"God" is a tyrant.

[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.

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

Thanks Czernobog You have at it, too.
But I'll tell you, the successes I've seen people have talking with Christians are best achieved by fellow Christians correcting each other because they have committed to follow the same laws to establish common truth. The best way I know to establish agreement with a secular gentile is using nontheistic terms.

I rarely see much change come from either nontheists or theists trying to change each other's views by attacking one and defending the other. The most they will do is further convince themselves it's hopeless and the others are wrong. So they learn that doesn't work.

I can try to speak to each person here using your own system, and see if that helps get past the conflicts.

In the process of reconciliation, I have found it's not a matter of "changing anyone's beliefs" but changing our perception of those beliefs that won't change.

It's a huge relief when people discover they don't need to convert anyone from the native language or system they naturally use. That's usually the breakthrough that allows communication to take place after that, without any need to force change or make anyone wrong.

In the process we all find we have changes and improvements we can make but it's EQUAL. so nobody is changing anyone else, though we may change our approach or perspective to INCLUDE where the other person is coming from. And vice versa where they do the same for us.

Take care and THANKS for this thread. I think it is super to be able to discuss at this level, and believe a lot of good ideas and insights will come from it.

Thank you Czernobog and also ding and others here. Carry on and don't stop until it's all clear. I'd love to see where this goes and ends....

 

[TNHarley]

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 God or the Bible at all?

Well, I try not to interpret it how I want. Maybe that's the difference.

 

[hobelim]

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?

The ridiculous things that you falsely claim to know to be true about God according to the most ignorant interpretation of scripture possible, even though you have never seen or heard a single word from God in your entire life and do not know him, creates the image and likeness of a capricious and puerile petty tyrant obsessed with diet and fashion and the sexual preferences of human beings..

Consequently, believers are forced by that belief established in their minds as an ideal to conform to the image and likeness of a capricious and puerile petty tyrant obsessed with diet and fashion and the sexual preferences of other human beings.

Thats why the most devout believer out there inevitably becomes a sanctimonious asshole.

 

[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.

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.

A favorite tactic of Liberals is the RED HERRING - a logical fallacy used in debate. A red herring is an argument, given in reply, that does not address the original issue. Critically, a red herring is a deliberate attempt to change the subject or divert the argument which Czernobog has done here. This is known formally in the English vocabulary as a digression which is usually denoted as "red herring". It is useless to engage people in debate who use this tactic. These people are dishonest cowards and phonies.

The assertion that the Christian god is forcing anyone to convert to Christianity is BS.

 

[emilynghiem]

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?

The ridiculous things that you falsely claim to know to be true about God according to the most ignorant interpretation of scripture possible, even though you have never seen or heard a single word from God in your entire life and do not know him, creates the image and likeness of a capricious and puerile petty tyrant obsessed with diet and fashion and the sexual preferences of human beings..

Consequently, believers are forced by that belief established in their minds as an ideal to conform to the image and likeness of a capricious and puerile petty tyrant obsessed with diet and fashion and the sexual preferences of other human beings.

Thats why the most devout believer out there inevitably becomes a sanctimonious asshole.

Dear hobelim
Well, none of us has ever seen JUSTICE.
We don't all agree on that either.
We even take one side and push that as justice, while
as many people are on the exact opposite side are saying JUSTICE is on THAT side.

Yet we all believe in some form of this elusive abstract JUSTICE.

Jesus is the same way. A symbol of universal JUSTICE for all humanity
that's going to free us from war and oppression and bring lasting PEACE.

We don't have to agree on all aspects of what JUSTICE means
for us to agree this concept exists and is universal to humanity,
our history, our struggle and our will to survive and to make society better.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

A favorite tactic of Liberals is the RED HERRING - a logical fallacy used in debate. A red herring is an argument, given in reply, that does not address the original issue. Critically, a red herring is a deliberate attempt to change the subject or divert the argument which Czernobog has done here. This is known formally in the English vocabulary as a digression which is usually denoted as "red herring". It is useless to engage people in debate who use this tactic. These people are dishonest cowards and phonies.

The assertion that the Christian god is forcing anyone to convert to Christianity is BS.

Dear Brynmr and Czernobog:
Some Christians do use and NEED this method. I've met people whose lives and relations
were saved from total destruction because someone saw they were in danger, and used this strongarmed approach
to get them to wake up and get back on track before they killed themselves with drugs or drinking
or in some cases gang crime or cult activity.

The gentle Motherly touch works with some people and cases
to get us to let go and take a more positive approach to relations and life that
is more effective and healthy.

