Koyaanisqatsi

luvluv, I wasn't originally going to address your post point-by-point since it was almost entirely ad hominem, but since you continue to misconstrue my points so badly, I felt it justified.

There are many books on the Hellenistic influence on christianity. Paul, by the way, was allegedly a highly educated Hellene, or didn't you know that?

Two that leap to mind regarding directly what I typed are: The Origin of Satan and :Adam, Eve and the Serpent by Elaine Pagels.

Just to pre-empt you, Elain Pagels is the Harrington Spear Paine Foundation Professor of Religion at Princeton University. In 1981, she won a MacArthur Fellowship, often referred to as the "genius grant" and was also the recipient of a Rockefeller Fellowship in 1978-79 and a Guggenheim Fellowship in 1979-80.

She earned her bachelor's degree with honors in 1964 and her master's degree in classics in 1965 both from Stanford University and earned her doctorate with honors and distinction in the study of religion from Harvard University in 1970.

I have both, but unfortunately they're packed away in storage so you'll just have to actually buy the books and read them for yourself.

Another excellent source on Hellentistic influence on christian myths that I do have on hand, however, is Burton Mack, a former professor of the New Testament at the School of Theology at Claremont, California.

This from pages 216-217 of his The Lost Gospel: The Book of Q & Christian Origins:

And this from page 219:

I'll try and dig out Pagels to spoon feed you as well, if you like

No, I'm saying that the Inquisitions were a deliberate scare tactic designed to victimize, torture and/or murder people who refused to see all of the love and good will toward man you claim is the entirety of the christian dogma.

Beside the fact that you didn't address my point nor make one yourself, are you saying that the Inquisitions were something more than forcing people to conform to christianity?

Your opinion carries little weight as does your assertion that "most christians" aren't aware of all the things I detailed in my last two posts, but regardless, the source of your beliefs is rife with it. Indeed, as you demonstrated yourself and I pointed out previously (and you have ignored) everything you subsequently revealed about your own beliefs in your responses proved that even the most reformed christian (i.e., you, apparently) is still aware of and apologizes for all of the topics we've been addressing.

I will take your own words and admissions as sufficient evidence in support of my contentions, if you don't mind.

Even if you could erase your own admissions and could establish that my critique is "still anachronistic at best," that doesn't counter the critique in any fashion. Indeed, it, once again, proves my point regarding the centuries of apologetics and marginallizations that have been employed in order to obfuscate these concepts in the more reformed cult sects such as whatever it is you belong to.

Regardless, as, again, your own admissions prove, the concepts that we are talking about are known and apologized for even by such a reformed christian as yourself; one who claims that no one is taught these things and no one believes these things--eventhough that not only instantly negates the source of your beliefs as wrong (God, Jesus, the Apostles, the authors, etc.), but also that you are deliberately obfuscating the fact that you have heard about every single thing we've been discussing and sought to marginallize it all, you still can't avoid the fact that one's immortal salvation from God's wrath is the entire basis for the passion narrative!

No, I am not. I am arguing that fear is how christian beliefs in particular are largely maintained. Again, as I went to great lengths to explain previously, I will leave it at that and request you review what it is I argued.

Since you won't, I shan't hold my breath.

As to my "implying that whatever is scarier is believed by most people," that is not absurd in the slightest, except for your marginallization attempt. As Hitler allegedly put it, "The bigger the lie, the more poeple will believe it."

The Old Testament god, for example, is depicted as an extremely cruel, violent and vengeful God--in almost total contradiction to just about everything you claim Jesus is--and it was this fear that was used to herd the sheep for thousands of years (to this very day).

Considering that Jesus himself allegedly claimed that he is the Old Testament god (both directly and indirectly, again, as I demonstrated), then where does that leave your beliefs?

In case you are hard of reading, I fullly qualified my comments with since you asked. You asked me to assess their motivations and I provided you with my assessment of the fear motivation behind why I thought theists post here.

But since my judge of character is entirely irrelevant to this discussion and used by you for no other reasons but an ad hominen attack, I'll forgive you. I have been discussing the basis of cult mentality as far as I see it, backed up extensively by careful deconstruction of cult dogma and evidence in support of my contentions from the source of that dogma. It is you who requested I directly assess particular theists and I obliged.

Can we now get back to the actual discussion of the salient issues I and others have raised, or do you want to call my arguments into question by calling me a "pottyhead" next?

Irony. Dripping. Wet.

Ummm... This is an atheist website. You are intruding on my home, remember? You're more than welcome, but you'll have to actually address the salient issues instead of requesting that I sidetrack into a pointless assessment of the theists who post here in order for you to have something to attack, yes?

It's even more fun when people actually present relevant counter argumentation and devastating counter-deconstruction of one's detailed arguments and position, but since you repeatedly demonstrate your inability to do that, looks like there's no fun going on around here.

By the way, would this whole pointless sidetrack be an appropriate example to judge your character by? Let me know so the next time you ask me to judge something, I'll have even more evidence of my contentions, yes?

I see. And what about what I typed right after that?

What's your response to that:

Again, I'll forgive you your petty attempts at ad hominem and instead use you as sufficient example for my contentions.

From the post you have selectively addressed here:

To which (only the second part) you responded:

If you'll recall, I did, right after what I posted above.

And then there was this that you also ignored:

But why actually address anyone's arguments, yes?

Coherent, relevant and valid counter-argumentation would certainly be a good place to start!

Wrong, since it neither "contradicts" my point, nor addresses my question to you regarding the belief that Jesus is your salvation.

Your answer, "to be honest, I don't think about the next world that much" was not the thrust of my question, so all you did was avoid addressing the issues we've been talking about by offering up hopelessly vague anecdotes that reveal nothing of the questions I asked you in any salient manner.

And, come to think of it, you're right, it does serve to prove my point regarding the cognitive dissonance apologetics instill. As we've established from your own admissions, you know about all of the things we've been discussing (the burning lake of fire, the punishment of a vengeful god, the reason Jesus had to sacrifice himself in order to appease God's wrath in order to grant you salvation, etc.), yet marginallize their impact in order to allow you to simply pick and choose what it is you want to believe about Jesus, ignoring what is actually taught by same.

Then you claim that your apologetics somehow contradict my point regarding the fundamental fear-based precepts that you claim most christians know nothing about, at the same time that you know everything about them and seek only to marginallize them.

Again. Piercing counter argument.

Does that imply that you ever did take anything I post seriously at some point, because your track record would prove the opposite in just about every single case.

More evidence for any future requests on your behalf that I judge your character.

No, you're right. My mistake. Where, oh where, could I have possibly gotten such outlandish notions as the two central lynchpins to the entirety of the christian dogma? My bad.

Nobody is a christian and everybody is a christian. How's that? I believe that you should treat your neighbors as you would want them to treat you, so I guess I'm a christian, too!

I mean, so long as we're allowed to discard anything we don't personally like about the dogma, I'll take your lead and do the same thing! There! All that I need to be a christian is to believe in the golden rule.

Oh. Wait. Jesus did not come up with that one. He just plagiarized it from other teachers who came long before he did. You know, like the Old Testament?

