wrote "is") three months younger than me croaked last week.

Fear? I'd love what you say to be true! Sheesh, you don't need to hard-sell health benefits at my age.



Honestly - talk to your pastor. Get him to come online. Wherever you are in NZ, I can be there. (And I'm pretty well known, in business and media, and you can find links to it all if you check my profile - I'm not some crazy stalker - so your pastor can even check me out first, how fair is that?)



It ould depend on a couple of things. If it looked like Jesus would have - rather than the absurd icon every christian church I've ever seen use - and he asked a question along those lines, "Why won't you believe in me" or very close to it, then yes, I would believe immediately, offering to shake his hand and helping him up. No question at all.

If, however, I have a vision of a blond, or fair-ish Jesus, I will be off to the nut-farm immediately.



Wronger than the wrongest thing ever.

I guess, of all the things said to rationalists, this is the worst mistake you can make - to accuse one, whose only position is "show me", of being closed-minded (which is what you've done), while you yourself believe in magic and miracles.



Try going to a stage hypnotism show at some stage and you will see the identical thing done. At least then, it's funny.

Science is observation? Observation of what? Isnt it to confirm belief and satisfying all equations and theories? Obervation to check if their theory is right I assume. But that is no different to atheists believing in miracles. Miracles is observation. Because people cant believe in God because He is invisible, miracles happen because they are visible to the naked eye, therefore used to confirm belief and help people understand God is really watching. What is the difference? My point is even miracles can be observed atheists just dont simply believe in this, even though it is same as science minus the equations.
Science searches for agreement in relations to many other aspects, evolution theories searches for valid proofs to make the theory "true". Science does search for the truth in things, by understanding the world's matter and functions that are yet to be discovered. Accepting religion is also searching for the truth, ie God, because God is all truth.

Show you something? Couple of posts back you said that you yourself have seen miracles, havent you seen enough to believe or is it your sense of not wanting to believe making you blind from seeing the truth of God?

[The Atheist]

Science is observation?

Yep, observation and replication - if we observe the result once means nothing. If every time an experiment is done, we get the same result, it becomes accepted.

Observation of what?

The results.

Isnt it to confirm belief and satisfying all equations and theories? Obervation to check if their theory is right I assume.

As is usually the case with assumptions, yours is wrong. Theories arise from observation, in the main. The days of having a theory, then try to make it work went out with alchemy.

But that is no different to atheists believing in miracles. Miracles is observation. Because people cant believe in God because He is invisible, miracles happen because they are visible to the naked eye, therefore used to confirm belief and help people understand God is really watching. What is the difference? My point is even miracles can be observed atheists just dont simply believe in this, even though it is same as science minus the equations.

Woefully wrong, sorry.

Observation is not a miracle, nor is it a miracle when something conforms to what we understand natural law to be, stuff like gravity not working in reverse, electricity making machines work, that kind of thing.

As I pointed out to you earlier, if miracles exist, they will demonstrably miraculous and not some shabby, set-up charlatan tricks as used in manufacturing miracles for the credulous.

Show you something? Couple of posts back you said that you yourself have seen miracles, havent you seen enough to believe or is it your sense of not wanting to believe making you blind from seeing the truth of God?

No, and this is a silly argument. Talk to your pastor and get me along to record and investigate the miraculous happenings.

If it's a god's truth, it's not likely to be fraud, so what harm is there to you and your church. If the miracles are real, that will be apparent, just as it will be if it's fraud.

[Zee.]

Like a previous poster stated, there is a difference between faith and knowledge

[Redzeppelin]

I don't think i can respond to that.

You sorta took me out with your response, considering i thought my big heartfelt post would knock some people off their feet.
Guess not, hey?

Ah, well - perhaps it's just me being bothersome. I appreciate your strong feelings and I'll let it go. No need for me to try and twist your arm to finish an argument. Bad form - sorry.

[Zee.]

Don't be sorry, you did nothing wrong.

[skasian]

Yep, observation and replication - if we observe the result once means nothing. If every time an experiment is done, we get the same result, it becomes accepted.



The results.



As is usually the case with assumptions, yours is wrong. Theories arise from observation, in the main. The days of having a theory, then try to make it work went out with alchemy.



Woefully wrong, sorry.

Observation is not a miracle, nor is it a miracle when something conforms to what we understand natural law to be, stuff like gravity not working in reverse, electricity making machines work, that kind of thing.

As I pointed out to you earlier, if miracles exist, they will demonstrably miraculous and not some shabby, set-up charlatan tricks as used in manufacturing miracles for the credulous.



No, and this is a silly argument. Talk to your pastor and get me along to record and investigate the miraculous happenings.

If it's a god's truth, it's not likely to be fraud, so what harm is there to you and your church. If the miracles are real, that will be apparent, just as it will be if it's fraud.

Science is not all observation and replication. There are correction,alteration and improvements as science is never 100% certain and ever developing. When a law or theory of science is broken by a new discovery, the previous recordings of observation and replication are lost into the trash bin, replaced by the corrected alterations. Science is such a broad field that cannot be confined as observation, as in modern day, it is more taken over by abstract thinking by manipulating the old and acceptance through debates and agreements through previous proofs and evidences. Bottom line, observations that agree with theories and ideas becomes proof and evidences, which are what science is backed up by.