But for some wild mustangs who are in rebellion, sometimes it does
take the "whoop ass" approach, like a drill sergeant dressing down an out of line schmuck,
if that person is going to be stopped from bringing down the whole battalion and ship.

Certainly we don't need this approach for everyone, and it causes irreparable harm
when dished out on the wrong people suffering abuse and injury and great wounds.

But when it saves lives from worse hell and destruction,
I would rather reel that person back in first, make sure they
are on safe ground, and then the healing therapy can be applied after they are receptive.

We just have to make sure the right approach
is used for the right person and situation.

It is just as DISASTROUS to apply harsh punishment to
a gentle soul who merely asked for explanation and wasn't trying to reject or rebel,
as it is to apply mercy and lenience to someone truly in danger
who needs strong authoritarian guidance to draw lines and stay out of trouble
with NO EXCEPTIONS where lives and safety are at stake.

We need both approaches in life, but applied correctly.

 

[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.

A favorite tactic of Liberals is the RED HERRING - a logical fallacy used in debate. A red herring is an argument, given in reply, that does not address the original issue. Critically, a red herring is a deliberate attempt to change the subject or divert the argument which Czernobog has done here. This is known formally in the English vocabulary as a digression which is usually denoted as "red herring". It is useless to engage people in debate who use this tactic. These people are dishonest cowards and phonies.

The assertion that the Christian god is forcing anyone to convert to Christianity is BS.

Well, that's novel. Use a red herring argument in order to create a situation in which you are able to accuse your opponent of a red herring argument. Anyway. Now that we have established that you are actually aware of the topic of the discussion, do you have anything relevant to the discussion to actually add?

 

[peach174]

God does not force or coerce anyone.
Mankind does that, but not God.
We each have free will to choose in belief of him or not.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

A favorite tactic of Liberals is the RED HERRING - a logical fallacy used in debate. A red herring is an argument, given in reply, that does not address the original issue. Critically, a red herring is a deliberate attempt to change the subject or divert the argument which Czernobog has done here. This is known formally in the English vocabulary as a digression which is usually denoted as "red herring". It is useless to engage people in debate who use this tactic. These people are dishonest cowards and phonies.

The assertion that the Christian god is forcing anyone to convert to Christianity is BS.

Well, that's novel. Use a red herring argument in order to create a situation in which you are able to accuse your opponent of a red herring argument. Anyway. Now that we have established that you are actually aware of the topic of the discussion, do you have anything relevant to the discussion to actually add?

God does not force or coerce anyone.
Mankind does that, but not God.
We each have free will to choose in belief of him or not.

True peach174
But given human nature and our learning curve
some people require a better explanation or example before being able to understand.

It isn't fair to judge people for not understanding
when "other people's" perception of God is forced or imposed in ways
that seem completely false, contradictory and harmful.

Of course people are going to reject that if it isn't explained what's going on
and what things really mean that religions seek to represent.

I have better success explaining that the meaning of Christ Jesus
is "Restorative Justice" and that God can refer to Collective Truth/Wisdom,
Nature/Life, Universe/Univeral laws.

Maybe if we explain the concepts meant by religious terms, symbols and
other teachings, we'd have better reception rather than bashing in
the heads of people being "preached" to, then wondering why
the message and meaning is getting lost and rejected....

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

A favorite tactic of Liberals is the RED HERRING - a logical fallacy used in debate. A red herring is an argument, given in reply, that does not address the original issue. Critically, a red herring is a deliberate attempt to change the subject or divert the argument which Czernobog has done here. This is known formally in the English vocabulary as a digression which is usually denoted as "red herring". It is useless to engage people in debate who use this tactic. These people are dishonest cowards and phonies.

The assertion that the Christian god is forcing anyone to convert to Christianity is BS.

Well, that's novel. Use a red herring argument in order to create a situation in which you are able to accuse your opponent of a red herring argument. Anyway. Now that we have established that you are actually aware of the topic of the discussion, do you have anything relevant to the discussion to actually add?

Hi Czernobog
I've been wondering what people expect to get by taking this approach.
If you set up strawman or red herring arguments, don't you just convince yourself that you're right
instead of changing the minds of anyone else who become even more convinced you're illogical and wrong?

The most I can figure is people are trying to do this:
1. either FORCE a contradiction and then fight or bully it out.
either to dominate by force, or possibly "talk through the conflicts and come to some resolution" but that's not usually the goal people are shooting for
2. present a BACKWARDS proof, similar to contrapositive.
Where the conclusion is assumed and presented UP FRONT,
then all counterexamples and objections are brought up and eliminated one by one.
And the point is to run out of possible alternatives, so that people either let go,
call it a draw, or otherwise agree there's no use fighting because both sides remain faith based and unproven.
3. learning that it's not a matter of changing anyone's beliefs
but learning to forgive and let go so we can work together DESPITE
the differences in our perception and language for these things.