Hey, I like this. In fact, since we can just freely toss out anything we don't personally agree from the scriptures, I'm going to throw the whole thing out and still call myself a christian! How's that?

Better still, I'll just make shit up and state that Jesus told everyone to be atheists! That's the ticket!

So, great. Thanks luvluv. Your example has paved the way. Jesus was an atheist! Great.

And you are qualified in what manner to make that claim?

Un hunh. And I did that when?

Once again, if you'd actually read and address the arguments I did make, you would know that I have not been "assessing the motivations of belief!" You asked me to assess the theists who post here regarding their motivations, and I responded that I could only assess their motivations for posting here.

F*ckin hell!

Once again as if to a child, I have been discussing the fundamental basis of the beliefs and not necessarily the motivations of those who believe, accept in response to your pointless sidetrack questions, so enough with this horsehit, if you please!

More evidence of your sterling character, luvluv, so by all means, keep it up. Ad hominem attacks are such compelling counter-arguments.

Christ, what's the point? Who the hell are you addressing this too? It isn't me, since I've made no such decision or observation.

No, I would not, but then, for someone so used to selectively rewriting what others write, it's no surprise that you have put those words in my mouth.

Are you done now so that you can actually address any of my arguments?

On the Judge of Character scale, you're spiralling down to zero at this point.

And I will--as I have done rather conclusively here--simply hold up a goddamned mirror to let them see for themselves what character they display.

Need I remind you that you have yet to offer any reasons for your belief, other than hopelessly vague allusions to Jesus "helping you" and "saving you" from yourself, while at the same time demonstrated your disengenuous position by claiming there are no fear-based elements in the christian dogma at the same time you admit to these elements on your way to marginallizing their impact and denying their existence and apologizing for what God and Jesus and the Apostles and the authors of the myths actually said about hell and the consequences for disbelief.

Not to mention wildly claiming that "most christians" don't even know anything about hell or the entire purpose to Jesus' death and resurrection!

First of all, I had several points that you completely ignored in favor of a pointless sidetrack into my assessment of why theists post here and, second, Pot? Ketlle just called...

So, now that you have avoided my point yet again, care to detail for us all the PUNISHMENT you admitted to earlier that prompted my question? You know, the PUNISHMENT you claim "most christians" like yourself know nothing about?

Have you stopped beating your wife?

According to the scriptures (sorry to keep going back to the actual source of your beliefs) the "presence" of love is just as absolute as the "presence" of punishment, which makes your initial question and this pointless follow up moot, while at the same time avoiding the actual argument I was making, so you'll forgive me if I didn't treat one of your irrelevant observations directly that one time, yes?

Considering that a comparative analysis of how many I didn't directly address and you didn't (and haven't) directly addressed is tremendously disproportionate against you, I wouldn't harp too much on it.

But I guess a drowning man will grasp at any straw...man.

More piercing counter argumentation. Boy, you are good!

Yeah, that's analogous, since we all know how immoral it is to drive a car.

The morality in question if you'll once again recall from the actual argument is whether or not it is objectively moral to kill or not. The commandment is "thou shalt not kill," not "thou shalt not kill, but it's ok if I do."

The actual argument was, if it is objectively immoral to kill, then God can't do it either, or there is no objectivety to that morality.

Well, considering I'll be burning in an eternal lake of fire, I think that would be sufficient evidence for me to accept his forgiveness, whatever the hell that means.

So, I guess you're right. I might as well just go around and call myself a christian, too, right? And since we've already established that it's perfectly acceptable to just rewrite and discard anything we don't like and I established that Jesus was an atheist, well then, there you go!

I can continue to live and believe exactly as I do now and god will forgive me.

But, you know what, come to think of it, I don't like that part either, so I will just rewrite it to state that god forgives everybody no matter what they do or don't do and it is given freely out of his love for us, so we don't have to do a damned thing (including "accepting" his forgiveness) to be automatically saved right this very second!

Yeah. That sounds good. You're a great teacher, luvluv.

Then why is there a burning lake of fire for those who don't? Oh, that's right. There isn't. In fact, as we've just established, none of it is relevant and all of it is (how did you put it?) "anachronistic!"

If such a being exists, I declare based on my right to make up whatever I want in regard to christianity as bestowed upon my by your example, that absolutely nothing at all is necessary on any of our behalfs for God to grant us all salvation right this very second.

There! It's done on earth as it is in heaven.

luvluv

Nothing you quoted established what I was questioning: what evidence do you have that the Christian concept of Hell was designed SPECIFICALLY to be more frightening than alternative concepts of the afterlife? What evidence do you have that this was a conscious attempt on the part of the founders of Christianity to out-scare the scare tactics of other religions?

Yes, I'm saying that the Inquisitions were more likely attempts to establish the political power of the Catholic Church, and not necessarily to establish Christian belief. Most of the people killed in the Inquisitions were Christian believers of some sort. The Inquisition was the attempt on the part of Catholicism to get people to be Christians after their fashion.

Unquestionably, but your assertion is that these passages are the foundation of the beliefs of every individual Christian on a personal, psychological level. How could this be the case if said Christians are totally unaware of the passages?

But the point I was addressing was not about refomred Christians it was about uninformed Christians. It was about Christians who were totally ignorant of the passages you are quoting. A member of Robert Schuller's church, for example, is probably totally ignorant of the passages you are quoting. (Schuller is very into the positivity thing and rarely mentions the afterlife at all). Yet there are members of that congregation who truly believe they have a relationship with a loving God. How could your critique possibly apply to such people?

Whoa, whoa, whoa. I never said that no one is taught in hell or that no one believes in hell. I was just saying you are unjustified in claiming that EVERY Christian believes in or believes because of the threat of punishment. I certainly believe, NOW, that Hell exists, but it was not the foundation of my belief, which is what you are claiming. It is not now central to my beliefs, and that is what you are claiming.

Yes I have but I was simply asking you how this applies to those who have not. You claim that this is true of all Christians, at least, and I am asking how it can possibly be true of certain Christians. Adult converts who were not raised in religious homes who find themselves attracted to God because of descriptions of His love, for example. How would such a person be motivated by fear of punishment, when until He began to believe in God and Christ enough to read the Bible, he was unfamiliar with the doctrine of Hell?

At present, I certainly think so. But there are Christians who do not believe in substitutionary atonement. Again, if you don't know that you have no business making the sweeping claims that you are making.

It is not irrelevant. How can you establish that the basis of a person's belief or their motivation for maintaining belief is fear-based without being capable of judging their character? What you are basically saying is that you read the Bible and you formed an opinion on how belief in God is formed and maintained, and you've voiced that opinion. But without any kind of personal evidence or psychological documentation that your scenario actually obtains, why should anyone believe that it does? If I were to cut and paste all the documents from the Bible extolling the love of God, and then offer a theory of how a person who was raised hearing constantly about the love of God would believe BASED on that love, why should you believe that anyone actually DOES believe based on that? Because I say so?

Wouldn't you ask for further evidence? Some clinical study? Some research? Something?

