danatemporary wrote:

  As for bringing the fruits of my delight, I cannot be expected to fix your traffic problem nor do that. To do so, I'd have to cut-paste major portions of threads (plural) to here. And, Apparently I am having browser trouble is the feed back I got from a long-standing Moderator. Plus, If your Thread is about something, I dont think it would be fair for me to do so. Then you're at the mercy of my editing not to mention all my interests by such an act. That doesnt mean that is an excuse not to do something for you if asked  however.

 

 A thread that exists outside your bubble:
Old and New Testament Hell

{GodsUseForAMosquito}

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

 Biblical reports of hell vary considerable between old and new testament.

 Hell is mentioned in the bible 31 times in the old testament, and always in terms of 'sheol' the hebrew word meaning hades, or simply grave. It is not a place of suffering, just a place where the dead go. That's all dead, whether you've been good or bad.

 Enter Jesus, and the new testament. Now there is a proper Hell with lakes of fire, burning sulphur, eternal torment. I mean seriously - what a bastard! I prefer the old testament version if I had to choose.

 Why would Jesus and God invent something so terrible as Hell as a punishment? If Christians are supposed to favour the New testament over the Old, because Jesus died for their sins, and not we live in grace, Why did he feel like belief in Jesus wasn't enough on its own, and have to add a massive spanking stick in the form of "and if you don't believe all this, you're now going to burn in hell for all eternity".

 Given that from the time of Jesus, through history, more people have not been Christian than have (including many millions who never even heard 'the word' of god before they died, so never stood a chance of salvation), god has basically decided to create a huge pit of suffering and fairly arbitrarily plunge people into it.
Seriously, do Christians actually consider this stuff?   

Jabberwocky wrote:

Christians typically aren't too big on details. For those who haven't heard the gospel, there is always some sort of explaining away of how someone can't be held responsible for something they had no control over (even though I don't believe there is anything in the bible offering up this exception..." I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." )

Pretty cut and dry if you ask me. Of course us atheists who have heard the gospels (with probably a higher completion rate of reading the bible than Christians...) ARE going to hell. We have heard and rejected the gospels.

As far as why god/Jesus would have done such a thing, the answer is simple. In the New Testament, the demeanor of god is much different than in the old. He's stopped ordering his followers directly to commit genocide, even stopped doing it himself. He's not killing people on the spot for pulling out any more, put a stop to flooding the world, stopped sending bears to maul large groups of children...he's really seemed to calm down. But without a heavenly psychiatrist, he's probably still the same vindictive bloodthirsty jerk he always was. He's just become a troll now. "Hey look. I'm nice now, no more world-wide floods.......juuuuuuuuuuuuust kidding, you were the wrong kind of Christian. Now let this guy torture you forever, I'm going to watch!"

 

---

danatemporary wrote:

Re:: A Point of comparison

OP wrote:

.. always in terms of 'sheol' the hebrew word meaning hades, or simply grave. It is not a place of suffering, just a place where the dead go That's all dead ..

In other ancient books and texts of the region. The topic of the underworld could be quite lengthy but I will only mention two things. The grave is mentioned as a place for departed souls become ghosts, residing down there. In many myths there are odd contradictions being more a projection than anything else, at times. If you are that almost undefinable ghostly spirit. Why would you need to eat? I wonder this ? And yet I cannot think of any of the many nations that surrounded Israel, that do not describe food of the underworld. Secondly, In Sumerian accounts the place of departed souls is a very miserable existence. Was Dust Their Food and Clay Their Bread? The land from which you never return from. It's cold, it's dark, it's dreary, it's dusty, a projection of a literal grave. Nevertheless, The plus side you meet up with lost loved ones who have gone on before you.

 

Brian wrote:

This is fun sport to attack if we were at a si fi convention arguing over Star Trek vs Star Wars. But the reality is that Jews and Christians, while they claim to be best buddies, are the si fi fans arguing over Captain Kirk vs "the force of Jesus". I am weary of jumping into their respective comic books. I think it is much more important to point out, even before you endulge them, that they both start, even before word one, postulate a non material super hero with magical super powers as their naked assertion.
I am aware that we do need skeptics that do that, we most cerainly do. Just a reminder to never forget, even if a new religion with a new god is started tommorow, with a new book, we'd have to battle that too.
When Mel Gibson had his drunken bigoted rant about Jews causing everything, of course he was wrong and bigoted. But Jews did exist prior to Christianity. I would simply point out that there was a religion Jews got their inspiration from prior as a result of the polytheism of the Caananites. So if Mel wanted to be correct about "who started it", I say that the Jews then and the Jews now are as much victims to credulity as Chrisitanity and Islam, as is anyone buying an invisible friend claim . .

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

Biblical reports of hell vary considerable between old and new testament.

Seriously, do Christians actually consider this stuff?

 Nony wrote:  The OT served as a backstory for Judean rule over the conquered Galileans Jesus being a Galilean. We do not know what the Galilean religion was like before they were conquered and forced to convert. See Wars of the Jews, Josephus, for more details of the conquest and forced conversion.
So it may have simply been the NT is the Galilean view of things.
Further one of the differences between the infamous Sadduces and Pharisees is that one of them did NOT believe there was an afterlife. So simply finding it in the OT is not definitive.
Going back to Josephus again it is clear from his writings he did not consider the OT, aka Septuagint, to have any particular interest or importance or in any factual content for that matter. As he was a priest of that religion his apparent ignorance of its very existence is contrary to the modern view of those days. (He apparently knows of some similar stories but that is about all.)
As to what Christians think, atheists who appear in forums like this probablly know tens of times more about their religion than the average Christian.

 

danatemporary wrote:

 re:: Who's being thrown where ?

