Christian Threats of Damnation

[RevBogovac]

20 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

Most Christians don't embrace Christianity out of fear, but out of hope for eternal life.. Consider the alternative nonreligious indoctrination; When you die, its over and you cease to exist forever, you become food for worms and simply return to dust, never to be remembered again.. Is that the ultimate reality that you prefer children be allowed to embrace? What really promotes a more threatening and fearful scenario?  

 

 

That was all I was pointing out... I personally would never feel threatened by what I considered "a bronze age book of fiction".  Nor would I fear the people who choose to believe it, unless they were chasing me with a gun and trying to force it down my throat

 

 

And - again - a load of condescending, assumptious load of b#!!(&@-.... There is nothing wrong with admitting you don't know something. You can actually win a lot of respect by such and admittance. Yes, living things die. Yes, their matter "returns to dust". But; no, we don't know what happens next. (We do know something about energy that never dies). There are some theories going around, but these are the facts. We'll come back to those theories later...

 

But here you go giving the exact example this topic is about: threats of eternal damnation... you just proved Jonathan's point. 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

34 minutes ago, RevBogovac said:

 

 

And - again - a load of condescending, assumptious load of b#!!(&@-.... There is nothing wrong with admitting you don't know something. You can actually win a lot of respect by such and admittance. Yes, living things die. Yes, their matter "returns to dust". But; no, we don't know what happens next. (We do know something about energy that never dies). There are some theories going around, but these are the facts. We'll come back to those theories later...

 

But here you go giving the exact example this topic is about: threats of eternal damnation... you just proved Jonathan's point. 

 

 

Thank you.  My actual point -- I was wondering why I was giving Dan respect -- while he explained his views on Christianity.  He has always twisted and corrupted Atheist and Agnostic explanations.  He did so while expressing contempt -- yet I was being respectful to his explanations.  It got to me.  Even now, look at his latest answer to me.  He has doubled down on all of it.  Every trifling condescension.  Every distortion.  The icing on the cake?  I have no argument?   

 

In my highest ideals, I should be taking the high road.  Well, screw it.  I lack sainthood.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 5, 2019 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Pete]

Dan talks of the body dying but the spirit lives on. That is assumption.  God, Salvation, Heaven,  Hell and even whether there is a Spirit is a belief but again there  is no proof of any of these things. Even the resurrection of Jesus is a belief with no evidence other than your bronze age book of collected books which itself has no proof it is true or fact. You cannot justify an assumption by quoting another assumption. That is not a logical progressive argument. It is fantasy. 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

46 minutes ago, Pete said:

Dan talks of the body dying but the spirit lives on. That is assumption.  God, Salvation, Heaven,  Hell and even whether there is a Spirit is a belief but again there  is no proof of any of these things. Even the resurrection of Jesus is a belief with no evidence other than your bronze age book of collected books which itself has no proof it is true or fact. You cannot justify an assumption by quoting another assumption. That is not a logical progressive argument. It is fantasy. 

 

 

Yes.  Just so.     

 

A quotation from Aaron Ra:  "If you can't show it, then you don't know it."

 

 

Another quotation from Penn of Penn and Teller:  "The Bible is  equal parts history, science and pizza".

 

          

 

 

 

 

[Pete]

10 minutes ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

 

Yes.  Just so.     

 

A quotation from Aaron Ra:  "If you can't show it, then you don't know it."

 

 

Another quotation from Penn of Penn and Teller:  "The Bible is  equal parts history, science and pizza".

 

          

 

 

 

 

I am doubtful of the science and the history. I think that is giving it too much credit. I do not think many secular scientists or historians will find much there except psychologists and sociologists and anthropologists.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

11 minutes ago, Pete said:

I am doubtful of the science and the history. I think that is giving it too much credit. I do not think many secular scientists or historians will find much there except psychologists and sociologists and anthropologists.

