"God" is a tyrant.

[ding]

Its not just the Christina religion. Its all Abrahamic religions. God was very much a tyrant.

That is the position of people who do not believe that God exists in the first place. Can you explain to me how something you don't believe exists can be a tyrant?

People who do believe in God, don't see Him that way. They see Him as a loving God. Have you ever considered that maybe you don't understand the Bible at all?

Now, suddenly belief is relevant? Funny. You, and all the other Militant Christians have been insisting that our belief does not change the "truth" of Christianity, and God. Now, it does?

There is nothing funny about it. Your flawed understanding/lies regarding our beliefs do not change the truth of our beliefs. Nor does it change my argument against your bullshit.

1. The irrationality of questioning the intelligence that created existence.
2. That that irrationality was based on a flawed understanding of everything including the Word of God.
3. That people who do believe in God, see God the exact opposite as you.
4. That it is impossible for you to believe God is a tyrant because you don't believe God exists.
5. That the Jews see God as loving and caring and know more about God than you do so your understanding must be flawed.
6. That you are confirming your bias because you are a pathological lying piece of shit who has an ax to grind.

Just repeating your ad hominem, and logical fallacies, does not make them any less ad hominem, and logical fallacies.

Really? Let's look at your response to my arguments.

An Assertion without evidence.
A presumption, and an ad hominem.
A Bandwagon Fallacy
A red herring Argument
An Appeal to Authority
An Ad Hominem.

Wow, you are really an intellectual. Could your responses be anymore lame than that? Where are your arguments, Einstein? Please tell me that you have more than this? I was so hoping for an intellectual discussion especially since you went to seminary school and have a PhD in psychiatry. Is this really all you have?

 

[ding]

That is the position of people who do not believe that God exists in the first place. Can you explain to me how something you don't believe exists can be a tyrant?

People who do believe in God, don't see Him that way. They see Him as a loving God. Have you ever considered that maybe you don't understand the Bible at all?

Now, suddenly belief is relevant? Funny. You, and all the other Militant Christians have been insisting that our belief does not change the "truth" of Christianity, and God. Now, it does?

There is nothing funny about it. Your flawed understanding/lies regarding our beliefs do not change the truth of our beliefs. Nor does it change my argument against your bullshit.

1. The irrationality of questioning the intelligence that created existence.
2. That that irrationality was based on a flawed understanding of everything including the Word of God.
3. That people who do believe in God, see God the exact opposite as you.
4. That it is impossible for you to believe God is a tyrant because you don't believe God exists.
5. That the Jews see God as loving and caring and know more about God than you do so your understanding must be flawed.
6. That you are confirming your bias because you are a pathological lying piece of shit who has an ax to grind.

Just repeating your ad hominem, and logical fallacies, does not make them any less ad hominem, and logical fallacies.

The only one who is making logical fallacy arguments is you. It is irrational to question the intelligence that created existence. Only someone with a flawed understanding would be so stupid to do so. People who actually do believe in God, don't see God the way you do. This corroborates your flawed understanding of the Word of God. Jews do see God as loving and caring and Jews do know more about God than you do. So your understanding is flawed. It is impossible for you to believe God is a tyrant because you don't believe God exists. Only a dishonest person would deny these self evident truths and only a moron would buy your stupid argument. You are trying to confirm your bias and you have been proven to be a pathological liar and it is obvious that you are here to grind your ax.

You clearly do not understand what logical fallacies are, nor how they work. You are incapable of restraining yourself from engaging in personal attacks, and you have absolutely nothing rational to add to any discussion. I took you off of ignore in the hopes to, perhaps, have a rational discussion, and debate with you. Since that is clearly not possible, back to the ignore pile with you.

Seriously? You have the nerve to make these bullshit responses and then question my arguments?

Can you please do better than this, doctor?

An Assertion without evidence.
A presumption, and an ad hominem.
A Bandwagon Fallacy
A red herring Argument
An Appeal to Authority
An Ad Hominem.

Please tell me this isn't all you have. Let's see that PhD in psychiatry in action. Let's see that seminary training in action.

 

[Czernobog]

So, let's just take one example, and dispel this, shall we? You are asserting that Pascal was wrong when he proposed his Divine Wager?

Pascal was addressing skepticism. Meanwhile, as Jesus noted, prostitutes and sinners were entering the Kingdom before the wise. What I find interesting about Pascal's Wager is that he is addressing the idea of a heavenly afterlife. He thought that since this cannot be proven, why not jump through the hoops just in case it is true.

While ignoring the alternative that he also presented. And it was not simply, you don't get to be with God. And you are completely misstating his position. it wasn't just "Choose Heaven, just in case it was true". It was also don't choose Hell, in case that is true, because of how awful, and painful it would be. Again, you want to pretend that part wasn't part of his proposition.

Jesus speaks of something much greater. People can enter into the Kingdom now--and this Kingdom entered into in our earthy life extends into eternity. If people don't find joy in Kingdom living in this life, why would they treasure it upon death?

So, again, it is your contention, that if I choose "Not God", my only "consequence" is that I go to a "Godless neighborhood". That's it. No punishment. No pain. No suffering. Just. Not God. That's all?

 

[Czernobog]

Now, suddenly belief is relevant? Funny. You, and all the other Militant Christians have been insisting that our belief does not change the "truth" of Christianity, and God. Now, it does?

There is nothing funny about it. Your flawed understanding/lies regarding our beliefs do not change the truth of our beliefs. Nor does it change my argument against your bullshit.

1. The irrationality of questioning the intelligence that created existence.
2. That that irrationality was based on a flawed understanding of everything including the Word of God.
3. That people who do believe in God, see God the exact opposite as you.
4. That it is impossible for you to believe God is a tyrant because you don't believe God exists.
5. That the Jews see God as loving and caring and know more about God than you do so your understanding must be flawed.
6. That you are confirming your bias because you are a pathological lying piece of shit who has an ax to grind.