 First, Hope GodsUseForAMosquito to be seeing GodUseForAMosquito around.

AE wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

I rather be alive and fellowshiping in joy with my fellow believers than either being annililated or burning in hell. If you honestly think hell will be a party with other sinners then you are truly ignorant.  You won't have company there.   You are either going to be destroyed from existence or weeping and gnashing your teeth forever.    

  AE said, After reacting to TWD's banal and hateful post here I thought I'd get some input from an intellectual christian philologist with a degree in theology and a PHD in philosophy. I asked Brother David: Do you believe in hell? Is there proof of hell in the biblical texts? What motivation might there be for amplifying the oblique hell in Genesis into the Augustinian hell of the Roman Catholic Church? Why do some christians wallow in the idea of hell?
{AE brought a quote from BrotherDavid}

BrotherDavid wrote:

     Yes, look, the dogma of hell is a problem, to me; I mean with respect to its textual basis. In brief, these are the difficulties I see.
(i) The biblical language on the subject is often figurative, which means it is vague, eg. ‘the lake of fire which burns eternally’. What does that designate?
(ii) The language on the subject doesn’t all express the same idea, eg. Christ is reported as saying, ‘Beware God who has the power to destroy body and soul in hell’. So is simply passing out of existence a possible way to interpret the biblical writings on the question of some people’s eternal fate?
(iii) If you don’t read the biblical writings selectively, other considerations are pressing. Eg. God is supposed by these writings to be absolutely fair—but how fair would eternal suffering be for even the worst people, the Hitlers for example, given their terrible actions? Such a thing seems entirely unfair, to ordinary human intuition, does it not? Limited consequences which are reformatory are just in response to limited faults; infinite suffering for these faults is not. This mitigates against the traditional idea of hell.
(iv) The biblical writings hardly say anything on the subject of hell. If we wrote a book together on wine-making, it would be detailed, clear, with diagrams etc., so that our readers would understand us well. Should we not expect, given hell’s importance, that if it were so the whole thing would be described in the biblical writings carefully & in unmistakable detail?
(v) Traditionalists cannot read. If they expressed their interpretations tentatively, while honesty placing in the foreground their lack of hermeneutic skill, you could respect their views, even if you disagreed with them. But the only respect they deserve as readers is I think over what is simplest. Otherwise they deserve mockery. It seems to me that the whole of traditional Protestant reading is in essential ways false and even dishonest. Whatever traditional Protestantism asserts about any difficult problem of reading is to be doubted. Catholicism similarly.
(vi) A person who really believes in hell should be utterly transfixed at the indescribable horror of it. Should they not? Anyone who is not so transfixed does not believe there is a hell, in the traditional sense. So most—all?—traditionalists do not really believe; they only say they do. If they don’t believe, why should anyone else?
My own view is that what the biblical writings say is something like, ‘There is an after-life, and the rejection of God leads to unpleasant consequences there which it is much better to avoid; however, what really matters is behaving in this life with kindness and honesty, while respecting God, and asking the forgiveness of God & Christ for your errors, recognising that as with the acquisition of all forgiveness, you depend in that case upon the graciousness of the other to give it to you’. (Of course there is somewhat more, all as moderate, but this is a start.)
I think the biblical writings also say implicitly, by their unscientific and inexact linguistic form, ‘Each person who is interested has to work out for themselves as best they can what is going on, with respect to everything not communicated in the simplest sentences’. These views if they were widely embraced among Christians would involve the death of institutionalised interpretations, though.
The question, ‘What motives led to the dogma of hell?’ is fascinating. I don’t really know; but you can see with church leaders that they are often not motivated by a love for truth. Something else is in play...fear? self-importance? love for feeling as though they belong to something important? willingness to tyrannise over others? respect for old things merely because of the oldness? desire to keep their own lives within the pattern to which they are accustomed? stupidity? Several of these? All of them?
I think we will search without any success for a traditional Protestant theologian who accepts the old-fashioned position about hell, and who understands these things well, and takes them properly into account. How often are the considerations mentioned above ever raised intelligently and knowledgably, let alone dealt with adequately in the supposed demonstrations made of the traditional view? Yet we have little difficulty in finding teachers in our communions who despite this failing are quite happy to say that they know the truth. Scholar after scholar merely takes the traditional dogma to be obvious, and offers exposition that other than with respect to grammar and semantics is almost entirely rhetorical, ie. that in important ways bears no resemblance at all to proper language-analysis.
Every time one of our leaders confidently expresses their views on this subject, the scorching words of Nietzsche, who was a philologist by profession, enter the mind: ‘How little Christianity educates the sense of honesty and justice can easily be seen from the writings of its scholars; they advance their conjectures as blandly as dogmas…the Bible is pricked and pulled apart, and the people formally inculcated in the art of reading badly’.

Misc  and  UnRelated  :: Misc Stock Image which I cannot place
http://cojs.org/cojswiki/images/9/9b/First_Temple.jpg

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Vastet wrote:

"This is fun sport to attack if we were at a si fi convention arguing over Star Trek vs Star Wars. But the reality is that Jews and Christians, while they claim to be best buddies, are the si fi fans arguing over Captain Kirk vs "the force of Jesus"." Fan wars are boring as fuck...For real bragging rights JWC published one of my letters. And Cabel W. Johnson occassionally posts on the web.
I agree today'a fans have no real concept of science much less what we called hard science fiction of the Astouding/Analog variety of the Heinlein and dozens of real SF authors wrote. Today what is called SF comes by the inch/pound and multiple sequels because they are too damned incompetent to come up with rational ideas and explore them. But the fans love them.
 

