Hawkingfan

Koy is doing fine with this, but I thought I'd share my 2 cents worth.
I think fear plays a major role in all religions, not just Chistianity. Since its very beginnings, religion was fashioned in a way to most effectively deal with man's fear of DEATH. Look at the ancient Egyptians. Buddhism. And look at modern Islam and Christianity. My evidence for this is the psychology behind religious thought and texts. Also from what I hear Christians say and see them do.
To answer your second question, I would say not many (if any) Christians in this forum or anywhere else THINK that they are motivated by fear. But I do not think that they realize that they are. I partly know this from my own experience and realizations from when I changed from being a Christian to becoming an atheist.
When myself and others would try and convert others to Christianity, one of the major crux's of the argument centered around the fear of death (although we didn't realize it or call it that). What happens when you die? Is there a better world waiting for you in the afterlife? Rewards? Wouldn't you like to live forever in paradise? Good, here is what you must believe in order to get there. This is how you must live your life. God wants a relationship with you in order for you to be with him in heaven. Accept him. You don't even have to mention hell or punishment if you want. Suppressing someone's fear of dying takes care of it all. It's comforting.
Again, this is not much different than other religions.
Most everyone is afraid of death. With religion, death becomes something to look forward to (in a way) because of the myth behind it. It is much scarier to deal with it otherwise.

exile

You have a point. However some varieties of religion emphasise Hell or some equivalent, which might actually INCREASE one's fear of death.

I think it's more a case of trying to regulate behaviour by postulating a punishment/reward system that operates after death, thus countering the argument

A.- don't steal
B.- why not?
A.- because you'll go to jail
B.- but if I don't get caught I won't
A.- errrr.....

However it must be said that many people I know have derived a great deal of comfort from the thought of meeting loved ones in the afterlife, and this is one of the attractions of religion.

It is, of course, perfectly possible to believe in an afterlife and not believe in the God of Abraham, Jesus and Mohammed, or indeed any God at all. We might meet up in some sort of Nirvanah or Valhalla and find there are no Gods. Unfortunately the lack of Gods or evidence of Gods there would still not prove the non-existence of God. Damn!

Hawkingfan

great points!

Koyaanisqatsi

Fear and punishment. Classic operant conditioning in order to instill a docile, slave mentality to authority (in cult cases, the illusion of a god as represented by the cult elders).

Thus, the Sermon on the Mount makes perfect sense. Consider yourself blessed for your oppression (instead of seeking redress); turn the other cheek; remain docile and content in your suffering, for this means you will "inherit the earth" in a pure fantasy land of salvation and resurrection that is promised to happen thousands of years in the future some time (but of course, if a day to god is like a millenia, well, then...)

In other words, be a sheep all of your lives and make sure you live as long as possible (i.e., don't do the most logical thing and just kill yourself in order to go straight to heaven, because the act of killing yourself to go straight to heaven will instead send you straight to hell) and tote those bails and hoist those barges--for in that sleep of death what dreams may come when we have shuffled off this mortal coil, must give us pause: there's the respect that makes calamity of so long life; for who would bear the whips and scorns of time, the oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely, the pangs of despised love, the law's delay, the insolence of office and the spurns that patient merit of the unworthy takes, when he himself might his quietus make with a bare bodkin? Who would fardels bear, to grunt and sweat under a weary life, but that the dread of something after death, the undiscover'd country from whose bourn no traveller returns, puzzles the will and makes us rather bear those ills we have than fly to others that we know not of?

Thus conscience does make cowards of us all; and thus the native hue of resolution is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought, and enterprises of great pith and moment with this regard their currents turn awry...

And selah brother Marlowe!

luvluv

Koy:

Well, frankly, I think this is worse. How could one believe based on threat of punishment unless one believed that the punishment was real? It sounds dreadfully circular.

This implies that if I were to invent a religion which threatened a Christian with a hell ten times as hot as the Christian hell, said fear-based Christian would abandon his Christian beliefs and adopt my "hotter-hell" religion. Obviously this is not true.

You would perhaps say that this is because the fear-based Christian was raised to believe in the Christian-hell, and not the "hotter-hell" of my nascent religion. Well, would this not suggest that the belief is based in the upbringing and surroundings, not simply in the fear. And that if a person had been raised to not believe in any hell at all, if hell was a totally foreign concept to him, that any mention of anything like a hell would fail to instill in him a belief in hell?

