Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I've answered this laughable assertion before, but I will answer it again: this stupid assertion that people send themselves to hell was invented simply as a means of getting god off the hook for something he is entirely responsible for, that of assuring we get into heaven. Churchmen couldn't explain why a perfect god is so incompetent and impotent that he fails to save 90% of people so the churchmen said, "Let's make god so holy that he cannot look at sin...." But the rest of it it is still so laughably stupid that I cannot explain away the stupidity. "God is holy therefore people send themselves to hell." It's like saying "My son is so brilliant he fails every exam he takes." I mean it's on that level of insanity.
I find this rebuttal of yours severely lacking. Most of it's just name-calling. And it's utterly implausible to me that people who believed god was perfect would lean toward "God's incompetent/impotent" rather than simply what the bible already said in it, which is that he gave humankind choices and they kept choosing to sin, disobey god, etc. IOW, nobody believed that god was trying to force them into heaven but couldn't. They believed god wanted them to choose it and they just didn't.
Now, again, I don't think any of these bad choices would justify someone suffering in hell (or even being denied heaven for that matter) for an eternity, which is why I would encourage Christians to adopt Universalism. But I don't think you're dealing a deathblow to the hell doctrine here, either.
Yes, I do and anyone who isn't a gullible god-zombie would think the same.
Quote:
Did you watch the video in it's entirety?
Yes I did. Interesting that he was, according to him, plucked from his sleep and hurled into a filthy dungeon and was "terrified beyond imagination"...and then, instead of thinking 'What the....' he felt it more important to check what time it was on his watch. which he was presumably wearing in bed! LOL!
...and I suppose none of the gullible Christians that bought this 'book' bothered to ask where the medical records are - for the broken bones that he suffered when he was thrown against the wall. I have watched some rubbish in my time but that tripe is close to the top. Really dude! If you believe this balderdash then there is no hope for you.
Quote:
Then you will realise it is likely factual.
No. I realise that it is a scam to make money out of weak, gullible people.
Anybody notice how the Biblical god shares so many attributes with an abusive husband it's practically impossible to tell the difference? One of the many hallmarks of an abusive husband is wrath followed almost immediately by pity and remorse for what he's done. "Return to me, for I have redeemed thee".
In one moment an abusive husband tells his wife how much he loves her--how she means the world to him--and then when she innocently says something or does something that would be completely innocuous to a normal person, in the abusive husband it triggers an abnormal reaction that any normal, well-adjusted person would find completely inexplicable. The husband out of nowhere punches, kicks, slaps and throttles his spouse and then, as she lay bleeding, half-conscious on the floor in a heap, says sorrowfully to her, "Darling, I hate doing that to you, I really do. Why do you force me to beat you that way?"
How is the Biblical god any different? In one moment he tells us how much he loves us, how we mean the world to him and then for a senseless thought crime like not trusting in Jesus for forgiveness of our sins he throws us into hell with, "Depart from me ye cursed into everlasting flames prepared for the devil and his minions for I told you to believe in my son so that you would not perish in eternal fire and ye would not do it. But don't feel bad, I do this with tears in my eyes. Remember, I'll always love you!"
So one moment it's "I love you" and the next moment it's "Depart from me, ye cursed!" Does that sound like a schizophrenic psychopath or doesn't it?
The normal person would find torturing their spouse for years on end while telling them how much they love them to be about the most heinous thing a person could do but for the Christian god to torture his spouse/child for eternity it's business as usual: "Hey, I got no problem with that, as long as you say and do EXACTLY what I tell you!"
Here are eight indicators of a domestic bully. How many of you can honestly say, "That sounds like the god of the Bible."
*Bullies, threatens, or controls you Matthew 25:41
*Accuses you of having an affair 1 Kings 14:15
*Blames you for abuse 2 Kings 17:19-20
*Criticizes you Isaiah 64:6
*Tells you what to wear and how you should look Leviticus, Isaiah 3:16-23
*Threatens to kill you or someone close to you Numbers 14:36-38
*Throws things or punches walls when angry Numbers 21:4-9
*Yells at you and tells you you are his property 1Corinthians 6:20
*Extremely jealous when you glance at other men Exodus 20:5
I find this rebuttal of yours severely lacking. Most of it's just name-calling. And it's utterly implausible to me that people who believed god was perfect would lean toward "God's incompetent/impotent" rather than simply what the bible already said in it, which is that he gave humankind choices and they kept choosing to sin, disobey god, etc. IOW, nobody believed that god was trying to force them into heaven but couldn't. They believed god wanted them to choose it and they just didn't.