All my OP in this thread is asking for is some proof that your theories actually obtain. All you keep saying is the fact that I am saying that they may not obtain for some people is proof that they do obtain. Well, excuse me, how is that? I could make a reverse posting of yours based on Biblical passages stating the love of God. If there are equally numerous passages extolling the love of God as there are warning about the punishments of God, (and actually there are MORE extolling the love of God, but lets just say for the sake of argument) how would we decide which passages motivate the beliefs of the Christian community at large EXCEPT by studying them? If I'm supposed to just take your word for this I would need something more substantial than a minor in pyschology from Boston University.

All I'm saying is: prove it.

Yet you quit this board and now you return. And you feel compelled to question the beliefs of a new poster. Why did you return? To convince others? To convince yourself? You spend a pretty good amount of time constructing your answers when I know you have better things to do. Why?

Psychology minor, analyze thyself.

Yes but the notion of the love of God will also be introduced. So how can you say which one is MOST fundamental?

We aren't really here questioning my beliefs, what I am questioning is how you know what is most fundamental in establishing and maintaining a belief in Christianity. Since both God's love and God's justice are emphasized in the Bible, how is it that you know that all Christians are more motivated by fear than by love? How do you know that there could not be a large body of Christians who are more concerned with God's love than with his wrath? How do you explain that there are millions of Christians who do not believe in Hell but not more than a handful who do not believe in Heaven?

Regardless of who is doing the teaching and who is doing the learning, of who is doing the reading and who is doing the interpreting, EVERYONE picks and chooses what to emphasize about EVERYONE ELSE'S comments. I do believe Jesus spoke about Hell and the afterlife, but I believe He put more emphasis on God's love and his desire to have a relationship with every one of us. I can back that up with the number of references and with the level of development of the references can prove my point. Jesus most developed and repeated parables refered to God's love, not to his wrath.

This is just a nickles worth of free advice, Koy, because I realize I have been a little ad hominem with you and I'm trying to back off that now, but just how seriously am I supposed to take a person who constantly refers to his own arguments as "devastating"?

There are Christians who do not believe in substitutionary atonement. I'm sorry if this is news to you. There are people who believe that Jesus was the Son of God, that He was killed on a cross and raised from the dead, and yet believe that His death had absolutely no meaning in terms of God's ability to forgive us. They say that God was just as capable of forgiving us before Christ died as He is now. Such people are generally anti-Paulists, and consider substitutionary atonement to be his invention and a notion which Jesus never intended. Again, you ought to know this before you start making these broad assertions.

At present, I do believe in substitutionary atonement, but some Unitarian friends of mind have been giving me some literature and have nearly changed my mind. At least, they make good points. But the point is that you can believe that Jesus is the messiah, the son of God, and yet believe that His death did not put us in any different of a position than we were in before. His death was simply a pretext for his ressurection, by which God assured the early gospel community that Jesus' witness was real.

The only central tennent of Christianity that I can think of is the notion that Jesus was the messiah and a man who had a unique position to speak on behalf of and in the name of God. But the whole substitionary atonment jazz that you put out there are not essentials, at least in my book.

But again, who gets to decide who is Christian and who is not?

I would not take the word of a person making the claims that you are making without research unless you had several postgraduate degrees in psychology and religion and had written several peer-reviewed papers. You are suggesting that you have certain knowledge that the basis of Christian belief is fear. When asked for proof, you say that you know this because you've read the Bible. In other words, it's your unsubstantiated opinion. You have not presented arguments or evidence. You've presented possible scenarios, but you've given no reasons why anyone should believe that your scenarios actually obtain. You have not conducted a general survey of Christian belief, indeed you do not appear to know any Christians from the traditionally Protestant faiths, which is a HUGE cross-section of believers. Why should anyone take your opinion seriously?

Whatevah. You can't establish the fundamental basis of their beliefs simply by reading the Bible and doing some imaginative guessing. I mean I guess you can, but why should anyone take your scenarios as a strong argument? It simply sounds to me like the bleating of somebody with an axe to grind.

Well, my basic point was that there is nothing holding your arguments up. You are making a postive claim about the fundamental basis of the beliefs of millions of individuals. Your only documentation is that you've read the Bible. Well, great. Other people have read it also and have come away with a radically different intepretation. So, why should anybody take your beliefs over theirs? What qualifies your opinion? Superior training? Superior research? Seriously, what? I would like an answer.

All right, I'm flat out calling you on the carpet on this one.

What is the difference between saying that the fundamental basis of belief is fear, and saying that belief is fundamentally based on fear?

I said the latter, you said the former, and you are errupting like there is a huge difference between the terms. Well here's your chance to clearly explain what the difference is.

Okay, well I am telling you that my beliefs are not fundamentally based on fear, nor is their fundamental basis in fear. You might say that the fact that I post here proves otherwise, but in reality you guys are practice for me. I intend to address atheists as part of my public ministry, and you guys are preparing me. I am not here based on fear. I have yet to fear anything that has ever been said here. Do you believe me?

Generally speaking, would you say you have respect for Christians? I've never seen it.

Excuse me, but I NEVER said that. I simply asked how this could apply to persons who were not AWARE of the fear-based elements, like I was when I first converted.

I would rather hear you admit that there is no reason to believe that God must stop loving you in order to punish you, since you asserted that there was a contradiction there.

Uh-huh. Great. So are you conceding you were wrong about that now?

Isn't that implied in the wording "THOU shalt not kill". That was my point with the analogy. If God said "Killing is objectively wrong" then you'd have a point. But there are certain prescriptions placed on the behavior of certain people because of their ability. Children shouldn't drive because they aren't capable of driving without hurting themselves. Perhaps people cannot kill because they do not know the consequences of any given person entering the afterlife or what the affects of said person's death may be on the living. God does, and perhaps this qualifies Him were we would not be qualified.

I'm asking you a plain simple question. Who gets to decide who is Christian and who isn't and on what basis. Your smart-alecky comments make me suspect you are avoiding the question because it is unanswerable. Prove me wrong.

Koyaanisqatsi

Well, I give credit where credit is due. That was actually a very well written, coherent, point-by-point (roughly) rebuttal that I will address with the same kind of respect and seriousness, probably later this weekend.

I thank you and no, I'm not being facetious.

There's only one major flaw that struck me while reading it just now and perhaps we both share the blame, but I thought I was making it as clear as I possibly could.

Your primary counter-argument is based on a misconception of what I have been addressing (aside from the responses to your ancillary observations). You seem to continue to think that I am/was discussing the reasons why christians believe; that their belief was based on fear.

This is not so. As I thought I made clear, I am addressing christian beliefs; the dogma of the cult and how it is based on fear and how that fear maintains membership. The ancillary offshoot of this misconception has been whether or not it serves to influence possible converts to the cause.

If you'll go back through your last post and edit out all of the observations you made that were based upon this misconception, then you'll see, too, that it negates roughly two thirds.

But, nonetheless, as I said, it was well written, relevant and on a point, but not precisely on the point; regardless, I will go through it in kind and hopefully detail those diversions based on the misconception, as well as deal with the issues your raise that sprang ancillary to the misconception, since that's what I've been largely forced to do the whole time anyway .

Treacle Worshipper

Hi luvluv & Koy,
I've been reading your discussion and finding it fascinating. Partially because you're so at cross purposes! (Koy, I think you're aware of this?)