---

Myself (Nony speaking), give me a 2D character and don't let him get in the way of the story. Before you ask, I do appreciate real science fantasy as long as magic has rules which are essential to the story and Lord of the Rings sucks because it is a story with arbitrary magic.
Taking it back to the god wars, yes it is fun because they mostly do not understand the terms they are using, rather repeating some crap they read or were told without ever thinking about what the words and terms mean. Pick a god, any god. Give me its rules. If any of them did in fact exist the rules could have been deduced from millenia of experimentation even if accidental variants later described as experiments. As with the Diodorus reading suggestion Christianity and Judaism is all dumbed down to the dumbest common denominator. See also the Einstein letter which says the same thing.
I can go back to my first posts here where I was BANNED for criticizing Judaism in the same terms as Christianity. I realize most old timers are FAKE jews  claiming to be atheists and their real target is Christians only. That was my first week's experience. And in fact that was discussion partly public which was against permitting such criticism, analytics, ridicule of Judaism. AND I played the game with a "strike the root" strategy which all regulars should remember.
And, yes, I have been posting for a very long time without regard to the automatic denigrations such as yours because I ridicule Judaism and jewish "people" without hesitation or remorse and often with relish because I have the field to myself.
So, my friend, I know the rules of the game. I have been in public debate on religion and politics since 1980, 32 years. Good lord willing and stroke don't rise I will soon be able to say half my life and it will mean something. Now I have no problem dealing with newbies since most everyone is relatively. Public debate is simply debate. Playing debating games in this format means you are likely to try to use something I pioneered if not invented.
All of that is simply to encourage honest, open discussion without any games whatsoever.
This has gotten too long. Try it this way. Any time you try to contrast Jews v Christians as positive v negative I will not let you get away with it as Jews v Hindus or Jews v Muslims or Jews v animists is no different. Jews are followers of an idiot religion and those who think there is a jewish "people" are closet idiot believers.

---

{Vastet Replies}

Vastet wrote:

Now if only you could cross the line into recognising the jews aren't special yourself, everyone will be a bit better off. Edit: I don't remember you ever being banned. Are you sure it was here you got banned?

 

digitalbeachbum wrote:

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

  .. Why would Jesus and God invent something so terrible as Hell as a punishment? If Christians are supposed to favour the New testament over the Old, because Jesus died for their sins, and not we live in grace, Why did he feel like belief in Jesus wasn't enough on its own, and have to add a massive spanking stick in the form of "and if you don't believe all this, you're now going to burn in hell for all eternity".
Given that from the time of Jesus, through history, more people have not been Christian than have (including many millions who never even heard 'the word' of god before they died, so never stood a chance of salvation), god has basically decided to create a huge pit of suffering and fairly arbitrarily plunge people into it.
Seriously, do Christians actually consider this stuff?   

Hell is for children 

 Warning Edit Addition :: Suppli. -- {digitalbeachbum wrote}
 

---

 

digitalbeachbum wrote:

  Your faith is your faith and your faith alone. Faith is a blind belief that a 'thing' is real but you have no proof that it is real nor can any one disprove it. If you have proof that your 'faith' is real, then it stops being faith and becomes a fact. You do not have faith because you keep trying to justify it by posting evidence to show to others that it exists. You are trying to gain acceptance by giving us personal opinions from you and others. When a person of faith debates their faith they are not actually debating their faith because in order to actually debate you must follow specific rules of debating. One of which requires you to be open to the fact that you could be wrong.  If you actually debate you must suspend your faith and therefore are a non-believer. I however have never found a person of faith who can actually suspend their faith. They either are faithful or they are not. Since you can not suspend your 'faith' for a debate it is no longer a debate and becomes a speech with a conclusion

 

---

Old Seer wrote:

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

                Biblical reports of hell vary considerable between old and new testament.  Hell is mentioned in the bible 31 times in the old testament . .         

OT and NT  applications are the same. The Euro interpretation makes the difference in term. In the Hebrew language there is no such term as God. "God" is strictly a Euro attachment from their own ancient ideas. In Hebrew they followed "that which is". Today the Israelis do not have the same religion as in the OT.  OT hell is equal to dead. In actual and proper Christianity it is understood that their will be a resurrection. "Lake of fire" is equal to no chance of resurrection, and, it doesn't only have to do with death---The ways of the world after Armageddon are also thrown into the lake of fire---that's not people particularly. The entire interpretation of the book by the Euros is faulty and inaccurate.. Alpha Smurf regards Americans also as Euros.

 

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Vastet wrote:

Now if only you could cross the line into recognising the jews aren't special yourself, everyone will be a bit better off. Edit: I don't remember you ever being banned. Are you sure it was here you got banned?

Absolutely correct. It was here. If there is a way to search on oldest posts they should be there commenting on it. As to special, no more special than Chrisitans and deserving of no less disdain than Christians. Of course as we say about the West Bank, were it nor for antisemitism that would be Apartheid.

---

RobbyPants wrote:

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

Why would Jesus and God invent something so terrible as Hell as a punishment?

My guess would be it likely has to do with Zoroastrianism, a religion that was quite popular six centuries earlier. There are a lot of things in that religion that are noticeably absent in early Judaism and present later in the religion and in Christianity. These include a savior (born of a virgin, no less!), heaven, and hell.

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

Seriously, do Christians actually consider this stuff? It's crazy. 

Yes, they do. It was one of the things that totally killed omnibenevolence for me when I was still Christian. My wife (still Christian) is a huge Rob Bell fan, if for no other reason, so she can write off hell as a metaphor and get herself a bit closer to reconciling theodicy.