Just repeating your ad hominem, and logical fallacies, does not make them any less ad hominem, and logical fallacies.

The only one who is making logical fallacy arguments is you. It is irrational to question the intelligence that created existence. Only someone with a flawed understanding would be so stupid to do so. People who actually do believe in God, don't see God the way you do. This corroborates your flawed understanding of the Word of God. Jews do see God as loving and caring and Jews do know more about God than you do. So your understanding is flawed. It is impossible for you to believe God is a tyrant because you don't believe God exists. Only a dishonest person would deny these self evident truths and only a moron would buy your stupid argument. You are trying to confirm your bias and you have been proven to be a pathological liar and it is obvious that you are here to grind your ax.

You clearly do not understand what logical fallacies are, nor how they work. You are incapable of restraining yourself from engaging in personal attacks, and you have absolutely nothing rational to add to any discussion. I took you off of ignore in the hopes to, perhaps, have a rational discussion, and debate with you. Since that is clearly not possible, back to the ignore pile with you.

Seriously? You have the nerve to make these bullshit responses and then question my arguments?

Can you please do better than this, doctor?

An Assertion without evidence.
A presumption, and an ad hominem.
A Bandwagon Fallacy
A red herring Argument
An Appeal to Authority
An Ad Hominem.

Please tell me this isn't all you have. Let's see that PhD in psychiatry in action. Let's see that seminary training in action.

Why would I need more than that? There can be no rational response to a logically flawed argument. This is why the only response to a logically flawed argument is to point out the flaw in the logic.

 

[ding]

There is nothing funny about it. Your flawed understanding/lies regarding our beliefs do not change the truth of our beliefs. Nor does it change my argument against your bullshit.

1. The irrationality of questioning the intelligence that created existence.
2. That that irrationality was based on a flawed understanding of everything including the Word of God.
3. That people who do believe in God, see God the exact opposite as you.
4. That it is impossible for you to believe God is a tyrant because you don't believe God exists.
5. That the Jews see God as loving and caring and know more about God than you do so your understanding must be flawed.
6. That you are confirming your bias because you are a pathological lying piece of shit who has an ax to grind.

Just repeating your ad hominem, and logical fallacies, does not make them any less ad hominem, and logical fallacies.

The only one who is making logical fallacy arguments is you. It is irrational to question the intelligence that created existence. Only someone with a flawed understanding would be so stupid to do so. People who actually do believe in God, don't see God the way you do. This corroborates your flawed understanding of the Word of God. Jews do see God as loving and caring and Jews do know more about God than you do. So your understanding is flawed. It is impossible for you to believe God is a tyrant because you don't believe God exists. Only a dishonest person would deny these self evident truths and only a moron would buy your stupid argument. You are trying to confirm your bias and you have been proven to be a pathological liar and it is obvious that you are here to grind your ax.

You clearly do not understand what logical fallacies are, nor how they work. You are incapable of restraining yourself from engaging in personal attacks, and you have absolutely nothing rational to add to any discussion. I took you off of ignore in the hopes to, perhaps, have a rational discussion, and debate with you. Since that is clearly not possible, back to the ignore pile with you.

Seriously? You have the nerve to make these bullshit responses and then question my arguments?

Can you please do better than this, doctor?

An Assertion without evidence.
A presumption, and an ad hominem.
A Bandwagon Fallacy
A red herring Argument
An Appeal to Authority
An Ad Hominem.

Please tell me this isn't all you have. Let's see that PhD in psychiatry in action. Let's see that seminary training in action.

Why would I need more than that? There can be no rational response to a logically flawed argument. This is why the only response to a logically flawed argument is to point out the flaw in the logic.

Then show me how my arguments are illogical using logic instead of rhetoric, dumbass.

 

[ding]

There is nothing funny about it. Your flawed understanding/lies regarding our beliefs do not change the truth of our beliefs. Nor does it change my argument against your bullshit.

1. The irrationality of questioning the intelligence that created existence.
2. That that irrationality was based on a flawed understanding of everything including the Word of God.
3. That people who do believe in God, see God the exact opposite as you.
4. That it is impossible for you to believe God is a tyrant because you don't believe God exists.
5. That the Jews see God as loving and caring and know more about God than you do so your understanding must be flawed.
6. That you are confirming your bias because you are a pathological lying piece of shit who has an ax to grind.

Just repeating your ad hominem, and logical fallacies, does not make them any less ad hominem, and logical fallacies.

The only one who is making logical fallacy arguments is you. It is irrational to question the intelligence that created existence. Only someone with a flawed understanding would be so stupid to do so. People who actually do believe in God, don't see God the way you do. This corroborates your flawed understanding of the Word of God. Jews do see God as loving and caring and Jews do know more about God than you do. So your understanding is flawed. It is impossible for you to believe God is a tyrant because you don't believe God exists. Only a dishonest person would deny these self evident truths and only a moron would buy your stupid argument. You are trying to confirm your bias and you have been proven to be a pathological liar and it is obvious that you are here to grind your ax.

You clearly do not understand what logical fallacies are, nor how they work. You are incapable of restraining yourself from engaging in personal attacks, and you have absolutely nothing rational to add to any discussion. I took you off of ignore in the hopes to, perhaps, have a rational discussion, and debate with you. Since that is clearly not possible, back to the ignore pile with you.

Seriously? You have the nerve to make these bullshit responses and then question my arguments?

Can you please do better than this, doctor?

An Assertion without evidence.
A presumption, and an ad hominem.
A Bandwagon Fallacy
A red herring Argument
An Appeal to Authority
An Ad Hominem.

Please tell me this isn't all you have. Let's see that PhD in psychiatry in action. Let's see that seminary training in action.

Why would I need more than that? There can be no rational response to a logically flawed argument. This is why the only response to a logically flawed argument is to point out the flaw in the logic.

Here you go... have at them. This time try using logic to refute them.