Now, again, I don't think any of these bad choices would justify someone suffering in hell (or even being denied heaven for that matter) for an eternity, which is why I would encourage Christians to adopt Universalism. But I don't think you're dealing a deathblow to the hell doctrine here, either.
But God supposedly commanded man to stone to death a woman who was raped but apparently did not scream out loud enough. Or if the woman was a servant she could be raped and allowed to live. So he gave a woman or girl the choice of not being raped and she decided she wanted to be raoed?
There are other examples that could be made of where punishments were declared upon deeds the person had no say in it but you and other believers twist it to put the blame upon the victim and that too often caries into the modern world.
And why do believers wish to blame those who find problems with some of what is written in the Bible for being hateful, stupid or close minded instead of investigating to see if there are indeed parts of the Bible which are wrong? Like stoning a rape victim? Or endorsing slavery?
But God supposedly commanded man to stone to death a woman who was raped but apparently did not scream out loud enough.
I think I know which verse you're referring to here, and it never says anything about the volume of her screaming; it says because she didn't cry/scream, even though she was in the city where people would've been able to help her, she's to be put to death. And it says that if a man sleeps with her, not specifying that she was raped in the first place, which is probably the question considering the stipulations for her being stoned.
Quote:
Telling them they are sinners for just being alive is abuse IMHO.
Wow! See, I always interpreted "We are all sinners" as just an acknowledgment that being tempted to do wrong is human nature (and I hardly consider that news, much less controversial news).
Quote:
And why make up useless rules
Obviously, Christians don't assume that they are/were useless rules. What basis do you have to assert that they were?
Quote:
that are inconsistent depending on the person or through time.
You mean like pretty much all moral rules are even without religion?
Quote:
Why does one need to believe to be a good person?
Make up your mind. Are you criticizing Christianity for saying we're all sinners just for being alive, or for saying the only ones who are not "good people" are non-believers?
Quote:
Why d9 believers need to invent things t9 justify slavery in the Bible when we all know that it was not all indented servitude and that we recognize slavery as immoral?
Recognizing that the bible does command that slaveowners not oppress their slaves or threaten them, etc. is no invention; it says it plain as day. And that not everyone followed the commands is hardly a mark against the religion, nor can we develop a good case against the type of slavery actually condoned in the bible (and no, saying "Don't punish the master in these circumstances" is not condoning what he did).
Quote:
And why do believers wish to blame those who find problems with some of what is written in the Bible for being hateful, stupid or close minded instead of investigating to see if there are indeed parts of the Bible which are wrong?
False dichotomy. There are probably plenty who are doing both. And there are probably at least some atheists who are motivated by hate rather than justice, I don't see why we should assume otherwise.
I've answered this laughable assertion before, but I will answer it again: this stupid assertion that people send themselves to hell was invented simply as a means of getting god off the hook for something he is entirely responsible for, that of assuring we get into heaven. Churchmen couldn't explain why a perfect god is so incompetent and impotent that he fails to save 90% of people so the churchmen said, "Let's make god so holy that he cannot look at sin...." But the rest of it it is still so laughably stupid that I cannot explain away the stupidity. "God is holy therefore people send themselves to hell." It's like saying "My son is so brilliant he fails every exam he takes." I mean it's on that level of insanity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
I find this rebuttal of yours severely lacking. Most of it's just name-calling. And it's utterly implausible to me that people who believed god was perfect would lean toward "God's incompetent/impotent" rather than simply what the bible already said in it, which is that he gave humankind choices and they kept choosing to sin, disobey god, etc. IOW, nobody believed that god was trying to force them into heaven but couldn't. They believed god wanted them to choose it and they just didn't.
Now, again, I don't think any of these bad choices would justify someone suffering in hell (or even being denied heaven for that matter) for an eternity, which is why I would encourage Christians to adopt Universalism. But I don't think you're dealing a deathblow to the hell doctrine here, either.
First, let's get one thing clear: that the assertion Christians constantly throw at non-Christians that "God doesn't send people to hell; people send themselves to hell" is laughable reasoning is beyond dispute. Such an assertion is a priori stupidity and let me define a priori for those who may not have a legal background
a priori: relating to or denoting reasoning or knowledge which proceeds from theoretical deduction rather than from observation or experience.