Re:: Old and New Testament Hell

Professor wrote:

  Christian teachers refer to the Bible as "progressive revelation." God revealed Himself to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Then He revealed more of His nature and His precepts to Moses, David, Isaiah, Ezra, etc. God's Word is perfect. The Bible all revolves around the incarnation, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the second person of the blessed Trinity, Who took on human form. In the Old Testament Christ had not yet been born of the virgin Mary nor completed His mission. Hence the sins of the elect had not been paid for. All were sent after death to the same place in one sense, awaiting Christ's payment for sin. Christ's sacrifice of Himself on the cross was accepted by God as payment for the sins of those whom God ordained from the foundation of the world to be justified. After Christ shed His blood, the Epistle of Peter declares that "He went to preach to the spirits in prison." Assumedly at that time the elect were separated from the reprobate. My interpretation is not the only one among Christians, although I believe it is that of the majority. When you go out on a date, your girlfriend / boyfriend is not obligated to tell you everything about himself/herself on the first date. How much more is a holy, infinite God free to reveal only as much about Himself as He wishes? There is no question from the Bible that Jesus Christ believes in hellfire, for He spoke about it in the Sermon on the Mount and in other places. After Christ's resurrection and ascension, the apostles further explained, through the Holy Spirit, Christ's teaching.

Anonymouse wrote:

So you believe in literal hellfire ?

---

{RobbyPants stated}

RobbyPants wrote:

Professor wrote:

Christian teachers refer to the Bible as "progressive revelation." God revealed Himself to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Then He revealed more of His nature and His precepts to Moses, David, Isaiah, Ezra, etc. God's Word is perfect. The Bible all revolves around the incarnation, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the second person of the blessed Trinity . . the apostles further explained, through the Holy Spirit, Christ's teaching. 

Basically, for the first four thousand years, people didn't know their souls were in peril if they didn't do what they were supposed to, because God decided to omit that part for the first 2/3 of creation. Got it. I like how this is compared to a series of dates. I can see doing that on dates, because those last a few hours at a time, and you can only give out so much info at any one. But you're saying that for some reason, God couldn't have told us everything over a single person's lifetime. No, the more likely reason the religion changed so much over the course of time is because it literally changed over the course of time. The ancient Judaean people wanted a war god. The people of 70+ CE were looking for eternal rewards. People today want those eternal rewards, but with a lot less of the crazy associated with YHWH carried to his logical conclusion.

And Lastly,

danatemporary wrote:

Re: What is believed.

Anonymouse wrote:

Professor wrote:

      Christian teachers refer to the Bible as "progressive revelation." God revealed Himself to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Then He revealed more of His nature and His precepts to Moses, David, Isaiah, Ezra, etc. God's Word is perfect. The Bible all revolves around the incarnation, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the second person of the blessed Trinity, Who took on human form. In the Old Testament Christ had not yet been born of the virgin Mary nor completed His mission. Hence the sins of the elect had not been paid for. All were sent after death to the same place in one sense, awaiting Christ's payment for sin. Christ's sacrifice of Himself on the cross was accepted by God as payment for the sins of those whom God ordained from the foundation of the world to be justified. After Christ shed His blood, the Epistle of Peter declares that "He went to preach to the spirits in prison." Assumedly at that time the elect were separated from the reprobate. My interpretation is not the only one among Christians, although I believe it is that of the majority. When you go out on a date, your girlfriend / boyfriend is not obligated to tell you everything about himself/herself on the first date. How much more is a holy, infinite God free to reveal only as much about Himself as He wishes? There is no question from the Bible that Jesus Christ believes in hellfire, for He spoke about it in the Sermon on the Mount and in other places. After Christ's resurrection and ascension, the apostles further explained, through the Holy Spirit, Christ's teaching.

So you believe in literal hellfire ? 

A.
  2 Pet. -- ..and because of them the way of truth will be blasphemed. 3 And in their greed they will exploit you with false words ..  and their destruction is not asleep. 4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment; 5 if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; 6 if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction, making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; . . 10 and especially those who indulge in the lust of defiling passion and despise authority.

etc.

 

danatemporary wrote:

 I saw what you did here

Fonzie wrote:

danatemporary wrote:

danatemporary wrote:

  As for bringing the fruits of my delight, I cannot be expected to fix your traffic problem nor do that. To do so, I'd have to cut-paste major portions of threads (plural) to here. And, Apparently I am having browser trouble is the feed back I got from a long-standing Moderator. Plus, If your Thread is about something, I dont think it would be fair for me to do so. Then you're at the mercy of my editing not to mention all my interests by such an act. That doesnt mean that is an excuse not to do something for you if asked  however.

 

 A thread that exists outside your bubble:
Old and New Testament Hell .  .

 

Fonzie wrote:

Danatemporary,

That was a lot of gathering on your part.  Don't you see however that the only unifying power of these is nihilism?  There is not a one of these atheists that is leading the atheist party beyond the frenzied (imagined) demolition of faith in God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit and the Word of God.  

This is the theme of this thread:  Beyond personal slurs, insults, laughing like thorns crackling under the pot

 

 

 Scriptural reference I did not fail to notice. Eccles. 6 Like the crackling of thorns under the pot, so is the laughter of fools. This too is meaningless.

 Yes, There are fools in every profession (unlike on other boards with atheists' packs; on this board they are few and far between). 

  On  a more serious note, Atheism has a belief but not a 'faith'.  Moreover,  It is an almost ignorant statement of equate the two (definitions in general are often not interchangeable). Please Note,  contrary to what you may have heard, atheism isn’t a nihilistic philosophy, since it’s not really a philosophy at all. Atheism is, rather, merely a cogent position which rejects the fallacious claims of the theist. None of which has even been addressed, in what I lengthily 'shared'. Yet ever since religion has espoused the existence of God, atheism has been getting some bad press. Atheism is often demonized by religionists who have misunderstood it. Atheism has a very simple and narrow definition, so making a distinction is necessary, unless you plan on reading into it a meaninglessness by definition. Definitionally stick with a basic and simpler understanding to start with. The assumption would be like you hear in some self-taught quarters that suggest early christianity was both a death cult and cannibalistic. Clearly a miss read and showing no understanding of the meaning, as to how it was understood.  If you want one side to be represented fairly, you are responsible to do the same, (beyond being merely courteous)! 