1. It is irrational to question the intelligence that created existence.
2. Therefore, to question the intelligence that created existence can only be because of a flawed understanding of everything including the Word of God.
3. It is illogical for you to believe God is a tyrant because you don't believe God exists.
4. People who do believe in God, see God the exact opposite as you and are better experts on God and the Word of God than you are.
5. Jews see God as loving and caring and know more about God than you do so your understanding must be flawed.
6. You are confirming your bias and actively seek out believers for the express purpose of ridiculing them in an effort to subordinate religion.

 

[Czernobog]

Just repeating your ad hominem, and logical fallacies, does not make them any less ad hominem, and logical fallacies.

The only one who is making logical fallacy arguments is you. It is irrational to question the intelligence that created existence. Only someone with a flawed understanding would be so stupid to do so. People who actually do believe in God, don't see God the way you do. This corroborates your flawed understanding of the Word of God. Jews do see God as loving and caring and Jews do know more about God than you do. So your understanding is flawed. It is impossible for you to believe God is a tyrant because you don't believe God exists. Only a dishonest person would deny these self evident truths and only a moron would buy your stupid argument. You are trying to confirm your bias and you have been proven to be a pathological liar and it is obvious that you are here to grind your ax.

You clearly do not understand what logical fallacies are, nor how they work. You are incapable of restraining yourself from engaging in personal attacks, and you have absolutely nothing rational to add to any discussion. I took you off of ignore in the hopes to, perhaps, have a rational discussion, and debate with you. Since that is clearly not possible, back to the ignore pile with you.

Seriously? You have the nerve to make these bullshit responses and then question my arguments?

Can you please do better than this, doctor?

An Assertion without evidence.
A presumption, and an ad hominem.
A Bandwagon Fallacy
A red herring Argument
An Appeal to Authority
An Ad Hominem.

Please tell me this isn't all you have. Let's see that PhD in psychiatry in action. Let's see that seminary training in action.

Why would I need more than that? There can be no rational response to a logically flawed argument. This is why the only response to a logically flawed argument is to point out the flaw in the logic.

Here you go... have at them. This time try using logic to refute them.

1. It is irrational to question the intelligence that created existence.
2. Therefore, to question the intelligence that created existence can only be because of a flawed understanding of everything including the Word of God.
3. It is illogical for you to believe God is a tyrant because you don't believe God exists.
4. People who do believe in God, see God the exact opposite as you and are better experts on God and the Word of God than you are.
5. Jews see God as loving and caring and know more about God than you do so your understanding must be flawed.
6. You are confirming your bias and actively seek out believers for the express purpose of ridiculing them in an effort to subordinate religion.

Oh, for fuck's sake! I already did. I pointed out how every one of those sophomoric points was based on a logical fallacy. I even named for you the logical fallacy they were based on. When you claimed they weren't, I proceeded to explain what each of those fallacies means, and how, and why your ridiculous points were, in fact, examples of those logical fallacies. Because they are, in fact, examples of logical fallacies, that makes each, and every one of them logically flawed. Just give up. You are just making yourself look silly, now. and, for the record, you are on ignore, I am only aware that you are responding, because my smart phone keeps shouting at me. I will not respond to someone as irrational, and illogical as you, again. Toddle on off to the kiddie table, and find someone who might not recognise all of your logically flawed arguments for what they are. Adults are trying to talk here.

 

[Meriweather]

While ignoring the alternative that he also presented. And it was not simply, you don't get to be with God. And you are completely misstating his position. it wasn't just "Choose Heaven, just in case it was true". It was also don't choose Hell, in case that is true, because of how awful, and painful it would be. Again, you want to pretend that part wasn't part of his proposition.

So, again, it is your contention, that if I choose "Not God", my only "consequence" is that I go to a "Godless neighborhood". That's it. No punishment. No pain. No suffering. Just. Not God. That's all?

What are you talking about? I am missing no point. I am pointing out that Pascal is addressing the question of God as something that cannot be known until the afterlife. On the other hand, the point of Christianity is that it takes place/begins in this life. People can enter the Kingdom of God today, a Kingdom that stretches into eternity. There is no need to wait until death for the blessings that arrive today, here on Earth, for those who choose to enter the Kingdom. There is no need of a wager here. Try the Kingdom. If you don't like it, then leave. It is not a prison.

 

[Czernobog]

While ignoring the alternative that he also presented. And it was not simply, you don't get to be with God. And you are completely misstating his position. it wasn't just "Choose Heaven, just in case it was true". It was also don't choose Hell, in case that is true, because of how awful, and painful it would be. Again, you want to pretend that part wasn't part of his proposition.

So, again, it is your contention, that if I choose "Not God", my only "consequence" is that I go to a "Godless neighborhood". That's it. No punishment. No pain. No suffering. Just. Not God. That's all?

What are you talking about? I am missing no point. I am pointing out that Pascal is addressing the question of God as something that cannot be known until the afterlife. On the other hand, the point of Christianity is that it takes place/begins in this life. People can enter the Kingdom of God today, a Kingdom that stretches into eternity. There is no need to wait until death for the blessings that arrive today, here on Earth, for those who choose to enter the Kingdom. There is no need of a wager here. Try the Kingdom. If you don't like it, then leave. It is not a prison.

Okay. I did. I found it wanting. I like my atheism. So, the next time a Christian tries to "warn me about Hell", you're telling me that I can tell them, from a fellow Christian, that they are full of shit, and don't know what they are talking about?

 

[ding]

Of course there is evidence of intelligence that created existence, you are living in it. It is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence. The laws of nature existed before space and time. The potential for beings that know and create existed before space and time because of those laws. Beings that know and create arose because of those laws. You are too stupid to see it or understand it.

You have tried this argument, and failed repeatedly. And you end your fallacious assertion without evidence with an ad hominem "You are too stupid..." is a personal attack. I honestly think that you just can't help yourself. You appear to be an extremely angry person, and you have an uncontrollable need to attack other people.