So, to paraphrase Tina Turner, what's threat of punishment got to do... got to do with it?

In all honesty, and with all due respect, you don't strike me as a good judge of character.

Do you think my beliefs, or the beliefs of other theists on this board, are motivated primarily by fear?

Well, how can you say that it operates on an unconcious level on the one hand and then support it with quotes from the Bible on the other hand. Are you aware that most Christians in the world would not be familiar with the Bible passages you just quoted? How then would such fears based on Biblical passages work themselves into their subconscious when they never heard them before? And how did the fear of punishment work it's way into the subconscious of individuals, like myself, who were not raised in the church or in a religious environment at all. Before I was a Christian, I actually did not believe in hell or divine punishment at all. So how exactly did that become a subconscious basis for my belief when it was a foreign concept to me? ( And not only me. The same would apply for millions of adult Christian converts.)

I see warnings employed in the Bible. But the emphasis is not anything like what this discussion would lead one to believe. The New Testament, particularly the teachings of Christ, give far more emphasis to forgiveness, for example, than to the threat of punishment.

You would admit that you are omitting large portions of relavent Christian theology, would you not? Is it possible you are skewing the evidence slightly in your favor? And why would you do that?

Clear as mud.

Riddle me this: How could one fear it UNLESS one accepted that it was true? Again, this sounds incredibly circular.

Nope. I really don't think the case can be made that the emphasis of Christian theology or the basis of belief in Christianity is the fear of punishment. I've read the Bible a little too much for that.

No.

Why does this matter if the fear works basically on a subconscious level? Unless one had the relevant passages read to them in their sleep from childbirth...

It tells me to do all these things. But it also tells me that the most important law of all is to love God with all my heart, and with all my soul, and with all my mind.

Do you? Otherwise how are you psycho-analyzing the whole lot of them ???

Very arguably. But why don't you start by first making the case that this is so. (Hint: I would avoid the part where the founder of the religion says that the most important law is to love God and your fellow man. That might hurt your case. Oh but wait, the fact that God actually tells us not to fear Him is just PROOF he wants us to fear Him! How could I have missed this rather obvious fact staring me right in the face!?)

Isn't everybody?

No the fact that eternal damnation exists and is to be avoided is a central tenet of the New Testament. Jesus did not give any "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" speeches. He mentions Hell most often in ways that are metaphoric and vague. Not at all the way one would describe something if one was trying to get someone to make a decision out of fear of it.

Oh but wait! This too PROVES that he was trying to make scare them into believing Him! Darn, but he's crafty!

In my arguments with you on this issue, I find that even direct statements from the Bible which fully contradict your hypothesis simply affirms it, in your mind. So what can a fellow do?

Remind me again: Do you have any training in psychology or any relavent field which would allow you to be so sure about any of these observations?

Or did you sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night?

Well, you got one thing right.

No, that would mean that the PUNISHMENT is conditional, and predicated upon my repentance.

What you are saying would suggest that one cannot punish someone and love them at the same time. Anyone who has children knows this isn't true.

Something about love being "a lord of terribe aspect." That love is a violent, selfish passion. It's in the first essay of Why I am Not a Christian. It's been a while since I read it.

Well, with Christ and Paul I would say that morality cannot be totally encapsulated with keeping the rules. There can be morally sufficient reasons for killing, to use your example. Killing in self-defense for example. In fact, many commentators are quick to point out that a more literal translation of that passage would read "Thou shalt not murder". Which would mean not to kill out of passion. This is obvious because not only does God allow killing in certain parts of the Old Testament but he actually prescribes capital punishment for certain crimes.

Moral perfection means in my mind to act in such a way as to bring about the best possible state of affairs, given the situation. I can see circumstances where this would allow and even require killing. But like it or not, God is in a different moral position than us. If the moral law means acting in such a way as to bring about the best possible state of affairs, inasmuch as you are able, then it stands to reason that God is given much more leeway, because He is so much more able than are we. As an analogy, consider that we find it morally unobjectionable for a parent to punish a child, but morally questionable for one child to punish another child. This is primarily because the one child is not able, generally speaking, to bring about a better state of affairs by punishing another child. Neither child knows enough about behavior (if they are nearly the same age) to adequately discipline the other. Similarly, while it may be impossible in most situations for us to know that we are bringing about a better state of affairs by killing someone, God is in a position to know these things.

But then this is another conversation....