  More to the point! I saw what you did. Instead of talking about passages about hell or examining the issue (thoroughly). You make it about the comments of the board, thus being unfair to the board. Instead of an examination of the issue, (at all). Sure that's absolutely fine for the ineffectual, but don't worry you're sticking with it. Btw, What do you do differently then a TWD39 ? Sorry, You'd have to be active on the board to know who that is.  I could have sworn the word 'Hell' was remarked upon and mentioned ?

 Do overlook the Blog moment . .

 In contrast to your approach. I always go back to examine what is said. That entails going beyond mere personal opinion, from whatever perspective. Instead of watching Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade at my great Aunt's house.  I am earnestly finding any web-sources for das log tales. To be honest, You caught me in the middle of looking at Samsara of another faith and I am re-examining of the actual words used in the NDE and tibetan literature of the small number of the more influential das log accounts. The opposite of nyan thos in the(-ir) dialectic. As in a more graphic sense of 'destination'. Importantly, I found some interesting, provocative samsaric imagery (traces) among a spectra of groups of the region. Yes, I have a deep interest in religious imagery. That will NEVER change. Do Forgive the indulgence but I will share with you a couple of pages of what I was reading from, instead of watching. It partially explains why I was so reminded of Samsara. While not even citing a separate experience recounted in a tale of a Shaman's trance with the sensation (in vivid detail) of being literally cut-up and tossed in a fiery Cauldron. Samsaric implications arent lost there either. I will do so and share this even if is not immediately apparent as to it being applicable to the current topic. Interesting when faiths confront other faiths, if you dont comment. At least it will explain the search, if you or anyone cares to read on ?  Please View Image: 

 

 

 

 

  P.S. -- Get it through your head. No one on this board is interchangeable.  Oh, The battle is not won, when all you are making this about is your 'opinion' with no seeming examination. Again, The battle is not won.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Danatemporary,

 

I didn't get anything that made any sense out of the reading.  Was the meaning and purpose of life in there and I missed it?  Sure you can spend your whole life exploring things interesting to me or you but have you found the answers?  

As to the discussion about hell I didn't see any point in pursuing it.  Hell is not the "Door" of the gospel and considering the behavior of say Pharaoh with respect to the plagues I don't think hell is the place to start with the atheist.  God doesn't want people to go there - it's evident in giving His Son to save us from it.  That's the power of the gospel to those who believe. Those who don't believe the gospel are a judge to themselves.   

So what I was supposed to get in my head is that all atheists are different?  That wasn't a thought I had at all.  The thing they have in common though is none of them can explain the meaning and purpose of life, death, eternity - beyond attacking God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit and Christians who just honestly believe what God has said and promised in His Word.  Why is the atheist even talking about hell - what does he care about hell?  But if he's not going to hell why doesn't he say where he's going instead?  

Fly and Any just want to help their fellow man and make the world a better place for you and for me and the entire human race but as far as any details about how they are going to do that beyond attacking God and Jesus and their concept of faith they are quieter than a wet twinkie.  So what the help they are going to help with is going to help do for those helped is as non existent as hell to them.

I'm saying that as far as knowing what they are about in this world and why is something no atheist has brought to the table as yet and I'm concluding they and you all have that in common.  

For the Christian the Spirit bears witness with our spirit we are children of God, heirs with Christ.  God who is rich in mercy out of the great love with which He loved us even when we were dead in our trespasses made us alive together with Christ (by grace) and has lifted us up, called us friends, dwells with us - Christ in us the hope of glory.  All who receive Him, who believe in His Name He gives power to become children of God - born of God.  If any man believes in Him - He has promised to come and dwell with him.  We have a lifetime supply of bread in the Word of God.  The Spirit is a refreshing fountain we can drink from constantly.  We look forward to the New Jerusalem coming down like a radiant bride from heaven - and then being forever with the LORD.  We won't be disappointed; in fact we are told the imagination of man is no match for conceiving of what heaven is.

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

jcgadfly wrote:

Fonzie wrote:

danatemporary wrote:

 I saw what you did here

Fonzie wrote:

danatemporary wrote:

danatemporary wrote:

  As for bringing the fruits of my delight, I cannot be expected to fix your traffic problem nor do that. To do so, I'd have to cut-paste major portions of threads (plural) to here. And, Apparently I am having browser trouble is the feed back I got from a long-standing Moderator. Plus, If your Thread is about something, I dont think it would be fair for me to do so. Then you're at the mercy of my editing not to mention all my interests by such an act. That doesnt mean that is an excuse not to do something for you if asked  however.

 

 A thread that exists outside your bubble:
Old and New Testament Hell .  .

 

Fonzie wrote:

Danatemporary,

That was a lot of gathering on your part.  Don't you see however that the only unifying power of these is nihilism?  There is not a one of these atheists that is leading the atheist party beyond the frenzied (imagined) demolition of faith in God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit and the Word of God.  

This is the theme of this thread:  Beyond personal slurs, insults, laughing like thorns crackling under the pot

 

 

 Scriptural reference I did not fail to notice. Eccles. 6 Like the crackling of thorns under the pot, so is the laughter of fools. This too is meaningless.

 Yes, There are fools in every profession (unlike on other boards with atheists' packs; on this board they are few and far between). 