Are you kidding me? I have smoked you every single time.

If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning. The problem with a cyclical universe is with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. If it is a periodic universe then the entropy will increase with each cycle. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law of nature which tells us that entropy can only increase or stay the same. Entropy can never decrease. Which means that in a finite amount of time, a finite system will reach a maximum state of disorder which is called thermal equilibrium and then it will stay in that state. A cyclical universe cannot avoid this problem. The model by Steinhardt and Turok does not have this problem. They have cycles but the size of the cycle increases with time. So the next cycle is bigger than the first. So in this sense the total entropy of the universe still increases but the entropy you see in your limited region may not grow. This model does no contradict the inflation model because since each cycle is bigger than the previous cycle you still have expansion. And since you still have expansion, it still has to have a beginning because if you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. The best explanation for how the universe began is the inflation model. It is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself. Alexander Vilenkin

“In my life as scientist I have come upon two major problems which, though rooted in science, though they would occur in this form only to a scientist, project beyond science, and are I think ultimately insoluble as science. That is hardly to be wondered at, since one involves consciousness and the other, cosmology. The consciousness problem was hardly avoidable by one who has spent most of his life studying mechanisms of vision. We have learned a lot, we hope to learn much more; but none of it touches or even points, however tentatively, in the direction of what it means to see. Our observations in human eyes and nervous systems and in those of frogs are basically much alike. I know that I see; but does a frog see? It reacts to light; so do cameras, garage doors, any number of photoelectric devices. But does it see? Is it aware that it is reacting? There is nothing I can do as a scientist to answer that question, no way that I can identify either the presence or absence of consciousness. I believe consciousness to be a permanent condition that involves all sensation and perception. Consciousness seems to me to be wholly impervious to science. The second problem involves the special properties of our universe. Life seems increasingly to be part of the order of nature. We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds life? It has occurred to me lately - I must confess with some shock at first to my scientific sensibilities - that both questions might be brought into some degree of congruence. This is with the assumption that Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.” George Wald, 1984, “Life and Mind in the Universe”, International Journal of Quantum Chemistry: Quantum Biology Symposium 11, 1984: 1-15.

The irrationality of questing the intelligence that created existence is self evident and can only be attributed to an error in understanding on your part. There is no other possible explanation.

Again, this entire statement is nothing more than an ad hominem. I'm beginning to think that, perhaps I am mistaken, and you just do not understand what a personal attack consists of. Has no one ever explained how logical debate works? Are you ignorant of what it means to attack your opponent, rather than their argument?

No. This is called logic. The moment you meet the intelligence behind Creation, you will realize what a dumbass you have been. You won't be arguing that He was the dumbass. You won't be telling Him how He should have done it. If you can't understand this, you really are stupid.

The people who believe in God understand their faith better than you do. There is no bandwagon except the one you are driving. It is absurd to believe that you - a pathological liar - would understand the faith of another better than the one who practices that faith.

Actually, that is the very definition of a bandwagon argument. Just because a whole bunch of other people who are wrong happen to agree with you, that does not make you any less wrong.

Except in this case the difference is it is their faith and not your faith. You are on the atheist bandwagon telling believers about their bandwagon. Given that they see God as loving and caring and you don't, it is illogical to believe that you know their God better than they do, especially when you don't even believe He exists.

It is self evident that you do not believe that God exists. It is self evident that it is not possible for you to believe that something exists can be responsible for anything; including being a tyrant. The only red herring is your red herring argument which lacks intellect, reason and evidence.

My belief in God is irrelevant to the arguments put forth in the OP. That makes your entire line of attacking my lack of belief a red herring. Again, do you not understand the concept of logical fallacies? I am beginning to see a pattern here.

Actually it is not irrelevant, it is illogical. Why? Because you don't believe in God and know nothing about our faith other than you don't believe He exists. Why do you think you know our faith better than we know it? You don't and you never will. Your only purpose here is to ridicule believes and subordinate religion. You see Christianity as a rival religion and you attack it as such. Your arguments are flawed because you are subjective.

Yes, I am appealing to authority. They are the authority. Anyone who scoffs at accepting knowledge on authority as you just did would have to go through life knowing next to nothing as 99% of everything you know you accepted on authority. You only know things because others who you trusted told you. And here you are scoffing at authority. You are pathological.

xcept that is not how debate works. Just because Jews were the first group of people to put forth the irrational narrativeof a "loving God" contrary to the evidence of the actions of that God, that does not make your argument more valid. And, again, you end your statement with another personal attack. You really can't help yourself, can you?

That is exactly how logical arguments work. Facts are based on knowledge. Knowledge comes from authorities. For you to say it is an irrational narrative is ludicrous. Historians will tell you that the 3000 year continued existence of a tiny people who defeated the superpower of the day and went on to make contributions to mankind that were disproportionate to their numbers is inexplicable. When asked about this they give all credit to God. They see nothing special about themselves at all. They see meaning in their suffering, not a tyrannical God. And they believe in Him, while you don't.

"Over three hundred years ago King Louis XIV of France asked Blaise Pascal, the great French philosopher of his day, to give him proof of the existence of miracles. Without a moment's hesitation, Pascal answered,"Why, the Jews, your Majesty-the Jews."

Pascal is but one of many scholars and students of Jewish history who have been awed by a story that seems inexplicable by the ordinary rules of logic. When Arnold Toynbee completed his classic ten-volume analysis of the rise and fall of human civilizations, A Study of History, he was troubled by only one seeming refutation of his universal rules governing the inexorable decline of every people on earth. Only the Jews had survived, in defiance of Toynbee's carefully reasoned analysis. So Toynbee proclaimed the Jews nothing more than"a vestigial remnant," a people destined soon to perish. But somehow, in spite of the most brutal attempts throughout history to destroy the children of Israel-from crusades, inquisitions, and pogroms to the"Final Solution" of the Holocaust-Jews have defied all predictions of their demise.