Just analyze the sentence: God doesn't send people to hell..." Of course (the Christian) god sends people to hell. He sits on a judgment throne and says, "Depart from me, ye curse, into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his minions" Who sending them to hell if not the Christian god? Now look at the 2nd part: "people send themselves..." How on earth do people send themselves???? A person would have to be a complete bird-brain to buy into such a silly notion that people voluntarily choose to god to hell. The crux of the argument is that by not accepting Jesus the Christian god has no choice but to go against his sovereign will and send people to where he doesn't want to send them. Is the Christian god God or not? If he's a real God he can do anything he wants including finding a way around this silly "I am a god of mercy but I am also a god of justice" balderdash. But the Christians cannot figure out a way to do both so they sacrifice their god's mercy for his justice because to Christians, accepting Jesus is at the core of keeping their particular brand of faith alive. That's the all-encompassing endgame: KEEP CHRISTIANITY ALIVE. Without accepting Jesus as THE cardinal rule of their faith, Christianity dies.
This inability of the Christian god to find a workable solution between the problem of saving everyone and thus justifying Jesus' sacrifice and the fact that most people simply reject Jesus--this inability of the Christian god to find a workable solution between these dichotomies makes the Christian god a total nincompoop--a bumbling idiot. Do we really want this kind of god running things in this universe???? when the simple solution is universal salvation--the ability to accept Jesus after death? Of course not. But try pitching universal salvation to Mike555, or BaptistFundie, or SAAN or any of those fundies and see how far you get.
The division among Christians whether eternal torment or universal salvation or annihilation is the proper end for the wicked proves perfectly why Christianity is just another pagan religion and not the true faith: because if it were the real true faith there would be only ONE belief in ONE destiny indisputably given by Jesus. But that never happened so the notion "God doesn't send people to hell..." stays a stupid, laughable, and silly notion and their god stays an impotent failure.
First, let's get one thing clear: that the assertion Christians constantly throw at non-Christians that "God doesn't send people to hell; people send themselves to hell" is laughable reasoning is beyond dispute. Such an assertion is a priori stupidity and let me define a priori for those who may not have a legal background
a priori: relating to or denoting reasoning or knowledge which proceeds from theoretical deduction rather than from observation or experience.
Just analyze the sentence: God doesn't send people to hell..." Of course (the Christian) god sends people to hell. He sits on a judgment throne and says, "Depart from me, ye curse, into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his minions" Who sending them to hell if not the Christian god? Now look at the 2nd part: "people send themselves..." How on earth do people send themselves???? A person would have to be a complete bird-brain to buy into such a silly notion that people voluntarily choose to god to hell. The crux of the argument is that by not accepting Jesus the Christian god has no choice but to go against his sovereign will and send people to where he doesn't want to send them. Is the Christian god God or not? If he's a real God he can do anything he wants including finding a way around this silly "I am a god of mercy but I am also a god of justice" balderdash. But the Christians cannot figure out a way to do both so they sacrifice their god's mercy for his justice because to Christians, accepting Jesus is at the core of keeping their particular brand of faith alive. That's the all-encompassing endgame: KEEP CHRISTIANITY ALIVE. Without accepting Jesus as THE cardinal rule of their faith, Christianity dies.
This inability of the Christian god to find a workable solution between the problem of saving everyone and thus justifying Jesus' sacrifice and the fact that most people simply reject Jesus--this inability of the Christian god to find a workable solution between these dichotomies makes the Christian god a total nincompoop--a bumbling idiot. Do we really want this kind of god running things in this universe???? when the simple solution is universal salvation--the ability to accept Jesus after death? Of course not. But try pitching universal salvation to Mike555, or BaptistFundie, or SAAN or any of those fundies and see how far you get.
The division among Christians whether eternal torment or universal salvation or annihilation is the proper end for the wicked proves perfectly why Christianity is just another pagan religion and not the true faith: because if it were the real true faith there would be only ONE belief in ONE destiny indisputably given by Jesus. But that never happened so the notion "God doesn't send people to hell..." stays a stupid, laughable, and silly notion and their god stays an impotent failure.
I think I know which verse you're referring to here, and it never says anything about the volume of her screaming; it says because she didn't cry/scream, even though she was in the city where people would've been able to help her, she's to be put to death. And it says that if a man sleeps with her, not specifying that she was raped in the first place, which is probably the question considering the stipulations for her being stoned.
Wow! See, I always interpreted "We are all sinners" as just an acknowledgment that being tempted to do wrong is human nature (and I hardly consider that news, much less controversial news).
Obviously, Christians don't assume that they are/were useless rules. What basis do you have to assert that they were?
You mean like pretty much all moral rules are even without religion?