  On  a more serious note, Atheism has a belief but not a 'faith'.  Moreover,  It is an almost ignorant statement of equate the two (definitions in general are often not interchangeable). Please Note,  contrary to what you may have heard, atheism isn’t a nihilistic philosophy, since it’s not really a philosophy at all. Atheism is, rather, merely a cogent position which rejects the fallacious claims of the theist. None of which has even been addressed, in what I lengthily 'shared'. Yet ever since religion has espoused the existence of God, atheism has been getting some bad press. Atheism is often demonized by religionists who have misunderstood it. Atheism has a very simple and narrow definition, so making a distinction is necessary, unless you plan on reading into it a meaninglessness by definition. Definitionally stick with a basic and simpler understanding to start with. The assumption would be like you hear in some self-taught quarters that suggest early christianity was both a death cult and cannibalistic. Clearly a miss read and showing no understanding of the meaning, as to how it was understood.  If you want one side to be represented fairly, you are responsible to do the same, (beyond being merely courteous)! 

  More to the point! I saw what you did. Instead of talking about passages about hell or examining the issue (thoroughly). You make it about the comments of the board, thus being unfair to the board. Instead of an examination of the issue, (at all). Sure that's absolutely fine for the ineffectual, but don't worry you're sticking with it. Btw, What do you do differently then a TWD39 ? Sorry, You'd have to be active on the board to know who that is.  I could have sworn the word 'Hell' was remarked upon and mentioned ?

 Do overlook the Blog moment . .

 In contrast to your approach. I always go back to examine what is said. That entails going beyond mere personal opinion, from whatever perspective. Instead of watching Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade at my great Aunt's house.  I am earnestly finding any web-sources for das log tales. To be honest, You caught me in the middle of looking at Samsara of another faith and I am re-examining of the actual words used in the NDE and tibetan literature of the small number of the more influential das log accounts. The opposite of nyan thos in the(-ir) dialectic. As in a more graphic sense of 'destination'. Importantly, I found some interesting, provocative samsaric imagery (traces) among a spectra of groups of the region. Yes, I have a deep interest in religious imagery. That will NEVER change. Do Forgive the indulgence but I will share with you a couple of pages of what I was reading from, instead of watching. It partially explains why I was so reminded of Samsara. While not even citing a separate experience recounted in a tale of a Shaman's trance with the sensation (in vivid detail) of being literally cut-up and tossed in a fiery Cauldron. Samsaric implications arent lost there either. I will do so and share this even if is not immediately apparent as to it being applicable to the current topic. Interesting when faiths confront other faiths, if you dont comment. At least it will explain the search, if you or anyone cares to read on ?  Please View Image: 

 

 

 

 

  P.S. -- Get it through your head. No one on this board is interchangeable.  Oh, The battle is not won, when all you are making this about is your 'opinion' with no seeming examination. Again, The battle is not won.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Danatemporary,

 

I didn't get anything that made any sense out of the reading.  Was the meaning and purpose of life in there and I missed it?  Sure you can spend your whole life exploring things interesting to me or you but have you found the answers?  

As to the discussion about hell I didn't see any point in pursuing it.  Hell is not the "Door" of the gospel and considering the behavior of say Pharaoh with respect to the plagues I don't think hell is the place to start with the atheist.  God doesn't want people to go there - it's evident in giving His Son to save us from it.  That's the power of the gospel to those who believe. Those who don't believe the gospel are a judge to themselves.   

So what I was supposed to get in my head is that all atheists are different?  That wasn't a thought I had at all.  The thing they have in common though is none of them can explain the meaning and purpose of life, death, eternity - beyond attacking God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit and Christians who just honestly believe what God has said and promised in His Word.  Why is the atheist even talking about hell - what does he care about hell?  But if he's not going to hell why doesn't he say where he's going instead?  

Fly and Any just want to help their fellow man and make the world a better place for you and for me and the entire human race but as far as any details about how they are going to do that beyond attacking God and Jesus and their concept of faith they are quieter than a wet twinkie.  So what the help they are going to help with is going to help do for those helped is as non existent as hell to them.

I'm saying that as far as knowing what they are about in this world and why is something no atheist has brought to the table as yet and I'm concluding they and you all have that in common.  

For the Christian the Spirit bears witness with our spirit we are children of God, heirs with Christ.  God who is rich in mercy out of the great love with which He loved us even when we were dead in our trespasses made us alive together with Christ (by grace) and has lifted us up, called us friends, dwells with us - Christ in us the hope of glory.  All who receive Him, who believe in His Name He gives power to become children of God - born of God.  If any man believes in Him - He has promised to come and dwell with him.  We have a lifetime supply of bread in the Word of God.  The Spirit is a refreshing fountain we can drink from constantly.  We look forward to the New Jerusalem coming down like a radiant bride from heaven - and then being forever with the LORD.  We won't be disappointed; in fact we are told the imagination of man is no match for conceiving of what heaven is.

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Poor fonzie/meph,

Still can't get anyone to follow your example by agreeing that your lies are the truth?

You want to know how to help your fellow man and make the world a better place? You get off your ass and do things for people and in the world. Beats staying in one little internet forum lying and pontificating, doesn't it?

have fun playing church here.

 

 

 

Fly,

 

Sure, just rage and laugh and exhibit your total faith in your thoughts and dreams and imagination about what I am doing...  We are discussing ideas and concepts here Fly that fuel what we're doing (I HAVE GIVEN WHAT WORKS FOR ME); however, when ask what your overall view  about why you are doing what you are doing - you instead throw firebrands, arrows and death (there's another one for you Danatemporary) to distract from the examination of your motives.  Accusing me of "playing church" doesn't tell me what your plan is - it is only your attack on my thinking springing from your aversion to the body of Christ and even Christ Himself.  I understand you disdain my thinking - but what is your thinking other than mocking my thinking?      