Luvluv, you've been addressing the reasons why individual Xians believe, and arguing that their faith is not necessarily (or even mostly) based on fear. I think you're right about this. Koy, otoh, has been addressing the basis of Xian doctrine, and how a lot of Xian doctrine is based on fear. I agree with him(?) about that, too. Of course, Xians as individuals are not bound by the stated doctrine of the church, and a lot of them aren't even aware of what their churches hold to be the truth. So you can actually both be right

I look forward to seeing your discussion when you're both talking about the same issues
Best wishes,
TW

luvluv

Thanks for the kind words Treacle.

Koy:

You'll be happy to note that I did pick up Adam, Eve, and the Serpent the other day at the bookstore and I'm about 20 pages into it. Fascinating stuff, I must say. The context she provides makes it easy to see why Jesus' sayings were so popular. It is a bit frustrating the way she takes some of the passages out of context and tries to make them mean things that a plain reading of the text won't bear out. And it's nearly infuriating that she doesn't mention that Jesus DID say that fornication was legitimate grounds for divorce. Other than that, good stuff so far. Although it does not support any of your points in this discussion (at least it doesn't through page 26 ). The Origin of Satan was there too, but as I already had about $70 worth of books in my hands, I decided to let that one slide until next payday...

When I finish it we can hash it out. Unfortunately for my reading schedule, however, I just finally bought Halo and my social, literary, and personal lives are forfeit for the forseeable future.... I will come up for air to ocassionally respond to posts, though.

diana

Damn, Koy. That was an incredible sermon. I'm glad I read all ten chapters, if only for this:

chuckle

And this:

snort

d

Koyaanisqatsi

Well, I promised I would get to your post this weekend, so this still technically counts, since I've been up for twenty three hours....weeee!

I've reread your post and confirmed that the majority is, IMO, borne out of our arguing at cross-purposses (if you'll accept the pun ) so, if it's all right with you I will do what is typically anathema to me and selectively address salient points.

Kindly raise any I missed you feel pertinant and, especially on this one, forgive my dyslexia. It will no doubt be in full bloom.

The Pagels books cover this, though, again, I have not had time to find my copies. I'm glad to see you bought "Adam, Eve & the Serpent," but I may be incorrect on whether or not she covers (specifically) the Hellenistic influence.

Sorry. Calls to authority in regard to my own deconstruction rarely interest me, but I try to oblige.

I know she does in "The Origins of Satan," if that's any consolation. Regardless, they are both excellent books, in spite of your unwarranted critiques.

As you had asked me repeatedly before, what qualifies you to make such judgements ?

Setting Pagels (and Mack) aside, I don't necessarily require any outside evidence or confirmation on this point since it was my contention that this was so, based upon one fundamental and childishly simplistic observation: until established otherwise, the book is nothing more than a collection of cult myths.

As a writer, I can very easily discern what is mythological authoring and, as a human being, I can even more easily discern what has been established as true in regard to this collection and what has not.

So unless you have some strong evidence the rest of the world has never seen regarding the claims of non-fiction cult members maintain without warrant or justification, it is what it is; mythology.

Since it has never been established as anything other than a particular ancient Middle Eastern cult's mythology, then that ipso facto means it was the result of some sort of "conscious attempt" on somebody's behalf (arguably the cult elders; my money's on whoever Paul really was), yes?

In other words, given the fact that no compelling evidence exists to support the cult member's claim that it is non-fiction, then, it is what it is and I am free to speculate to my heart's content on the purposes of creating it, yes?

That is why I provided quotes from the mythology in order to support my contentions.

Yes, you're partially correct (except for the "most of the people" part, since the Inquisition--especially the Spanish redux--were out to convert pagans and jews and primitives; i.e., North and South American Indians, if memory serves), so I guess I should have used the Crusades as a better example of how the fear-based dogma revealed itself in the pious christian cult member of the day. Regardless, the earlier point of your contention and my example alludes me, so if you want to argue this further, I suppose we can.

As addled memory serves, I originally raised a completely different point regarding this, by the way, that you never addressed:

It was you that erroneously qualified my remarks to the "Inquisition" and then sent us off on this tangent, having little to nothing to do with my original point, which was in direct regard to your initial claims that the dogma does not preach fearing a vengeful god and the eternal punishment that awaits us as a consequence of disbelief; that it is instead a dogma of love and forgiveness and free will toward man.

If that is the case, as my original argument went, then why would there have been any need for the centuries of victimization, torture and murder of unbelievers (christian factions and Jews and pagans and the whole lot) in order to gain converts? Centuries that include the Inquisition, but are by no means limited to it?

In other words, my original question to you was ancillary to my argument, not contingent upon it, or in any direct way alluding to it.

It was a question to you regarding the apparent contradiction of what you had claimed regarding the central tenet of the christian cult as you saw it and why centuries of original cult members did not see it that way so far as their actions reveal.

Again, as I originally argued, if the dogma were as you claim it is, then why would there have ever been any forced attempts by anyone to convert others to any form of christianity if not for the direct and indirect commandments to proselytize based on the fear of god found within the dogma?

Remember, no god actually exists; it is just claimed to exist by various cult factions; their particular god being defined by the cult elders, as is the case here.

So, what was written and why was it written and what have the effects been? would be the basis of my posts.

We have a history of thousands of years of oppression based on and justified by the deliberately concocted cult mythology we're discussing. Indeed, your observation regarding the dominant cult sect (the catholics) going to such extremes (even murdering people in Jesus' name) in order to establish their supremacy, once again, proves my point on this, since if the dogma were nothing but love and happiness and a forgiving god who preached nothing but love of one's fellow man, then there would be no basis for the catholics to institute an Inquisition.

If consequences for disbelief were not a central tenet of the Jesus cult, inherent and taught in the very scriptures we've been discussing, then there would have been no way for the Inquisition to begin, let alone justify its actions.

It is rather curious how you keep proving my point! Thanks.

Most of anything that was salient out of what I snipped is encapsulated here, I think. Again, feel free to correct me and repost anything in that huge chuck (and the ones below, no doubt) that you feel I should not have dismissed.

But, back to why I chose this section and how I think it is representative of a central fallacy you were committing in the salient parts of the sections I snippet: Why do you think it comes down to a comparative list of how many "pro" (i.e., positive, or love based) and how many "con" (i.e., negative, or fear based) elements?

I mean, I understand from your initial and continued and (as you claim for mine) unsupported contentions that "most christians" don't actually read the bible and would therefore have no idea about Jesus' fear based statements and parables, but that doesn't change the fact that they are there and merely denied by those who are preaching the whole damn thing to you to begin with.

You're actually proving yet again my point (in an indirect way), by continuing to point out that the christians you know have been lied to in an even bigger way, so perhaps all of this should be raised in a different post. We can call it "Denial Of Jesus' True Self" .

Regardless, for the purposes of this discussion, could you please explain how it is relevant that the number of Jesus' "positive statements about God/Himself"(as they will now be called), somehow either outweigh or, as you imply, dismiss the negative statements about God/Himself?

Jesus could have said nothing but positive things about god, but that still would not negate or dismiss anything negative he might have said, especially since the "negative" things were about threats of eternal punishment and plucking out your eyes and so on.

I think I just figured out what you really are, luvluv! You're a Gnostic!