Mark Twain was an agnostic and a self-acknowledged skeptic, yet he could not help but be overwhelmed by this remarkable truth. This is what he wrote in 1899:

The Egyptian, the Babylonian, and the Persian rose, filled the planet with sound and splendor, then faded to dream-stuff and passed away. The Greek and Roman followed, made a vast noise and they are gone. Other peoples have sprung up, and held their torch high for a time, but it burned out and they sit in twilight now or have vanished. The Jew saw them all, beat them all, and is now what he always was, exhibiting no decadence, no infirmities of age, no weakening of his parts, no slowing of his energies, no dulling of his alert and aggressive mind. All things are mortal but the Jew. All other forces pass, but he remains. What is the secret of his immortality?

The writer Leo Nikolaivitch Tolstoy, best known for War and Peace, was not an agnostic. He was a very religious Russian Orthodox Christian. In an 1891 article entitled"What Is a Jew?" he wrote:

The Jew is the emblem of eternity. He who neither slaughter nor torture of thousands of years could destroy, he who neither fire, nor sword, nor Inquisition was able to wipe off the face of the earth. He who was the first to produce the Oracles of God. He who has been for so long the Guardian of Prophecy and has transmitted it to the rest of the world. Such a nation cannot be destroyed. The Jew is as everlasting as Eternity itself."

The Miracle of Jewish History

The Jews did not see God as tyrannical. They found meaning in suffering. Unlike your sorry ass.

"From the eighth to the sixth centuries B. C., during which Israel and Judah tottered before the aggressive power of Syria, Assyria, Egypt, and Babylon, the prophets found meaning in their predicament by seeing it as God's way of underscoring the demand for righteousness. God was using Israel's enemies against her. The experience of defeat and exile was teaching the Jews the true worth of freedom. Another lesson was that those who remain faithful in adversity will be vindicated. Stated abstractly, the deepest meaning the Jews found in their Exile was the meaning of vicarious suffering: meaning that enters lives that are willing to endure pain that others might be spared it. "the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.""

07 Judaism

You are confirming your bias. You are grinding an ax. Yes, I am attacking your lack of character too, but only after I destroyed your intellectually lacking bullshit excuses of an argument.

Do I need to point out the personal attack?

I am providing your motivation behind your illogical and unreasonable arguments. You are a liar. You never went to seminary school and you don't have a PhD in psychiatric. You are a militant atheist who seeks to subordinate religion.

 

[Meriweather]

Okay. I did. I found it wanting. I like my atheism. So, the next time a Christian tries to "warn me about Hell", you're telling me that I can tell them, from a fellow Christian, that they are full of shit, and don't know what they are talking about?

When discussing hell with non-Catholic believers, I bring up what Paul said in Romans: Unbelievers will be judged by their own hearts. I also bring up the passage where Jesus discusses who will be going to hell. This passage says nothing about non-believers; it discusses those who do not help those in need.

Some non-Catholic Christians seem to relish the passage that says, Those who do not believe are already condemned. Condemned to what? It certainly doesn't say "hell." If I choose not to wear a coat on a cold day, I condemn myself to being cold. John goes on to say that those who believe will see a great light and be able to live in that light. Those who do not believe will remain in darkness. I see John as talking about condemnation in this life--not the afterlife.

I grew up in a family where some were atheists. I married an atheist whose family is atheist. They, too, like their atheism. While I can observe at times this atheism causes them to dwell in darkness in this life, I have never seen anything in any of them that would cause them to neglect the less fortunate, or having personal "proof" of God would spit in His face. What I see is that they have condemned themselves to forgoing God's presence in this life. I don't see them saying they will absolutely reject God in the next.

 

[foggedinn]

Had to Google Pascal's wager.
I had the misfortune of calling on the name of Jesus and being answered immediately. It did save me from a life of false imprisonment, but it has been a heavy cross to bare.
At least I don't have to deal with doubt.

 

[hobelim]

Proposed: The Christian God is a tyrant determined to force everyone on the planet to convert to Christianity, and worship as a Christian, and the illusion of "Free Will" is a pretence that he created to convince you that observance was your own idea.

How is this god forcing you to convert to Christianity?

It's the whole fear of consequences thing. The whole reason for giving such detailed descriptions of all of the horrors that await those who "reject God", and "
choose a life of sin" is to make the consequences of doing so frightening that one chooses to obey. When the consequences of disobedience is so severe, and unpleasant that it terrifies one into obedience, then obedience is no longer really a choice, is it?

You are a human being who is free to make choices. Lots of choices.

Sure. I'll give you a choice:

Choice A: Open door #1. when you do, you wife is going to be cut into pieces in front of you. You child is going to be anally raped, and ground up, and fed to the remander of your family, while you are forced to watch them eat, and your dog is going to be killed, skinned, fried, and force fed to you.

Choice B: Open Door # 2. When you do, you eill be given $1 Billion dollars, paid any way you will, tax free, a free home anywhere in the world that you would like to live, a vehicle of your choice, with free petrol for the rest of your life, and your children's compete education will be paid for, up through, and including any graduate program they may wish to persue.

I am going to lay out, precisely the two options that are available to you, and then ask you to choose. Now, you are a human being. You have a "choice", right? You see, a choice in which one choice is so terrifying that it is practically inconceivable, is not a choice at all.

If you choose to set aside rational thought and just believe that God came down from the sky and became an edible man it will defile and contaminate your mind until you go mad and descend into the netherworld regions of unrestrained imaginations, tormented souls in hells keeping, a dark and lifeless place from which many never return.

Everyone has heard all about hell and how unspeakable the suffering would be, and anyone can see for themselves the terrifying and disturbing consequences that anyone experiences in the very day that they fill their head with irrational superstitious garbage, but it hasn't stopped many people from praying to statues for favors, worshipping a human being, lying in the name of God, or eating the flesh of Jesus in the form of a lifeless matzo made by human hands.