Look, you don't know what I am doing and I don't know what you are doing (and I haven't tried to act like I do or attack you for what you're doing or not doing so regroup here).  You say your goal is to help your fellow man.  I ask what is the thinking behind your help and where does your help take those you help.  I even said, (to repeat), just forget your crusade against God and Jesus and the believers you are attacking for a moment (it should be easy since you don't think it exists)  and explain what your overall view of life and death and help truly is and why (but leave out any attack of God and Jesus and the Bible).  Is this too much to ask?  Instead you prove my theorem by reverting from the subject at hand to attacking me - which isn't a plan for helping man.  I'm trying to be clear here about what we're discussing.    

Instead of being glad to instruct me in your better way you express your imagination fueled by your anger and leave the void that is the atheist's dilemma blank.  

So I think in the realm of ideas you (and all the other atheists including the grand worshipful potent atheist Brian) are proving wanting.  I haven't talked about what I am doing and you haven't talked about what you are doing - you changed the subject in order to avoid the question of what (other than attacking God and Christ and believers in the Word of God) - ok, other than that diversion now - what is your understanding of life and death and life after death that motivates and lifts you and yours every moment to help your fellow man.  Even flies require fuel.   We are talking building ideas here Fly, concepts, principles, perspective - not demolition ideas.  Bring out the light and shine it on your ideas and world of thought.  Send the beam across the wave and all that.  I honestly don't know what the atheist motive and thinking and perspective is - other than the obvious attack on faith in God, etc., etc., and I'm having the growing suspicion it doesn't exist.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 It's simple.

Atheists don't believe in life after death, so we have a morality that extends as far as other people's lives and no further. We deem Life to be worth living (in most cases) AS AN END IN ITSELF. There is no greater plan. That's it.

On the other hand, many of us see religion as being a negative force that reduces people's ability to enjoy life to its fullest extent. You may be loving life. Good for you. But those killed in Gaza or Afghanistan, those dying because they are not allowed birth control or abortions even when their life was in danger (read some recent Irish newspapers), those discriminated against because they are gay and their entire religious family has disowned them, or who live a lie because they daren't tell their family.. all these things and more are causing pain and suffering due to nothing more than a dogmatic adherence to some old books, normally having been indoctrinated by their parents.

 

It's not needed, it causes harm. Atheism doesn't in and of itself.

 

I really don't think it needs 3000+ posts to make this point.

 (Edit: I just realised I made pretty much the same comment in post #38 of this thread... 4 years later the same thing is being said. Sigh)

 

What you call god I call serendipity

What you call the devil I call misfortune

What you call hell I call nothing

What you call Heaven I call delusion

Where you claim faith I stare, astonished, and demand evidence.

You make it up as you go along as well. You just attribute any good things that happen to a god and any bad things that happen to a devil so you can take yourself off the hook.

No one puts faith in "the jazz" as you call it. We simply acknowledge our ability to play.

 

What you call god I call serendipity

What you call the devil I call misfortune

What you call hell I call nothing

What you call Heaven I call delusion

Where you claim faith I stare, astonished, and demand evidence.

 Yeah, I'm done debating a delusional person unable to read and understand anyone's points other than their own. Good luck with that.

 

I suggest we let this thread (finally die) - this person has shown time and time again they persistently ignore any points put to them.

 

Die thread, just. please. die.

 

Faith in Jesus works for me - it's exciting.  I love the Bible and believe all of it - though there is mystery.  There is mystery everywhere though, right?  I am a incredibly happy believer in Jesus.  I'm not a theologian, I just believe in Jesus.

I understand you can't make anybody believe in Jesus and the Bible, and I don't personally try to do that.  But I highly recommend it from my experience with it.  I can't get enough of the Bible or Jesus.  I can't imagine trying to navigate through life without it at this point in my life. 

I don't think Jesus or God is a thing you can prove to somebody.  I heard about it a large percentage of my life and it didn't mean anything to me until a certain point - then that all changed. 

So do you guys think that I'm fooling myself, not really happy, you don't believe me, or do you really think I can't be as happy or enlightened as you - are you evangelistic in that sense or what?  What is the purpose of this site?   Do you have something better to offer?  If so, what is your gospel? 

 

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

 (Edit: I just realised I made pretty much the same comment in post #38 of this thread... 4 years later the same thing is being said. Sigh)

If I was a betting man (which I am) I would place my bet that roughly four years from today you will be saying pretty much the same thing and Fonzie will still be Fonzie.  I've pretty much given up on keeping up with this thread for about a year now but Dana tempted me over here this morning- nice to see that nothing has changed.

Be,

Well, I guess I'll have to take that back then.  This is all out debate here and you have laid out the atheist plan, motivation, perspective on life and death (NOT) and even thrown in a little betting.  You just come on and say nobody's changing - but tell me what is so great about atheism that you're not changing from it?  That's not so hard is it?  You guys want to call this a debate but it's anything but a debate because you never tell what makes you tick and why.  You don't show me the atheist "better way".   If you want to make a sure bet it's that there isn't one from your side.

You've got to say we're doing business here...I mean debating (HA).  I tell you why I believe and Who I believe and why and what my basis for understanding life, death the Life that Lives within me through faith in the substitutionary death of the Son of God - saved by the Blood of the Lamb (by grace - actually saved while an enemy).  I've talked about how faith busts through all the doubts and questionings and gaps (some from growth pains and some just not revealed), and faith enables courage based on trust in God Who doesn't change and doesn't let you down.  He is not ashamed of us - whether fisherman, prostitute, sinful despised cast off estranged, whatever.  Our King of Kings has won the hearts of His kingdom by giving His Life's blood for us.  That motivates me 24-7, etc., etc.,etc.