Now it all makes sense! You should forget "Adam, Eve & the Serpent" and get "The Gnostic Gospels" and "Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas."

I mean that sincerely, by the way.

Although I don't recall using that word, the first thing that springs to mind in answer to your question would be, "By proving me wrong?"

I do know this, which is why I suggested you read the above books (and you suggest they do too, since they are espoussing largely Gnostic beliefs).

As to what this has to do with my actual arguments, however, I'm still at a loss.

Then get those books!

Ok, I'm going to snip more now:

Minor pet peeve of mine (and I know I have no excuse myself, other than dyslexia): it's "tenet" not "tennent."

But, back on point and to throw back in your face something you've been throwing in mine, considering you are also speaking on behalf of "most christians" without justification, could you please qualify that claim? Or do you want to limit this to just what you believe?

Either is fine by me, but obviously we can't both continue to speak for "most christians," yes? For example, no christian I ever met in my 37 years in America (including friends, family, acquaintances, largely presbyterian, mormon, baptist and catholic directly--both reformed and more orthodox--and the more fundamentalist sects represented by members who post here) have ever said that Jesus was merely in a "unique position to speak on behalf of and in the name of God" and nothing else.

Every single one of them has told me that Jesus died for my sins, so, again if you want to claim your views are the prevalent ones in modern christian society, by all means provide some sort of support or just agree to argue only what you believe in.

It is obviously impossible for me to argue against anything you claim is true without some sort of support, just as you keep claiming is the case with my arguments, misconstrued as they are, yes?

Better still, why don't we get back onto what I was originally arguing and discuss the impact of the fear-based elements that you admit exist, yes?

Why not? What about my arguments requires a PhD? What about your arguments requires a PhD?

You keep accusing me....

You know what. To hell with it. Let's skip all this nonsense too, shall we?

No, my "documentation" is the bible.

Indeed, which is the heart of yours and my discussion, yes?

I offer no "beliefs;" only reasoned deconstruction. You are more than welcome to disagree (as you have been) and dismiss it (as you have been).

I would prefer, however, that you address the deconstruction instead of just fallaciously appealing to authority.

You keep claiming that I have presented no evidence in support of my contentions and that simply isn't true. You try to marginallize it by saying that others have read what I have read and come away with a different interpretation. Of course they have, but that doesn't mean you've addressed my interpretation.

Just pointing out the obvious (i.e., that this is my interpretation) does not in any way negate the salient observations and arguments I have raised based upon my interpretation.

Just saying that my interpretation is "wrong" because no one else believes that way is an irrelevant, fallacious argument and one you should endeavor to never make again. It serves no purpose.

What qualifies yours? You're a believer? I was too once. So, we're even.

And of the two of us, at least I have a minor in Psychology from Boston University. So who wins?

You are engaging in a fallacy (a call to authority) that neither one of us can substantiate in any relevant manner so enough.

Counter the arguments and my deconstruction and the evidence I provide (the bible), yes, and show how my arguments are flawed; don't just claim they are flawed because I'm not a member of your particular cult sect, yes?

I'm only including this because you "flat out" called me on the carpet on this one.

As I'm sure you know by now, the difference is that I was arguing that a fundamental base of christian beliefs (note the "s" at the end) is fear; i.e., that the beliefs (the dogma) is largely based on the fear of god and the consequences of disbelief.

What you claim you have been taught (although that still isn't exactly clear) may not have focused on this fundamental quality, but that doesn't negate the existence of this fundamental quality in the dogma.

Also, as I went to great pains to point out, you had initially (disengenuously, as your subseqent posts revealed) presented yourself as one of those christians out there who had not been taught about fearing god and god's punishment and hell, etc., etc., etc., and then went on to post arguments that betrayed your full knowledge of all of those precepts; that you were not only aware of all of those things, but that your particular sect simply obfuscated or marginallized such things from their sheep.

But that's not a moral argument! If you must rely on analogies, please make them consistent with the context of what you're seeking to make analogous.

So, your counter argument is to say, "Perhaps god knows the legitimate reasons why he killed somebody?"

God gets to kill people but we don't, why? Because he allegedly made us? Do your parents therefore get to kill you based on nothing more than that?

The point I was making was that if there is an "objective morality" (which there isn't, but, on point) then no one, including God, can be above it and everyone is accountable to it, including God.

Which means that if God does not provide damn good reasons for committing genocide, then he is proved guilty of high crimes (and misdemeanors) in our eyes (or should be, arguably), which goes directly to the dogma itself regarding God being "morally perfect," as you claimed.

But, again, ancillary.

Well, according to just about everything you posted, anybody can be called a christian on whatever basis they decide, I guess.

According to the scriptures, however, only those who believe that Jesus is Yahweh and somehow, inexplicably, died for your sins (i.e., substitutionary attonement) can be called a christian, since without it, there is nothing extraordinary about the claims of the NT or Jesus, for that matter.

It is answerable as I did prove to you with my "smart-alecky comments." The answer is, "anybody can call themselves a christian without any basis at all."

Thus, I am a christian simply because I want to call myself one.

If you can discard anything you don't like in the NT and still call yourself a christian, then why can't I?

Harrumphrey

You've said nothing to convince me why this "knowledge" of yours is any different from the ideation of a schizophrenic who "knows" that there is a big yellow box of diapers on Pluto.

I won't even go into the fact that the attributes "all-knowing" and "all-powerful" are contradictory.

But if you're satisfied with your "knowledge" then by all means, dream on.

the_cave

Koy--

Finally getting around to responding to your very interesting post. Thank you once again for your efforts. I'm sorry to add these comments so close on the heels of your epic battle with luvluv--please feel free to take as long as you like in replying to them, if you determine you'd like to reply. But mostly, get some sleep.

In order to make your life, and mine, easier, I'm going to make a radical summary of what I see as the central points.

Before I get started, I'd like to make a comment on something someone else said, maybe it was doodad, I can't remember. I just wanted to note that several churches, including the Catholic church, do acknowledge (to some degree) that one can be saved without explicitly being a Christian. As long as you don't deny the Christian gospel without good reason, and follow your own tradition or conscience in good faith, it's possible for you to become saved. I'm fairly sure that even the Catholic church preaches a modest version of this belief. I can find quotes if you need them.

In your reply of 3/10, you made as I see it two, perhaps three, basic points (which you have basically been reiterating to luvluv):

1) We are actually commanded to fear god, not just honor & respect him.

1a) This fear is incompatible with love.

2) This fear is subconsiously ingrained into the Christian belief.

I'll address each of these in turn. I'll say in advance that I'll still be disagreeing with you on some levels, though agreeing with you on some others; but I will also say that I think I see what your motivation is, and it's one I'm sympathetic to. You don't want to see Christians become slaves to fear; in other words, you don't want their leaders to use this fear to control them. I'll be addressing this point last. So, each in turn:

1) I will agree that one of the meanings of "fear" in this context is "dread". It's not the only one, but it's present.

1a) Luvluv states, perhaps accurately, that God is not "pure love". I'd be inclined to go along with that, and you seem to accept his argument. However, you do seem to still be suggesting that this fear & love are at odds with one another.