So the fear of hell, even flailing about in its sulfurous flames, isn't enough to stop some people who are bent on being stupid for as long as they live just because some low-life convinced them that they would get presents from God after they died if they did.

 

[Brynmr]

The reason why Czernobog didn't answer my post 93 is because he knows checkmate when he sees it. Your assertion of being forced is nothing but another trashing of Christianity. You're a phony.

 

[Czernobog]

So you believe in the Christian god and the Hell that Christianity tells you, exists?

Is my belief relevant?

Of course it is. You're the one claiming you're being forced. So answer the question.

You seem to think that "forced" is referring to only active force. You want to ignore the concept of coercion. Again, why is my belief relevant? Is it your contention that hell will cease to exist with my disbelief? Is it your contention that my disbelief will pr3event my being condemned to Hell?

 

[Czernobog]

The reason why Czernobog didn't answer my post 93 is because he knows checkmate when he sees it. Your assertion of being forced is nothing but another trashing of Christianity. You're a phony.

I didn't answer it, because it is a diversion. You want to pretend that my belief, or lack thereof, somehow affects the existence of Hell. However, if my disbelief affects the existence of Hell, then Hell is not real, and is only an illusion that requires belief. In which case, Hell is irrelevant to everyone, because that meant that all anyone has to do, including anyone who accepts the Christian Cosmology, is simply choose to disbelief in Hell, and *poof* it ceases to exist.

You see things that are actually real, exist whether one believes in them, or not. Your brain exists. You may have never seen it. You may never have seen a scan of it. You may have no actual physical evidence of its existence. Now, do not make the mistake of this being analogous to God, because it is possible to receive objective physical evidence of your brain's existence; I am simply saying that it is possible that you have never seen such evidence. So, you may choose to believe that you do not actually have a brain. However, your disbelief in your brain's existence does not, in fact, have an effect on the actual existence of your brain. Things that are real, exist, whether one believes in them, or not.

So, either Hell is real, in which case my belief in it is irrelevant. Or my belief in Hell is necessary to its existence, in which case it is not real.

Furthermore, this was never a debate in what I do, or do not believe in. This was a discussion of the irrationality of the concept of a "Loving God" who must coerce obedience, and worship through threats of eternal suffering, and pain. That concept is irrational, regardless of my personal beliefs.

Because you were incapable of rationally reconciling that irrationality, you, instead, hoped to shift the argument to one of an attack on me.

 

[emilynghiem]

Proposed: The Christian God is a tyrant determined to force everyone on the planet to convert to Christianity, and worship as a Christian, and the illusion of "Free Will" is a pretence that he created to convince you that observance was your own idea.

Otherwise, why fill the Bible with references of the eternal torture, and suffering that would befall non-believers after judgement, when one dies. Now, the first question that is going to be asked is going to be an attempt at a distraction: "Why should I care what the Bible says, since I'm an Atheist?" However, it doesn't matter what my theological position is, does it? "The truth is the truth," right? So, if the Bible is the Truth, then the things that are in the Bible are "the Truth" whether I believe them, or not. Which, brings us right back around to my question. If God is not a tyrant, and does not demand worship from everyone, then why threaten anyone who does not believe? If God does not care one way, or the other, if someone chooses to believe, or not, why bother with all of the threats?

Dear Czernobog
Try substituting NATURE or LIFE for "God."
is NATURE a tyrant for its preexistent laws and ways of how the world works?
Is LIFE a tyrant for how we are born, go through stages of growth learning and development, before we die?

now, isn't our relationship with NATURE or LIFE
up to us to decide if we are going to work with it or try to fight against it.

isn't part of the learning curve making peace and learning to work with
laws of the universe, nature and life. And isn't that up to human conscience to deal with?

Except the Bible doesn't talk about living this life in harmony with God. It, repeatedly, talks about the eternal gnashing of teeth, torture, suffering, and damnation, after death that comes to those who do not join in the cult of Jesus worshipers.

You want to make it sound as if Christianity is no different than Zen Buddhism, except we both know that's not true.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

And yet the Jews saw God as a loving and caring God. Is it possible that you don't understand what you read? How can they be wrong and you be right when they are the one's who were entrusted with bringing the Word of God to man. Do you believe that you know more than them?

Dear ding
If you can imagine for one second if your brain saw the world as a self-existing force of its own, and did not see things as personfied but neutral and impersonal. Wouldn't you question what the heck is it with all these people trying to make something out of nothing?

I don't see how it is fair to JUDGE anyone for questioning and downright rejecting what makes NO SENSE to the secular mind.

Would you judge someone who is color blind for questioning or rejecting what is this crap everyone is calling COLOR when their eyes/brains just can't see any such range. What if COLOR was pushed in your face and you were judged and rejected, condemned because you didn't see or believe there was any such thing, and thought people were making it up.

Well, some minds AREN'T DESIGNED to see things the same way. We need scientists' brains to work differently from artists, in order to focus objectively and not be distracted by "relative interpretations" that the artistic mind may be better suited for.

If we are to believe that God is in charge of designing things for a reason, don't you think the minds of secular gentiles are supposed to think in neutral terms and not see things the same way?

How are we going to blame people for how their brains are designed, and then give credit and have faith in God being in absolute control where those plans and designs are supreme and "perfect."

If so, then nontheists are designed to operate exactly as they do, and we are supposed to learn to work with what we are given.

Maybe I see things differently because I'm like "bilingual" -- I still see things and prefer to say things like a secular/nontheist in regular terms, but I also see and understand what Christians and Deists see who personify God and Christ, and I have learned THAT language as well. So I can toggle between both worlds, and at least appreciate how people experience and express things. They don't necessarily understand how the other operates, but if we can translate back and forth, at least we can share and communicate.