 

 

That is the joke.  Equal parts history, science and pizza.  Equal parts.  There is no pizza in the Bible.

 

You are over thinking this.

 

 

 

Edited November 5, 2019 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Pete]

Got you now.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

56 minutes ago, Pete said:

Got you now.

 

 

Oh, those Scriptures.  I can't take them seriously, long enough, even to argue about them.  I've read them through, several times.  That ruined them for me.  I can't quote chapter and verse the way I used to.  It is the best, fastest way, to lose faith.  Actually reading them.  Cover to cover.  No study guides.  Just reading them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Dan56]

14 hours ago, RevBogovac said:

 

 

And - again - a load of condescending, assumptious load of b#!!(&@-.... There is nothing wrong with admitting you don't know something. You can actually win a lot of respect by such and admittance. Yes, living things die. Yes, their matter "returns to dust". But; no, we don't know what happens next. (We do know something about energy that never dies). There are some theories going around, but these are the facts. We'll come back to those theories later...

 

But here you go giving the exact example this topic is about: threats of eternal damnation... you just proved Jonathan's point. 

 

To the contrary, I dispelled the threat of eternal damnation.. There is simply death for those who don't believe they have an eternal spirit.  And Jonathan doesn't believe in eternal damnation, so to be threatened by it is illogical.. Its like someone threatening to shoot you, but they don't have a gun, but yet he's still  scared to death of being shot. I don't get it because its irrational.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

3 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

To the contrary, I dispelled the threat of eternal damnation.. There is simply death for those who don't believe they have an eternal spirit.  And Jonathan doesn't believe in eternal damnation, so to be threatened by it is illogical.. Its like someone threatening to shoot you, but they don't have a gun, but yet he's still  scared to death of being shot. I don't get it because its irrational.

 

This much is true.  You don't understand.     

 

You are not capable of understanding anything, that you don't agree with.     

 

You have been clear that you exist in a separate reality.  It is not for me to bring you out of it.     

 

 

 

 

 

 

[RevBogovac]

5 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

To the contrary, I dispelled the threat of eternal damnation.. There is simply death for those who don't believe they have an eternal spirit.  And Jonathan doesn't believe in eternal damnation, so to be threatened by it is illogical.. Its like someone threatening to shoot you, but they don't have a gun, but yet he's still  scared to death of being shot. I don't get it because its irrational.

 

True, you don't understand. It's a good thing "we" haven independent judges - in the "free west" at least - who would still sentence the criminal who is threatening to shoot someone, whether he - at that point -actually owns a gun or not. The threat remains...

 

 

 

[Pete]

6 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

To the contrary, I dispelled the threat of eternal damnation.. There is simply death for those who don't believe they have an eternal spirit.  And Jonathan doesn't believe in eternal damnation, so to be threatened by it is illogical.. Its like someone threatening to shoot you, but they don't have a gun, but yet he's still  scared to death of being shot. I don't get it because its irrational.

Here you go with assumptions again.  You have not dispelled anything.  Prove to me that there is life after death, that there is a spirit, and that there is a God. I don't see the bible as a proof of anything.  Can you provide demonstrable proof? No you can't and therefore your gun argument holds no more respect than me saying aliens will come and take you away to the planet teapot tonight.  You won't believe that and I don't see anyone with a gun. I find it just a baseless proposition.  In other words nonsense. 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

2 hours ago, RevBogovac said:

 

True, you don't understand. It's a good thing "we" haven independent judges - in the "free west" at least - who would still sentence the criminal who is threatening to shoot someone, whether he - at that point -actually owns a gun or not. The threat remains...

 

 

 

 

 

Well done.     

 

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

3 hours ago, Pete said:

Here you go with assumptions again.  You have not dispelled anything.  Prove to me that there is life after death, that there is a spirit, and that there is a God. I don't see the bible as a proof of anything.  Can you provide demonstrable proof? No you can't and therefore your gun argument holds no more respect than me saying aliens will come and take you away to the planet teapot tonight.  You won't believe that and I don't see anyone with a gun. I find it just a baseless proposition.  In other words nonsense. 