(Your secondary point seems to be that the things that god seems willing to punish for are not equal to the punishment--lack of faith in god, for example. I'm going to leave this point aside for now, as I noted above that "faith in god" is interpreted ambiguously by many churches. You may feel free to emphasize it if you feel it needs emphasizing.)

Getting back to love and fear, I still don't see how it's impossible for a god to love his creatures, but become upset when they behave immorally (leaving the definition of immorality entirely aside). In your responses to luvluv, you seem to find it difficult to understand how unconditional love could entail punishment. I think you argue persuasively that it's this fear of punishment that's being preached.

Now I should note (as doodad also noticed) that the kind of punishment that's relevant here doesn't appear to be corrective; it appears to be permanent (the "lake of fire", i.e. hell.) So then, the essence of your question seems to be: how can we love a creature, whose power (to punish eternally) we are commanded to fear? (A related, question would be: how could this punishment be love?)

I guess I don't find your definition of love persuasive. You seem to find that love is an automatically completely forgiving, completely forgetting act. It is a complete submission to the actions of another. I certainly don't think this is love. The kind of love I'm talking about is an attitude, not an expression of happiness with every aspect of another. It might help (maybe not) to distinguish emotional from intellectual love. Emotional love is (ideally) a feeling of delight felt about someone else--their entire being is accepted and celebrated. Intellectual love is
an attitude taken towards another--it's an attitude of concern taken towards another for their own sake; in this manner, I love a heartless criminal, in the sense that I want them to get better for their own sake (as well as for others). This doesn't mean I don't think they should be locked up (for the sake of others). If you don't want to call this love, alright--but it's this attitude, this kind of love, I think, that the Christian god minimally feels towards humans. It doesn't mean he's happy all the time. It means he sees how we could become better people, and
wants to encourage it--because we mean something to him.

Which brings us to the question of eternal punishment. Why would such a god still at some point take away all our chances to become better people? There are a couple of directions this could go:

i) It could be that "eternal punishment" (whatever it actually is) is in fact temporary for humans--in the passages you quoted, only Satan & the False Prophet (whoever they are!) get punished eternally. This set-up would be analagous to the Catholic Purgatory. Probably you would know better than I whether there are biblical passages that seem to contradict this so I'll merely leave this as a possibility.

ii) It could be that those who die the second death really do die a second death--they're punished, and then die. That's the end. Well, an atheist would argue that that's what we do in this world for certain criminals (first-degree murder, for example.) We certainly don't think we're deficient in love when we do so, nor do we suffer any cognitive dissonance. So why would it be so awful that god does it?

iiA) Let's get away, for a moment, from the idea that unbelief merits eternal punishment--that it is, for practical purposes "the unforgiveable sin". Let's just say there could be something that merits eternal punishment--or, perhaps the sort of "afterlife extinction" that I've just described. It seems reasonable--genocide, for example, is a pretty bad sin. Even a very loving god would, it seems to me, not be inclined to think very favorably on the actions of someone who committed genocide--and then, let's say, died unrepentant. So that person would receive justice
(and everyone would think so). Maybe god's love doesn't extend to the point of giving genocides a second chance. It's clear human love doesn't extend that far! So why would we be critical of this? In other words, could we still love such a god? Sure. And fear him? Sure--I certainly wouldn't want to commit genocide unrepentantly! But this brings us to your real point--

2) Fear is the subtext of Christian belief--made explicit by, for example, the preaching of Jesus and the NT authors. I should note that I feel I did not exactly admit that this was "a core belief" of Christianity--though I did acknowledge its importance. We can quibble over the meaning of "core belief"--let's just agree at least that it's an issue that needs to be confronted & taken seriously (and kudos to you for doing so!)

I guess I feel that this is not the primary motivation for Christianity--for it itself is motivated by another, very human,
consideration; our sense of justice, and our confusion over "what ought we to do?" You know, "How should Man live?" etc. We're confronted with our apparent freedom--and frightened (I'm using that word deliberately) by its potential consequences. It's our existential anxiety over our freedom that motivates us to love and fear what is good. And, we do in fact fear the reaction of society to immoral acts--and rightly so. That's not a metaphor, that's a fact. Just so, I think, did the apostles admonish their followers to follow god's laws--i.e. morality. Regardless of where
morality comes from (god, evolution, etc.) we feel a compulsion to follow it. In its extreme form, we are afraid of it. In other moments, we love it, for it orders our lives, presumably for the greatest good. You might find this a strange argument for the fear of god, but there it is. We should fear god, in exactly the same way we already fear ourselves and our consciences, and our capacity to punish ourselves and one another. The fear is already a part of our psyche. So it's no surprise that it's in
the Gospel.

Having said that, I will concede that Christians have often inappropriately used that fear to maintain control. I think that's the main force of your arguments. You wish to free Christians from that fear-based control--and rightly so. I can only claim allegiance with that cause.

You also note that it seems to be a malicious game that the Christians play--they get people to feel bad about themselves ("fearing god"), then tell them it's ok--God loves them (as long as they love him in return). I've already tried to show that this is a simplistic model, but your overall point is still valid--it would be wrong to instill fear only for the purpose of selling your particular remedy for it.

But as I note, I don't think the Christians (or Judaism) invented this fear. True, it's in the Bible--but I'm not sure it's intended as an innovation, but merely as an emphasis of an already-present feeling. Thus, "Fear God", would mean "I know you fear [freedom & moral judgment]--and you're right to." Again, it is certainly wrong to misuse this fact, and Christians have. But I don't think that recognizing this misuse takes Christianity apart at the foundations, because it's founded in feelings we already have. I will finally admit that someone using god as a bogeyman
in the sky could perhaps instill an even greater fear of morals than we already have...and this would, again, be certainly wrong. I guess I'm just not persuaded, based on the other things that Jesus (and the NT) reportedly said, that Jesus was using god in this way. That's essentially my main argument.

Koyaanisqatsi

Thanks and did.

Ok.

No need. The question I originally raised wasn't necessarily about what apologetics are employed by various sects to marginallize what is actually written; that was more an ancillary point raised in response to luvluv's misconstrued redirection away from the discussion of what is in the scripture and whether or not it is fear-based.

I think. At this point, it's hard to say what anyone was orginally arguing, so I look forward to your synopsis.

Sounds good so far, though the "1a" was ancillary and I would addend that it is subconsciously ingrained more into the christian through the "belief," but let's see where you're going with this.

Well, that last qualifier is sort of like saying, I want to extract the butter after the cake has been made, but, again, I'll hold off until you get into it.

Such as in Isaiah 8:13? "The LORD Almighty is the one you are to regard as holy, he is the one you are to fear, he is the one you are to dread..."

So, what does that mean in regard to what Jesus actually said (allegedly) in Luke 12:5: "But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him."

What other context is present in that unmistakeable admonition?

I don't, however, necessarily grant his argument in that it contradicts typical dogma (i.e., that god is "all loving" and that salvation comes from loving god in turn).

Jesus makes it very clear, for example, that loving god/himself is a necessary requirement to be his disciple in Matthew 10:37:
"Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me."