We certainly don't need to be judging each other for how we see and say things.

If that's how people's minds and lives are designed, I'm certainly not one to argue with God!

Think about this ding and tell me how you resolve this in your own words. My way is different, but I'd like to know how you see it.

Thanks! Appreciate you, and trust you are here and designed to make great contributions to reaching an understanding in these very areas. So your perspective and insights are very important, I hope you know that.

 

[emilynghiem]

So you believe in the Christian god and the Hell that Christianity tells you, exists?

Is my belief relevant?

Of course it is. You're the one claiming you're being forced. So answer the question.

You seem to think that "forced" is referring to only active force. You want to ignore the concept of coercion. Again, why is my belief relevant? Is it your contention that hell will cease to exist with my disbelief? Is it your contention that my disbelief will pr3event my being condemned to Hell?

Dear Czernobog
I'd say that what causes suffering ie sends people through hell is unforgiveness, holding on to ill will, living by retribution, and generally responding to negative with more negative so people stay stuck in an unhealthy destructive cycle.

This isn't something that needs to be coerced.
It is a natural law of cause and effect, karma or justice, whatever you call it.

With kids we might push them to learn by reinforcing boundaries for protection and safety. for adults, we learn by trial and error and suffering consequences of our actions.

The real message is forgiveness, having charity and compassion for each other despite our worst faults, which overcomes fear and allows us to make corrections (instead of fear and avoidance of change if we don't let go and have more compassion than distrust toward each other's motives).

the key to faith is when forgiveness comes first, by leap of faith, then the corrections and understanding follow "after the fact."
This defies normal human logic, where we would expect the correction to come first, proof of people's intent and actions, before we forgive. but that's not how life works.

If we wait for conditions to be met before we forgive, we can stay stuck in negative emotions and these prevent us from SOLVING the problems, so it creates a vicious trap. To break through this deadlock, that's why the forgiveness untangles the emotions first AND THEN the logical problem solving, correction, restitution and other steps necessary to restore "justice and peace" follow AFTER the decision to forgive. So it's backwards, and that's where FAITH is required to make this leap.

So Czernobog that's the best explanation I can give for what it means to have faith first, in peace and justice, BEFORE the facts and proof follow afterward. As "secular gentiles" who use reason and logic, if we look at real life examples of how people have forgiven and healed of really disastrous damaging wrongs, then we can see "proof" that this process works. We can understand it somewhat in advance of making the choice.

But when it comes to real life issues to forgive, we still have to make that choice to take that "leap of faith". We are not guaranteed our generosity and forgiveness will not be abused, we have the choice to forgive "unconditionally" so we agree not to depend on the outcome to be at peace. And that's where true peace comes from, letting go of those material conditions and expectations "on outcome" (as ding so neatly puts it).

So that's the faith and peace of mind that both the Christians and the Buddhists teach. It takes both the heart to choose love over fear, and takes the mind agreeing to let go, so that's why we have Christianity to teach the ways of the heart and Buddhism to teach the ways of the mind, and we need both in order to reconcile our consciences where heart and mind can agree in peace.

 

[Czernobog]

So you believe in the Christian god and the Hell that Christianity tells you, exists?

Is my belief relevant?

Of course it is. You're the one claiming you're being forced. So answer the question.

You seem to think that "forced" is referring to only active force. You want to ignore the concept of coercion. Again, why is my belief relevant? Is it your contention that hell will cease to exist with my disbelief? Is it your contention that my disbelief will pr3event my being condemned to Hell?

Dear Czernobog
I'd say that what causes suffering ie sends people through hell is unforgiveness, holding on to ill will, living by retribution, and generally responding to negative with more negative so people stay stuck in an unhealthy destructive cycle.

This isn't something that needs to be coerced.
It is a natural law of cause and effect, karma or justice, whatever you call it.

With kids we might push them to learn by reinforcing boundaries for protection and safety. for adults, we learn by trial and error and suffering consequences of our actions.

The real message is forgiveness, having charity and compassion for each other despite our worst faults, which overcomes fear and allows us to make corrections (instead of fear and avoidance of change if we don't let go and have more compassion than distrust toward each other's motives).

the key to faith is when forgiveness comes first, by leap of faith, then the corrections and understanding follow "after the fact."
This defies normal human logic, where we would expect the correction to come first, proof of people's intent and actions, before we forgive. but that's not how life works.

If we wait for conditions to be met before we forgive, we can stay stuck in negative emotions and these prevent us from SOLVING the problems, so it creates a vicious trap. To break through this deadlock, that's why the forgiveness untangles the emotions first AND THEN the logical problem solving, correction, restitution and other steps necessary to restore "justice and peace" follow AFTER the decision to forgive. So it's backwards, and that's where FAITH is required to make this leap.

So Czernobog that's the best explanation I can give for what it means to have faith first, in peace and justice, BEFORE the facts and proof follow afterward. As "secular gentiles" who use reason and logic, if we look at real life examples of how people have forgiven and healed of really disastrous damaging wrongs, then we can see "proof" that this process works. We can understand it somewhat in advance of making the choice.

But when it comes to real life issues to forgive, we still have to make that choice to take that "leap of faith". We are not guaranteed our generosity and forgiveness will not be abused, we have the choice to forgive "unconditionally" so we agree not to depend on the outcome to be at peace. And that's where true peace comes from, letting go of those material conditions and expectations "on outcome" (as ding so neatly puts it).

So that's the faith and peace of mind that both the Christians and the Buddhists teach. It takes both the heart to choose love over fear, and takes the mind agreeing to let go, so that's why we have Christianity to teach the ways of the heart and Buddhism to teach the ways of the mind, and we need both in order to reconcile our consciences where heart and mind can agree in peace.

We've already established, Emily, that you have a very different perspective of "Christianity" - and I use that term loosely in your case - than does pretty much everyone else who calls themselves a Christian. So, this thread, and the question posed, and the feedback it is generating, isn't really directed at you.