Make up your mind. Are you criticizing Christianity for saying we're all sinners just for being alive, or for saying the only ones who are not "good people" are non-believers?
Recognizing that the bible does command that slaveowners not oppress their slaves or threaten them, etc. is no invention; it says it plain as day. And that not everyone followed the commands is hardly a mark against the religion, nor can we develop a good case against the type of slavery actually condoned in the bible (and no, saying "Don't punish the master in these circumstances" is not condoning what he did).
False dichotomy. There are probably plenty who are doing both. And there are probably at least some atheists who are motivated by hate rather than justice, I don't see why we should assume otherwise.
Well if we used the Bible rules most raped women would be stoned to death, fright, knife to their throat or hand over mouth not an excuse to prevent them from being stoned.
The Bible gives detailed instructions on how to treat a slave including how much you can beat them without punishment. Didn't Jesus tell slaves to obey their masters? God seemed much more concerned about collecting firewood on the Sabbath than not allowing slavery.
And yes moral rules without religion change. That is the positive aspect of secular rules. We see banning homosexuality in society as more harmful than beneficial so we stop outlawing of it. The fact that one of the individuals who did more than anyone else to win WWII ended up in prison due to being gay is a blight upon all if us. It was the secular world that decided that animal abuse was wrong and following that that child abuse is wrobg. By secular I mean the politics of a nation not the rules of a church.
And I meant that religion treats those who do not defend the indefensible of the Bible are viewed as being against God. It's an internal method to prevent critiquing the word of God as a good Christian is not worthy of understanding God and should either keep quiet or defend everything that is in the Bible. I cannot see how anyone can find a way to defend the regulating of slavery or the punishment of rape victims without the fear that doing so makes them a sinner against their God.
I am not sure how you can say that no one can make a case against the type of slavery in the Bible. Slavery in the Bible was not indentured slavery other than for male Hebrews. Female Jews were not released and non Jews were just as much a slave then as Blacks were in pre civil war USA. I am not sure how a person with a open mind free of concerns of offending his or her God can defend slavery as prescient in the Bible. And that is part of the abuse husband cimparision, even you cannot see b that slavery in the Bible was immoral without worrying of offending God,
In the secular world we get something wrong about laws or treatment we acknowledge the errors, make amends or at least apologize and learn a lesson. One should not be afraid to admit what you thought was wrong is not wrong and what you thought was right is in fact wrong. Fifty years ago I was bigoted against gays. I was wrong. Society was wrong back then. Religion will never change about that 9r at least those who claim the Bible cannot contain any errors. That is why you argue that slavery was different back then.
Yes, I do and anyone who isn't a gullible god-zombie would think the same.
Yes I did. Interesting that he was, according to him, plucked from his sleep and hurled into a filthy dungeon and was "terrified beyond imagination"...and then, instead of thinking 'What the....' he felt it more important to check what time it was on his watch. which he was presumably wearing in bed! LOL!
...and I suppose none of the gullible Christians that bought this 'book' bothered to ask where the medical records are - for the broken bones that he suffered when he was thrown against the wall. I have watched some rubbish in my time but that tripe is close to the top. Really dude! If you believe this balderdash then there is no hope for you.
No. I realise that it is a scam to make money out of weak, gullible people.
Bill Weiss was an unsuccessful real estate agent going nowhere--unable to keep his trophy wife in the life to which she had become financially accustomed. Then he read Mary K Baxter's baloney book, A Divine Revelation of Hell and said, "Hey, if she can make a million writing this kindergarten stuff why can't I"?
So he devised this elaborate plot and then wrote a book about it. Pure fiction. No EMT report, no records of any visits to the ER. Then he hit the tour circuit just like Ian McCormack did with his NDE and meeting Jesus in his supposed NDE after getting stung by a jellyfish.
Todd Burpo is another one, part time minister full time garage mechanic. Going nowhere financially. Then his son gets taken to the ER with appendicitis. Todd asks his son, Colton repeatedly, "Did you see Jesus? Come on! You must have seen Jesus." Colton, under enormous pressure finally relents, "Yes, I think I saw Jesus." Todd says, "I knew it!" So he writes the book "Heaven is For Real" and gets a book and movie deal. Made a few million on the whole thing, I read.
Ted Weiss, Mary K Baxter, Ian McCormack and Todd Burpo, like peas in a pod--all Christian phonies out to capitalize on gullible Christian saps to lift money out of their pockets which the saps readily fork over just for a few minutes of feel-good, "I can go to heaven and meet Jesus too" sentiments.
Pathetic Christian racketeering!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