Not to mention Matthew 12:18: "Here is my servant whom I have chosen, the one I love, in whom I delight; I will put my Spirit on him, and he will proclaim justice to the nations.

and Matthew 17:5: "While he was still speaking, a bright cloud enveloped them, and a voice from the cloud said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. Listen to him!"

There are many more such pronouncements from God and Jesus regarding the necessity of loving Jesus/God as well as the use of God's love as a factor in why one should follow Jesus. They are inextricably linked (and I won't even quote Luke about all the hating stuff).

One also finds the same kind of admonition in Matthew as in Luke regarding whom Jesus tells his followers to fear (and why that is so; the destruction of both body and soul in hell).

Since we're discussing the psychology of all of this, here we see perfect examples of how loving Jesus/God is an absolute requirement of the faith; in order to be "worthy" of Jesus, you must love him more than you love anybody else, including your own family!

At the same time, however, you are also told to fear nobody on earth because the only one to fear is God/Jesus due to the fact that he has the power to kill both body and soul in an eternal lake of fire (aka, "hell"), a place created by God to punish the wicked and the non-believers.

Fear and love become inextricably linked with one another, if not directly, certainly indirectly throughout most of the gospels.

In other words, the mythology quite clearly declares that one is to both fear and love god, more so than you fear or love any person or thing on earth.

They are presented equally, yet contradict one another, since the fear of God is represented in the concept of hell (damnation) and the love of God is represented in the concept of heaven (or salvation). You are to love Jesus, for example, so that you are "worthy" of him. Well, what does that mean, if not being saved from hell in his eyes?

He is supposed to be God in christianity, so what does it mean to not be "worthy" of God? It means condemnation to hell.

That maxim is explicitly stated repeatedly throughout the NT mythology, with a constant equivocation of those two terms; you are to love God because if you don't, you will be condemned to hell.

That's what is written; so what I am more concerned with (rather than just stopping christians from being controlled by fear) is to find out what explains how otherwise intelligent people such as yourself and luvluv can read such nonsense and conclude that black is actually white.

Hence, some form of cult indoctrination; i.e., "brainwashing," most probably through cognitive dissonance.

The questioning theist will raise this question. How am I supposed to both fear and love god, when my fear of god is predicated on how much I love him? And the apologetics employed to obfuscate this are (as luvluv demonstrated) to ask you a question that has nothing to do with the complexities being discussed; i.e., Don't you fear and love your own parents?

This question is in no way analogous to the complexities we've been discussing and only plays directly upon cognitive dissonance; indeed it instigates it in the untrained mind.

"Well, yes I fear and love my parents, I guess."
"Well, god is like your father, only in no way shape or form anything like your father at all and far too complex for this analogy to do anything other than sufficiently confuse you as to what your real question was addressing."

See what I mean? It is the accumulative effect of all of this that leads me (and others) to the cult methodology as a means to explain how it is someone can see black and claim white.

I mean, do you apply that double standard in any other aspect of your life? To go back to the same analogy in a different and more appropriate application, if I were to tell you to fear my brother, for example, because he has the power to render you unconscious (and you've heard many a tale regarding his temper and how he has beaten down many hundreds of people) all because you somehow do something that he doesn't like and no one but he knows what that might be at any given time, aren't you going to take me at my word? Aren't you going to, at the very least, give my brother a wide berth if and when you ever meet him? Wouldn't that be the purpose of my admonition that you should fear him and what he might do to you for no discernable reason?

And if I then were to tell you, "But don't worry, so long as I deem you are worthy of hanging out with me, my brother will protect you and make sure no harm ever comes to you." That you should in fact love my brother for this protection, considering the fact that both of us are in a very dangerous place, with enemies within our own households and these are perilous times, what with all the terrorists and fanatics out to kill you for nothing more than what is in your head and on and on and on.

This is precisely what is being sold to christians; a protection racket on cosmic levels. Fear god and me (Jesus), because if I don't find you worthy, then neither will god and you will be condemned to hell.

Has that been apologized for and marginallized and obfuscated in various cult sects? Yes, as luvluv amply demonstrates, but that doesn't change the fact that it is still at the base of the belief structure. Modern day apologetics on hell is to say that it is a state of being without God's love; without God's grace, but that's still playing upon the instilled fear of God's wrath, since the only passage to salvation offered in the NT out of such a state is to love Jesus/God more than anybody else in your life and pray that this love will make you worthy of him.

Fear and love--arguably two of the most intense and obtuse human emotions--are used as the carrot and the stick and once it has been established that to not love Jesus will result in whatever punishment you wish to marginallize (i.e., self-inflicted) it is still all the result of God's will that this be so.

So, here's a follow up question to both you and luvluv (if he's reading), if what I am detailing here does not exist in the teachings of Jesus and I'm all wrong on how it is utilized, then why is there any mention of punishment or fear of God (however marginallized you want) in any of the NT? If I'm wrong, then you tell me why Jesus commands you to fear god because of his ability to destroy both body and soul in hell? Or, to love him more than anybody else in your entire life, or you won't be "worthy" of him?

What are these if not threats, both direct and indirect; consequences for not believing that Jesus is the Messiah/God? Friendly reminders? Why would Jesus tell the parable of the wedding guest, wherein God is likened to a King who ties and binds and tosses an innocent out into the streets where there is "wailing and gnashing of teeth," whose only crime was to show up in shabby clothes if this was not meant to instill a fear of the wrath of God and that the wrath is omnipresent and will result in God inflicting punishment upon you, just like the King in the parable did?

Just because this person disrespected the King (in his eyes) by showing up in shabby clothes, the King orders his punishment; a rather severe punishment no less that directly alludes to hell (the wailing and gnashing of teeth).

So, we're not just talking about "respecting" god, we're also talking about the consequences for not "respecting" god; the punishment factor that is to be feared as a result of disrespecting god.

If you do not love me more than anybody else in your life, then you are not worthy of me and we all not what happens to those who are deemed unworthy. They are condemned to hell.

Fear and love, love and fear (flove) are inextricably linked in the christian belief structure, regardless if some sects don't preach it directly, but only seek to marginallize it (i.e., rewrite the bible).

What god meant to say was...

Um. I already have, so I'll let what I wrote stand if it's all the same to you.

Well, we can't leave the definition of immorality aside, since it is this that causes the injustice in regard to the punishment for disbelief.

How can it be considered to be immoral to not believe in God? Yet this is precisely the case implied in the condemnation to hell for non-believers.

I think what we should do is leave out "sinners" and "the wicked" and such and focus instead on the specific punishment for not believing; for not being seen as "worthy" in Jesus/God's eyes, yes?

The bible is quite specific what fate awaits all us atheists. We shall be forever tormented in a burning lake of fire/sulfur along with Satan and all of the most horrific people throughout history, presumably, all because we simply did not believe (past tense) that Jesus was our savior.

Why? Why would that be an eternal capital offense if what I argue is not the case? Believe or you will burn in hell is an unmistakeable threat in the actual words of the NT. The fact that this has been marginallized and apologized for (i.e., obfuscated) only raises even more questions as to why christians remain christians, don't you think?

If the source--which is supposed to be God's Holy Word--is telling you one thing and your preacher/reverend/rabbi/guru is telling you "no, that's not really what god meant," which are you supposed to believe? Especially since your preacher/reverend/rabbi/guru instructs you that the bible is indeed God's Holy Word.