As people needs observations, proofs in science, they also need these to believe in miracles to confirm that they arent mentally disturbed. People need proof and evidence that gives them sense of truth and relief from thinking they are tricked or fooled. As you put it, avoid believing in fakes and frauds. Whats so funny about proof and evidence is that miracles itself is a proof or evidence of God. If God appears in a vision, they think they are going mentally gaga. What should God do? With all these infinite excuses, what good is it for the incredulous?
I have to admit I do believe that it is very difficult for an atheist to believe in God after seeing a miracle as there are such things as you said: psychics telepaths hypnosis. With all these happening around, how would atheists believe that miracles are visual signs that God sent? I think this is why God is not using miracles to make the non believer believe in God. It just seems sadly futile.

"As I pointed out to you earlier, if miracles exist, they will demonstrably miraculous and not some shabby, set-up charlatan tricks as used in manufacturing miracles for the credulous."

So what do you have in mind? Demonstrably miraculous, to what extent exactly?

I've seen exactly what you've seen, up close and personal, several times.

Seen nothing to impress me so far. A stage-hypnotist show, nothing more.

How would a written statement by a random doctor or pastor improve your belief in miracles or God? It is same as hearing a "story" from someone else as you mentioned. I heavily doubt that even if a miracle happens to you, such as open wounds healing suddenly, it wont ever improve your belief in God as you have your explanations and excuses.

[Redzeppelin]

Don't be sorry, you did nothing wrong.

Maybe - I'm prone to get caught up in the argument and have been gently been reminded by some of my friends that sometimes (perhaps most of the time) I can be obnoxious. I'm working on that.

Anyway -

[BienvenuJDC]

How can there be a discussion about such a narrow subject as Christian Hell, if nothing is established as being truth? If one wants to question the existence of God, then that needs to be its own thread. Much of the discussion here has been completely futile.

If we were to have a discussion about the biological characteristics of dragons, then those who do not believe that dragons ever existed should not impose their beliefs in the discussion.

BTW, would anyone like to discuss this topic? If so, it's not for discussion in this thread.

[skasian]

How can there be a discussion about such a narrow subject as Christian Hell, if nothing is established as being truth? If one wants to question the existence of God, then that needs to be its own thread. Much of the discussion here has been completely futile.

If we were to have a discussion about the biological characteristics of dragons, then those who do not believe that dragons ever existed should not impose their beliefs in the discussion.

BTW, would anyone like to discuss this topic? If so, it's not for discussion in this thread.

I completely agree that questioning of the existence of God should be in a new thread. The reason why discussion of Christian Hell drifted to whether Hell existed then whether God existed at all.

Dragons, I actually do think that they existed, but I think they were turned into snakes during the Fall of Man as God said serpents (or dragons I think) will craw through their bellies, it must mean they had legs and maybe even wings. I also think dragons existed because of the Chinese zodiac or horoscopes, where the 12th animal/zodiac is a dragon and Chinese characters actually bibical references which I found very scary. Each Chinese character contains this story from the bible, especially from Genesis. I seem to be drifting off subjects however yes, I do think that dragons existed.

Back to Christian Hell topic, as it is true nothing have been accorded fact in the afterlife, it all depends on individual faith and belief about afterlife that counts as much as facts.

[Redzeppelin]

Theologian J.P. Moreland - in Lee Strobel's book The Case for Faith discusses hell and the many objections many Christians and nonbelievers pose.

According to Moreland, hell is punishment, but not punishing - there's a difference. The "hellfire" is metaphorical - it is not the Dantean nightmare that the medieval church would have us believe. It is purely separation from God - the most beautiful, loving Being in the universe. If love and kindness and compassion and beauty are so desireable in this world, why wouldn't it make sense that being separated from the very source of these things would be torture enough? Hell is absolute emptiness - it is the place where those who chose to follow their wills instead of submit to God's can be out of the presence of God. Heaven would be "hell" for anybody who chooses to not serve God - they would be miserable there. At least in hell, their desire to make their will supreme is honored by God; He gives us the choice of who we'll serve, and then honors that choice. If you don't wish to serve God, he'll still grant you eternal life - but not in His presence - but: since His presence fills the entire universe, hell becomes necessary as the "quarantine" location that those who reject God can live without His presence.

That, in a short form, is Moreland's argument.

[BienvenuJDC]

Dragons, I actually do think that they existed, but I think they were turned into snakes during the Fall of Man as God said serpents (or dragons I think) will craw through their bellies, it must mean they had legs and maybe even wings. I also think dragons existed because of the Chinese zodiac or horoscopes, where the 12th animal/zodiac is a dragon and Chinese characters actually bibical references which I found very scary. Each Chinese character contains this story from the bible, especially from Genesis. I seem to be drifting off subjects however yes, I do think that dragons existed.

Shame on you Skasian...did I not say that this is a discussion for another thread?

[skasian]

Shame on you Skasian...did I not say that this is a discussion for another thread?

Sorry, I couldnt resist! Well at least I finished it off with being back to the subject of Christian Hell..

[blp]

Now when he saw the crowds, he went up on a mountainside and sat down. His disciples came to him, and he began to teach them saying:
"Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are those who mourn,
for they will be comforted.
Blessed are the meek,
for they will inherit the earth.
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they will be filled.
Blessed are the merciful,
for they will be shown mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart,
for they will see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they will be called sons of God.
Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

And, sorry, but shouldn't it also say, in accordance with the beliefs of believers expressed in this thread and others, blessed are those who aren't any of these things and are actually pretty rotten as long as they repent and accept Jesus into their hearts before they die, for they shall go to heaven anyway.

This is the fundamental contradiction in Christian morality. Good works are supposed to be important and, in fact, according to the sermon on the mount, they will actually, somehow, be repaid in kind. However, we're also told that the only way to get to heaven is to accept Christ as your saviour and that it will work for anyone who does it - which seems to render good works rather irrelevant.