What do you hope to achieve by bringing up contradictions to people's faces?
Do you believe it will eventually lead to an agreement to let go of those conflicted ways?

Thanks Czernobog
I think you are one of those "righteous gentiles" who will keep seeking the
truth and trust that in the process this will eliminate errors and conflicts
that cannot stand up to the test of consistency, so only truth will prevail and survive the process.

 

[Czernobog]

God does not force or coerce anyone.
Mankind does that, but not God.
We each have free will to choose in belief of him or not.

You do understand the nature of coercion, right?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[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.

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.

A favorite tactic of Liberals is the RED HERRING - a logical fallacy used in debate. A red herring is an argument, given in reply, that does not address the original issue. Critically, a red herring is a deliberate attempt to change the subject or divert the argument which Czernobog has done here. This is known formally in the English vocabulary as a digression which is usually denoted as "red herring". It is useless to engage people in debate who use this tactic. These people are dishonest cowards and phonies.

The assertion that the Christian god is forcing anyone to convert to Christianity is BS.

Well, that's novel. Use a red herring argument in order to create a situation in which you are able to accuse your opponent of a red herring argument. Anyway. Now that we have established that you are actually aware of the topic of the discussion, do you have anything relevant to the discussion to actually add?

Yeah. You're full of crap.

 

[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.

A favorite tactic of Liberals is the RED HERRING - a logical fallacy used in debate. A red herring is an argument, given in reply, that does not address the original issue. Critically, a red herring is a deliberate attempt to change the subject or divert the argument which Czernobog has done here. This is known formally in the English vocabulary as a digression which is usually denoted as "red herring". It is useless to engage people in debate who use this tactic. These people are dishonest cowards and phonies.

The assertion that the Christian god is forcing anyone to convert to Christianity is BS.

Well, that's novel. Use a red herring argument in order to create a situation in which you are able to accuse your opponent of a red herring argument. Anyway. Now that we have established that you are actually aware of the topic of the discussion, do you have anything relevant to the discussion to actually add?

Yeah. You're full of crap.

Brilliant Response. Off to the kiddie table with you. You are dismissed. Grown ups are talking here.

 

[Meriweather]

You do understand the nature of coercion, right?

What some of us are trying to explain is that there is no coercion. Ask yourself, "What if God does not coerce?" How would you respond?

 

[BreezeWood]

.

Mer: What some of us are trying to explain is that there is no coercion. Ask yourself, "What if God does not coerce?" How would you respond?

"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me".


the above is a forgery for the very purpose to coerce.

the 4th century christian bible in nothing but coercion and tyranny ... nothing to do with the religion of the 1st century or the Almighty.

 

[Meriweather]

.
"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me".

the above is a forgery for the very purpose to coerce.

the 4th century christian bible in nothing but coercion and tyranny ... nothing to do with the religion of the 1st century or the Almighty.

If I were to comment, "No one comes into my house except through the door," would that be a statement of coercion or a statement of fact? My house has many rooms, yet it is one house. And no one gets to the bedrooms except by the stairs. Jesus taught that he and the Father are one.

The one thing I find truly hard to understand is the perspective of God as tyrant. What has God done to you personally that has caused you to judge Him a tyrant?

 

[Brynmr]

What some of us are trying to explain is that there is no coercion. Ask yourself, "What if God does not coerce?" How would you respond?

Anyone who accepts the Christian premise of God and damnation in order to denigrate Christianity is disingenuous, dishonest, cowardly and phony.

 

[Czernobog]

You do understand the nature of coercion, right?

What some of us are trying to explain is that there is no coercion. Ask yourself, "What if God does not coerce?" How would you respond?

Your question makes no sense. "What i9s wishes were ice cream? What flavour would you eat? The question makes about as much sense. This is the problem with suppositions. They have no basis in reality.

Let's stick with reality, shall we? Would you agree that the definition of coercion is the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats?

 

[Czernobog]

What some of us are trying to explain is that there is no coercion. Ask yourself, "What if God does not coerce?" How would you respond?

Anyone who accepts the Christian premise of God and damnation in order to denigrate Christianity is disingenuous, dishonest, cowardly and phony.

And, yet, you cannot dispute my premise, without resorting to logical fallacies, and personal attacks.

 

[Brynmr]

I'm not a Christian. I don't accept the idea of a creator god or a Christian Hell so I don't feel coerced or forced in the least. This guy is either lying about being an atheist or his OP is just an excuse to crap on Christianity.