 

 

If we are going to talk about Dan's Fundamentalist assumptions -- then we must start with his base assumptions.  They are very base.     

• God exists.  Not any God.  The God of the Bible.
• God produced the Bible.  Let us not quibble about "inspired."
• Everything in the Bible is true.
• Everything in the Bible is literal.  Unless it's metaphor.  This is not consistent.
• Bible history is true and literal.
• The Bible is proof of everything in the Bible.
• The Bible is proof of God.
• Everything that contradicts any of this is wrong and must be corrected.
• 

It follows that arguing with Dan about anything, is pointless.  He is impervious to facts, reason, logic and external reality.  Yes.  external reality.  He has stated as much.  That he is in a "spiritual reality" which is different from our "physical reality".  Dan cares about faith and belief.  Evidence is a concept beyond him.  He does not understand what we mean by "proof".

 

Despite everything, I sometimes butt heads with him.  I know better, but I do it anyway. 

Generally, I end up regretting.  I do know it's pointless, but he gets to me.  Dan's basic fallback positions are that we must hate God.  Or Scripture.  Or Christianity.  That we are closed minded to "TRUTH".  His truth.  It comes down to belief and faith.  If he believes it, then it's true and he understands it.  If he does not believe it, then it's false and he refuses to understand it.  Dan's world view is seamless.  Both religious and political.  There is nothing to be gained by arguing with him about anything.  Anything at all.

 

I appreciate your struggle.  You think that with reason, facts, evidence and patience -- You can get through to Dan.     No.  You can't.   Nobody can.

 

 

Actually, it's worse.  In Dan's world, there are no distinctions and no nuances.  It's either all true or all false.  Either we are all right and believe it all -- or we are all wrong and reject God and salvation and everything good and true.

 

 

Silly me.  I actually wasted all that effort trying to explain the distinctions -- to Dan -- between being Atheist and Agnostic.       To Dan, that's nothing but different ways to be damned.  I'm in no position to tell others to let it go.

 

Still, let it go.

 

 

 

Edited November 6, 2019 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Dan56]

16 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

You are not capable of understanding anything, that you don't agree with.     

 

No, I'm not capable of agreeing with something that I don't agree with... The same could be said of you.

 

14 hours ago, RevBogovac said:

True, you don't understand. It's a good thing "we" haven independent judges - in the "free west" at least - who would still sentence the criminal who is threatening to shoot someone, whether he - at that point -actually owns a gun or not. The threat remains...

 

The difference is; Preaching eternal salvation is hardly a comparable threat as shooting someone.  That's why in the free west, Christians aren't sentenced like criminals.

 

13 hours ago, Pete said:

Here you go with assumptions again.  You have not dispelled anything.  Prove to me that there is life after death, that there is a spirit, and that there is a God. I don't see the bible as a proof of anything.  Can you provide demonstrable proof? No you can't and therefore your gun argument holds no more respect than me saying aliens will come and take you away to the planet teapot tonight.  You won't believe that and I don't see anyone with a gun. I find it just a baseless proposition.  In other words nonsense. 

 

Proving a belief wasn't the assumption I dispelled, eternal damnation is what I was alluding to.. Your correct, God, spirit, bible, etc, are all accepted by faith, there's no objective evidence that proves any of it, and I've never suggested otherwise. I am just trying to figure out why you are all scared to death of something you don't even believe is true? Being frightened of something that your convinced doesn't exist seems like nonsense to me.

 

10 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

• God exists.  Not any God.  The God of the Bible.
• God produced the Bible.  Let us not quibble about "inspired."
• Everything in the Bible is true.
• Everything in the Bible is literal.  Unless it's metaphor.  This is not consistent.
• Bible history is true and literal.
• The Bible is proof of everything in the Bible.
• The Bible is proof of God.
• Everything that contradicts any of this is wrong and must be corrected.
•  

He has stated as much.  That he is in a "spiritual reality" which is different from our "physical reality".