Cognitive dissonance.

I'll hold commenting on any of this speculation regarding what it is I seem to be arguing until you do your thing.

You mean your interpretation of my definition, though I don't recalling defining love, but, again, I'll hold off...

Neither do I, so I'm at a loss as to how to address an argument based on your false interpretation of what I seem to be arguing.

I don't find unconditional love to be an "automatically completely forgiving, completely forgetting act," since I don't think there is any such thing as "unconditional love." It is claimed in christian dogma, however, that god is all loving and all forgiving, but that's not necessarily scriptural.

I do recall arguing, however, that if god were all loving and all forgiving that it certainly contradicts the notion of eternal punishment for committing no crime.

It would be a case of wanting to eat your cake and have it too, but since this was also ancillary, I'm not quite sure why you've decided to focus on it.

It don't love Jesus more than anybody else on earth, then I will not be "worhty" of him. What are the consequences of my being found not worthy of Jesus? Hell.

So, I guess this just boils down to Jesus/God not being worthy of me.

Then why does he threaten us with eternal damnation for not believing in him? How are to become "better people" if we're burning eternally in a lake of fire for our disbelief? How do we become better people by loving Jesus more than we love anybody else on earth?

If you'll recall, all of this is supposed to happen after we are dead and called to judgement. Where do you find anything in there that seeks to make us better people on earth?

Again, Jesus told us (on the Mount) that we are to consider our suffering and our enemies as blessings; that we are to turn our cheeks when authority strikes us; that we are to remain "meek" for only then will we inherit the earth (and then only those who love Jesus more than anybody else in our lives). How does any of that make us better people and why don't you see how it is all fear based, regardless of the desperate assurances by modern apologists that this isn't really what god meant to say?

The Sermon on the Mount quite clearly instructs followers of Jesus to not just remain "meek," but to rejoice in our suffering and oppression, for it is that suffering and oppression that makes us blessed in God's eyes! How does that make us better people on earth?

Wouldn't we be better people if we did not accept our suffering and actually sought to do something to stop our oppression; indeed, to stop the oppressors from continuing to inflict pain and suffering on everyone we love?

Oh, that's right. We are to largely ignore everyone we love and instead focus all of our love on Jesus. After all, didn't he ignore his own mother's calls and admonish his followers that "he who does not hate his brother and wife and mother and sister and cat and dog..." etc., etc., "cannot be my disciple?"

Isn't he the one who is come to set brother against brother and father against father and wreck the whole damn household so that only He loved and followed above all others? Aren't we supposed to sell everything and blah, blah, blah.

I think you see my point.

There is nothing but allegiance to Jesus that is ultimately preached in the scriptures, with the threat of being killed twice in an eternal lack of fire for non-compliance.

Now, I see all of that from the actual words absent any noise from apologists and have posted those words in support of my contentions, yet the only response has been "well, that's just your opinion and others interpret it differently."

Which is, of course, irrelevant to the question of why somebody would interpret those words differently.

The lake of fire is where Satan is sent (it is the second death) to be tormented for ever and ever. We (meaning non-believers) are likewise thrown into that same lake, that, according to Revelations, anyway, is where we will apparently remain for ever and ever.

There is no mention of salvation from the lake after we are cast into it, but, regardless, it is claimed to be the place where both body and soul are destroyed; i.e., the second death.

Why would disbelief in life warrant such an extreme punishment in death?

If memory serves, the judgement comes after we are dead and is punitive to our actions and beliefs when we were alive, so if while you are alive your love is not found worthy by Jesus, you will be punished for this once you're dead.

Well, the "second death" is the burning lake of fire, where Satan, at least, is said to be tormented for ever and ever, so if you're implying annihilation, that isn't borne out from the scriptures.

The second death will be, presumably, an burning in a lake of fire for all eternity. That's if you believe John, of course.

But, as Jesus said, it is better to cut off your own hand and/or pluck out your own eye than to risk being thrown into hell, so it is largely irrelevant how long the punishment lasts; the point is that any punishment for disbelief if unwarranted unless the purpose for it all was to scare people into maintaining their beliefs, or, indeed, and ancillary, to believing in the first place.

Why else would there be a threat for non-believers, specifically, in any of it, if not for the deliberate desire to use this as a control mechanism right from the start?

Threatening somebody that they will burn in hell (regardless of the length of time in it) for not believing what is being told to them serves only one purpose as far as I can see.

If you can see another--which I have yet to see in this post--then by all means post it.

All I've seen so far is luvluv trying to convince me that this isn't what is clearly written in the NT (or, excuse me, not taught to "most christians," which, again, only makes it worse since they're being lied to about arbuably the most important facts about the basis of their beliefs).

Because God doesn't need to do any punishing at all! If god is as he is supposed to be, he would know that not-believing in him while alive should harbor no ill consequences once we die and discover the truth, unless that god is a vengeful god and demands that we live a certain way in life or suffer the consequences.

Again, you can't eat your cake and have it to.

There is only one reason to threaten somebody regarding the consequences of their disbelief and that is to try and get them to believe.

There is only one reason to preach consequences for disbelief, and that is to maintain belief.

Why? That's the thrust of all of this.

What would that have to do with anything? So he's repentant? That would forgive him his crimes?

I certainly hope so, since you've barely touched on it thus far.

Ok. And thanks, I guess.

Well, according to Jesus we are to hate everyone in our lives in order to be his disciple and love him more than anyone in our lives in order for him to deem us "worthy" of him and fear God at the same time we love him and be completely happy little meek sheep, because the fact that we are oppressed and suffering means we will win anything off the top shelf once we're dead and it no longer matters.

Oh, and we're not supposed to throw any stones at people.

I have never feared anything that was "good," so I'm at a loss on this one, too, but, again, I'll let you play it out.

Yes, well, I could mention that Jesus actually rewrote those laws and even made some of them up that weren't in the originals, but skip it. Ancillary.

Although, more on point, however, is that the apostles and Jesus do not instruct their followers to follow god's laws; they instruct their followers to follow Jesus, with the unsupported and unsubstantiated claim that he is God or at least god's messiah, as prophecied largely by Isaiah, which is also not the case.

In the ancillary above, Jesus does not tell his followers to follow god's laws; he first rewrites them and then instruct his followers to follow god's laws; i.e., his laws, newly rewritten, so, in the christian cult sect anyway, you clearly have an example of a charismatic cult leader instructing his followers to disregard the Jewish God's laws.

We feel that "compulsion" because it comes from Mankind creating and imposing those laws, largely through threats of non-compliance.

Sound familiar to anything we've been discussing?

There what is?

No, you're quite right; it is no surprise that the fears that already exist in our psyche's are exploited in the gospel; the question is why and how otherwise intelligent people can't seem to see that this is indeed the case?

Well, except for the "inappropriately" part. The fear is inherent in the belief structure. Is that what you mean by my "main force," because that's certainly what I meant?

Fantastic. Then you agree with me that the NT is a fraudulent book that should be relegated to the trash heap of all other childish mythologies past.

I'm buying the first round!

I'll get to the rest in a minute. There's something wrong with my computer's memory and I can't seem to get beyond this last line.