Although, on that note, do feel free to engage ding to your beady little heart's desire. Lemme know how that works out for ya.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[emilynghiem]

Proposed: The Christian God is a tyrant determined to force everyone on the planet to convert to Christianity, and worship as a Christian, and the illusion of "Free Will" is a pretence that he created to convince you that observance was your own idea.

Otherwise, why fill the Bible with references of the eternal torture, and suffering that would befall non-believers after judgement, when one dies. Now, the first question that is going to be asked is going to be an attempt at a distraction: "Why should I care what the Bible says, since I'm an Atheist?" However, it doesn't matter what my theological position is, does it? "The truth is the truth," right? So, if the Bible is the Truth, then the things that are in the Bible are "the Truth" whether I believe them, or not. Which, brings us right back around to my question. If God is not a tyrant, and does not demand worship from everyone, then why threaten anyone who does not believe? If God does not care one way, or the other, if someone chooses to believe, or not, why bother with all of the threats?

Dear Czernobog
Try substituting NATURE or LIFE for "God."
is NATURE a tyrant for its preexistent laws and ways of how the world works?
Is LIFE a tyrant for how we are born, go through stages of growth learning and development, before we die?

now, isn't our relationship with NATURE or LIFE
up to us to decide if we are going to work with it or try to fight against it.

isn't part of the learning curve making peace and learning to work with
laws of the universe, nature and life. And isn't that up to human conscience to deal with?

Except the Bible doesn't talk about living this life in harmony with God. It, repeatedly, talks about the eternal gnashing of teeth, torture, suffering, and damnation, after death that comes to those who do not join in the cult of Jesus worshipers.

You want to make it sound as if Christianity is no different than Zen Buddhism, except we both know that's not true.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

I think you are exaggerating "according to the consensus opinion of modern Bible scholars, the word "hell" did not appear a single time, not even once, in the Hebrew Bible, or Old Testament (OT). And the word "hell" is very hard to find in the New Testament (NT) as well. You can easily confirm this fact yourself, by using an online Bible search tool to scan various Bible translations for the word "hell."

"The word "hell" does not appear in the Bible because:

(1) The Hebrew word Sheol clearly means "the grave," not "hell." Everyone went to Sheol when they died, not just the wicked. Sheol was not a place of suffering, because in Job 14:13, a much-beset Job asked to go to Sheol to escape suffering! He clearly meant that if he died, his suffering would end in the grave. Sheol was not a place where God was absent, because King David said in Psalm 139:8 that when he made his bed in Sheol (i.e., when he died and was laid in his grave), God would still be with him. And Sheol was not an eternal inescapable prison, because in Psalm 49:15 the Sons of Korah said that God would redeem them from Sheol, by which they meant that they would be resurrected from the grave to new life. Furthermore, the prophet Ezekiel and the apostle Paul agreed that all Israel would be saved, and yet in Genesis 37:35, Israel himself said that he would be reunited with his son Joseph in Sheol. How can all Israel be saved if Israel himself is in "hell"? In each case Sheol clearly means "the grave" or "the abode of all the dead, good and bad" and cannot be interpreted as "hell" unless "hell" is heaven!

(2) The Greek word Hades also clearly means "the grave" not "hell." Everyone went to Hades when they died, not just the wicked. Hades contained heavenly regions like the Elysian Fields and the Blessed Isles. The Greek hell was Tartarus, which is discussed below, in section 4.

(3) The place name Gehenna does not mean "hell" because Gehenna is a valley in Israel also known in Hebrew as Gehinnom, or the Valley of Hinnom. Today Gehenna is a lovely park and tourist attraction. Wonderful archeological discoveries have been made there, such as the healing pool of Siloam and the oldest Bible verses ever discovered, inscribed on small silver amulets. Those verses are the benediction "The LORD bless thee and keep thee; the LORD make his countenance to shine upon thee and be gracious unto thee." Those are wonderfully comforting words to have been discovered in "hell," don't you think?

(4) The Greek hell was Tartarus. This is the only word in the Bible that actually means "hell" in either Greek or Hebrew. But the word Tartarus appears only one time in the entire Bible, in 2 Peter 2:4. And that verse is about fallen angels awaiting judgment, so its hell is not eternal and is not for human beings. The only verse in the Bible that contains a word that actually means "hell" seems to be about a place where Satan and other fallen angels await judgement."

How many times is hell mentioned in the Bible?

Dear ding
The "lake of fire" is where evil is burned away.

In real life terms:
* anyone who's been through WAR has seen hell.
* Anyone who's wanted to kill themselves to escape a drug addiction has been there and hopefully come back.
* anyone who's lost a loved one to murder, only to be railroaded through a cruel criminal justice system, and tormented every time the convict comes up for parole and is pictured all over the news... sorry.... but you cannot imagine the suffering of a parent who has been through that and never totally heals the hole in their heart where their child was torn from them.

Hell is real but it is not permanent.
The negative energy cannot sustain itself as good energy and good will can. Love can multiply infinitely,
but ill will drains us and eventually runs its course.
Truth Justice Peace can prevail forever, but injustice and suffering, the human conscience will not tolerate forever but will seek to change it at the root cause to end the pain and to seek peace and freedom.

So that's why hell is not eternal in that sense. But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist and isn't a real experience. people experience "hell" on any number of levels, and collectively it is as massive as people have preached and warned about, even symbolically. If you add up all the human suffering, wars, genocides over history, yes, it is that horrendous.

Perhaps our MEMORIES of war and what humanity went through to LEARN these lessons will remain forever as part of the indelible truth and spiritual history and process. So it will last in that sense, as a fixed part of the bigger picture.

But what will endure beyond that is the love and truth that drives humanity and life. Just because good will overcome evil and the blessings of heaven will defeat the forces of hell doesn't mean those don't exist and aren't as real as people have symbolized in religions.