 

Dan's basic fallback positions are that we must hate God.  Or Scripture.  Or Christianity.   

 

Dan's world view is seamless. 

 

You think that with reason, facts, evidence and patience -- You can get through to Dan.

 

In Dan's world, there are no distinctions and no nuances.  It's either all true or all false.

 

Your list of what I believe is essentially true... I understand the objective evidence you seek, but that type of proof isn't available, it must be accepted by faith.

 

I'm relatively positive that you wouldn't accept the Christian God even if there were indisputable evidence. So it is as much about dislike and hate as it is evidence.

 

Its true that spirituality is different from your physical reality, and its also true that my spiritual view is seamless. And yes, Christ said that he was the truth, so its either true or false, and I obviously believe the former.

 

Imo, you have no answers, facts, or evidence to  prove anything either. Your Agnostic because you don't know the answers, you don't have objective evidence that proves how everything came into existence,  while I've simply decided to accept a spiritual reality that explains what you don't know.. I know its difficult for you to believe in intelligent design, but I find it much more fathomable than; In the beginning there was nothing, and then nothing exploded, and everything magically came into being! That requires more faith for me to swallow than believing in a Spiritual Creator. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 7, 2019 by Dan56

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

3 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

No, I'm not capable of agreeing with something that I don't agree with... The same could be said of you.

 

 

The difference is; Preaching eternal salvation is hardly a comparable threat as shooting someone.  That's why in the free west, Christians aren't sentenced like criminals.

 

 

Proving a belief wasn't the assumption I dispelled, eternal damnation is what I was alluding to.. Your correct, God, spirit, bible, etc, are all accepted by faith, there's no objective evidence that proves any of it, and I've never suggested otherwise. I am just trying to figure out why you are all scared to death of something you don't even believe is true? Being frightened of something that your convinced doesn't exist seems like nonsense to me.

 

 

Your list of what I believe is essentially true... I understand the objective evidence you seek, but that type of proof isn't available, it must be accepted by faith.

 

I'm relatively positive that you wouldn't accept the Christian God even if there were indisputable evidence. So it is as much about dislike and hate as it is evidence.

 

Its true that spirituality is different from your physical reality, and its also true that my spiritual view is seamless. And yes, Christ said that he was the truth, so its either true or false, and I obviously believe the former.

 

Imo, you have no answers, facts, or evidence to  prove anything either. Your Agnostic because you don't know the answers, you don't have objective evidence that proves how everything came into existence,  while I've simply decided to accept a spiritual reality that explains what you don't know.. I know its difficult for you to believe in intelligent design, but I find it much more fathomable than; In the beginning there was nothing, and then nothing exploded, and everything magically came into being! That requires more faith for me to swallow than believing in a Spiritual Creator. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

    I'm bored.  

 

We have no objective, verifiable information or facts about God.  Without such facts

• I don't believe
• I don't know
• I don't care

I'm done with arguing, with those who disdain facts.  Have a blessed day.

 

 

 

[Pete]

Dan your reply shows you don't understand the big bang theory. You don't  understand what an agnostic is. You would rather believe a fantasy than evidence. You know nothing of science.  You just think there is your thought and imagination ( limited though it is) and all else is hate for your imaginary God. The fact you don't have one shred of demonstrable evidence does not even bother you. This is why your seen as an irritation than a credible debater and yes science can show evidence of the big bang and the building atomic bricks that created it by using the collider. You have not a shred of demonstrable evidence for your assumed God or your fantasy beliefs. It is not hate of your imagined God  but a dismissal of the premise  of believing in the assumption for which there is no evidence. 