Now... it's your turn.  Don't comment on my theist view and don't come on and tell me what's wrong with it - it doesn't concern you.  You don't believe it.  You have something better.  No ridicule, no anti-faith, no anti-Christ - instead, just spell out and lay out your atheist answer to life and death and that which empowers you to the finish line and through the finish line and on around the track.  

LETS DEBATE!  You have something better (SHOW ME WHAT IT IS) or you would surely (being a honest chap) say, "hey,...maybe I don't!"....right?

Be honest, forget all about Jesus Christ and the Bible and Christianity, the Holy Spirit, the Resurrection and the whole panorama of what doesn't concern you, motivate you, evidence you.  Just give me ATHEIST DOGMA, the food of the atheist, what he lives for and dies for, the pure atheist nectar -  but nothing about God....OK?  

I don't think I have ever accused this thread of being a debate. If there is an atheist "plan" I am not aware of it. Why am I not changing from being an atheist? Because I prefer to deal with reality rather than the imaginary.

If your delusions motivate you I am not going to say you should get rid of them.

I don't pretend there is some secret answer to life and death. You live and one day you will die, enjoy the ride and try not to mess up others peoples lives. There is a lot of fascinating questions about life and how it works and from time to time I enjoy indulging my curiosity and learning about them, but I know that my life is short and I will die never fully understanding how everything works. I'm fine with that, I don't need to feel like I can answer every question, especially since it is so much fun learning something new every day.

Atheist dogma? No such thing. In case you haven't noticed atheists are an extraordinarily diverse bunch and most of us don't insist that everyone should live like we do or for the same reasons. Personally, I enjoy waking up in the morning and doing whatever I feel like doing and not knowing what I am going to do tomorrow. My motivations change from day to day and some days I am not the slightest bit motivated to do anything. I don't think I need anything to live "for", life is amazing and worth living for its own sake. 

 #3325

  (Edit :: Sorry for the broken link it was working fine a couple of days back and even  last night. You can maybe catch a re-run on the ScienceChannel, sorry 'they' pulled the plug today, if I had known I wouldnt have posted it.)

 I'm beginning to think the atheists are not thinkers - or at least not honest with themselves.  

If they have nothing to offer - why won't they leave atheism?  courage?   

Fonzie wrote:

 I'm beginning to think the atheists are not thinkers - or at least not honest with themselves.  

lol

 

Fonzie wrote:

If they have nothing to offer - why won't they leave atheism?  courage?   

For the same reason I don't use shrooms or lsd. I prefer to live with an understanding of reality. 

Be,

 

But what is the understanding of reality that you have faith in?   And you don't need to reference the One I have faith in BTW.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

Fonzie wrote:

Be,

 

But what is the understanding of reality that you have faith in?   And you don't need to reference the One I have faith in BTW.  

I don't have faith, or an understanding of reality.

I believe what is most likely based on the evidence that is available. If I don't know something or can't explain something it falls into two categories- either I don't care or I am curious. If I don't care I go on with my life. If I am curious I research it, find some evidence and come to a conclusion that is consistent with that evidence. I think it would be a rather bold claim to say I have an understanding of reality. There are many things I don't have an understanding of in reality. 

 

Be, 

 

Could you give a specific example of this successfully bringing you to a conclusion on something?  I understand you're an atheist so you could hopefully forgo that one and show me your process and conclusion on something else - or more than one would be great.    

 

 

 

___________________________________

_________________________________________

_______________________________________________

 

......I didn't think so.  The only conclusion I have seen the atheist have in three dimensions is that he has a better idea than God (peppered with the usual blasphemy and mockery).  The atheist is fooling himself IMO, and confronted with his own argument of fact - what evidence does he have that his path or his view of reality is right?  The evidence for his better idea doesn't exist.  His faith is not in a working reality like he says, but a dream he thinks he might evolve over time he doesn't have.

He thinks he is destroying something and mistakes himself for a builder.... 

Have you had faith in people for instance with respect to honesty only to find out your evidence was faulty?

Isn't it hard to gather evidence from just what you see?...Doesn't it become a faith thing to be tested and refined?

where do you get the 32 sec/sec formula for honesty and the input for the unknowns

And how do you gather evidence to conclude what is right and wrong?  And do you think there is a standard that can be found though hidden?  If you find evidence of it then does it apply to others?

Your assumption that god does not exist is based on insufficient evidence.  If you don't accept jesus, your evidence will always be insufficient.

I am not worried about "time-consuming" when god offers me eternity.  Why would I replace faith in jesus with a generalized version of anything, when I already have the Truth?

You need to hone your jesus sense then, because I sense the Reality of jesus with 20/20 vision.

deludedly dream you are getting objective input to your servos like robots

You have made fine hypocrites of yourselves

it's quite a phenomenon

So while you badmouth faith you live and breath it

The faith I have in the Rock is solid.

who intentionally deny it of themselves and blaspheme

Fonzie wrote:

deludedly dream you are getting objective input to your servos like robots

So, reality isn't objective?

 

 

Fonzie wrote:

You have made fine hypocrites of yourselves

And you've made a fine ass of yourself with all the lies you've told on this board.

 

Fonzie wrote:

it's quite a phenomenon

Indeed! The dishonesty and willful ignorance some theists display never fails to astound me...

  

 

Fonzie wrote:

So while you badmouth faith you live and breath it

I criticize faith only when it impairs people's ability to discern fact from fiction.

 

Fonzie wrote:

The faith I have in the Rock is solid.

Oh, I have no doubt your delusions are unshakable.

 

Fonzie wrote:

who intentionally deny it of themselves and blaspheme

LOL, you think all atheists are lying when they tell you they don't think your God is real?