🙄🤪😴

Edited November 7, 2019 by Pete

[Dan56]

 

1 hour ago, Pete said:

Dan your reply shows you don't understand the big bang theory. You don't  understand what an agnostic is. You would rather believe a fantasy than evidence. You know nothing of science.  You just think there is your thought and imagination ( limited though it is) and all else is hate for your imaginary God. The fact you don't have one shred of demonstrable evidence does not even bother you. This is why your seen as an irritation than a credible debater and yes science can show evidence of the big bang and the building atomic bricks that created it by using the collider. You have not a shred of demonstrable evidence for your assumed God or your fantasy beliefs. It is not hate of your imagined God  but a dismissal of the premise  of believing in the assumption for which there is no evidence. 

🙄🤪😴

 

I understand the theory, but to me its just an unproven hypothesis with no more evidential support than anything in the bible. If it all started with a Bang, I'd still believe God initiated it, even a collider needs beams of particles, nothing can come from nothing. 

Agnostic just means an absence of knowledge, to paraphrase what Jonathan just wrote, "Without such facts, I don't know".

God is spiritually discerned, you won't find any physical evidence that proves God in any science book. I understand that some people won't  accept anything that they can't factually substantiate, but you can't deduce God by the observation of physical evidence. God is Spirit and so are we. That said, I believe there is prophetic evidence, but nonbelievers are content to write it all off as coincidence. 

I simply write what I believe, its not an argument, nor meant to irritate. My intent here was to understand why my "fantasy beliefs" threaten others? We've been all through the "evidence" discussion before, with no resolution of course.

Any belief is accepted by faith. Mine makes sense to me, so I've chosen to embrace it. Everyone finds there own truth, others seem content going down a dead-end street, but that doesn't appeal to me at all. 

[RevBogovac]

7 hours ago, Dan56 said:

[...] The difference is; Preaching eternal salvation is hardly a comparable threat as shooting someone.  That's why in the free west, Christians aren't sentenced like criminals. [...]

 

There's another - very big - difference; I find child abuse (scaring and indoctrinating children with threats of eternal damnation, this topic) a far worse crime than the "average" death threat from one adult to another... too bad still a lot of our "power base" (like teachers, prosecutors and judges) is still under the influence of that indoctrination and doen't act how they should act towards child abuse.

 

 

4 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

[...] I'm done with arguing, with those who disdain facts. [...]

 

Please, don't forget that any good argument also has a third party; the audience (who might actually enjoy and learn something)...

 

 

1 hour ago, Dan56 said:

I understand the theory, but to me its just an unproven hypothesis with no more evidential support than anything in the bible. If it all started with a Bang, I'd still believe God initiated it, even a collider needs beams of particles, nothing can come from nothing.  [...]

 

Well, you just proved you actually do not understand the theory. Try reading up on the Higgs boson... anyway, that theory has two major point on your (bible's) theory:

 

1. it's mature enough to admit - a priori - it is "only" a theory. That we humans are still learning and most things we know are only the beginning of knowledge. But that we should continue learning and and build upon previous knowledge. Your theory (and the bible) actually say: you're right. Period. And (the fruits of the tree of) knowledge is actually forbidden (that should be a major givaway).

 

2. the BBT actually has a beginning of some reproducible evidence... however small (see 1.), however "trivial", it's a beginning of proof... the bible has none (except itself; great argument: I am right, because I say so).

 

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

There are religious discussions.  There are science discussions.  In the context of a religious discussion -- challenges to Cosmology theory -- and challenges to Evolution theory -- are irrelevant distractions.

 

It is all part of the Fundamentalist World View.  We have answers from the Bible.  You don't have answers.

 

Fundamentalists are not interested in Physics.  Neither are they concerned with Biology.  It is all part of defending Genesis.  As in -- Where did everything come from?  Or -- How did we get here?  It's all about defending Genesis.

 

Cosmology is a threat to the Creation Myth of Genesis.  So is Evolution.  There is no reason to discuss either, when the subjects are Damnation and Hell.  Except of course, to distract and deflect.