Koyaanisqatsi

Christ luvluv, do we always have to do this stupid dance? The beliefs are fundamentally based on fear (i.e., the dogma that constitutes the beliefs), not that one believes, necessarily, because of fear, though that could be effectively argued as well.

See if you can follow the math. Typically, as a child, you are told what it is your family (i.e., your parents) believe. Part and parcel to that is, typically, going to church and hearing all about the details of that belief from the source of that belief; in the christian cult it is the Bible (specifically and almost exclusively--depending on the sect--the New Testament).

It is through those ancient writings that the fear-based dogma is inculcated; the consequences and punishment for not-believing that are rife throughout the scriptures being listed side-by-side with the "don't fear so long as you believe" inculcation.

Do all sects emphasize this aspect these days? No. They seek to do what you are doing; to obfuscate and re-interpret (more commonly known as apologetics) to make the original tone and intent of the first cult authors harsh admonitions seem to be the opposite; thus statements from Jesus such as, "I came not to bring peace, but a sword," become "I came to bring peace, not a sword."

Black becomes white so that otherwise intelligent cult members don't stand up and lynch their programmers. It's called (as you well know) "cognitive dissonance," and the effect is to instill a vengeful God's punishment into your subconscious so that no matter what, the cult member fears doing anything wrong in God's eyes.

Once the "bad cop" routine has been implanted, the "good cop" routine kicks in so that it's all smoothed over. Yes, God will punish you, but really what happens is, you punish yourself! God is not to be feared; he's to be loved, because all he wants is for you to do the right thing."

IT'S WHAT'S IMPLICIT WITHIN THAT WASHES THE BRAIN.

Implicit is the punishment for disbelief; the harsh slap in the face. Then the cold, comfort compact is applied to mend that bruise, by saying something like, "But with belief comes eternal salvation and love so there's really nothing to fear at all!" Or the like.

The cult member's mind is shaked-and-baked by being first reminded of the consequences for disbelief, and then that wound gets balmed over with the joy and reward for belief.

Push-me/pull-you; bad cop/good cop; whatever you want to call it, the effect is to instill in the background the threat (the ever looming Damolcle's Sword) so that it can then be marginallized and apologized for (according to the particular sect's "reformed" status, of course) so that the power of that subconscious fear can be translated into an open vessle to be filled with whatever other nonsense the cult leaders choose.

Here, let me demonstrate it as simplistically as possible for you: You will die a horrible death unless you do exactly as I say, but, don't worry, since by doing exactly what I say, you will not die a horrible death.

That is the heart of the fear that is at the base (the fundamental base) of the beliefs.

There's also the flipside, such as your beliefs seem to illustrate. For you, the hook is: You will live an eternal, loving life if you believe in Jesus as your savior and God.

The fear of punishment is largely obfuscated by the exact apologetics you employ around here, but it's still obfuscation and apologetics; the deliberate misinterpretation of such things as fear and punishment by a vengeful God, so that black gets turned into white so that the beliefs are more palatable.

It doesn't change the message inherent in the source, however; it's worse! It seeks to deny what the actual dogma is based upon so that people such as yourself continue to follow.

It is true, historically, but the history of your beliefs obviously doesn't mean anything to you, since you're one of those apologists that simply discard randomly or seek to disengenuously apologize for all those "icky" parts of your dogma; the origins of which be damned.

The very quotes we've been referring to were all largely designed for a Hellenistic influenced community of converts and the concepts employed (such as fear the one who has the power to kill both body and soul in hell), arguably (and not just by me, but by apologists more pious than either of us ) intended specifically for the purposes of comparing one cult to another; of "one-upping" the fear base of the Hellenistic influence precisely to reinforce the comparative punishment quotient for disbelief in the converts.

It goes like this: You believe that when you die you go to Hades and that's the end of it, but that is not true. The Bible tells us that when you die, you will still be punished in the second death if your beliefs aren't pure; if you don't accept unequivocably the healing power of Jesus, Amen! So don't fear the other gods you believed in once, fear the one with the true power; the power to destroy both body and soul in the burning lake of fire!

It was precisely designed as a comparatively worse concept of fear and punishment to both reinforce converts as well as strengthen the dogma to preach to others who were already theists in one way or another to begin with.

You do know, at least, the historically relevant significance of the word "conversion" to the early christian cult, yes?

Though, you are partially right in one regard. Conversion did not always work in this manner, so, again if you'd read a good history book now and again, you might also come across such things as the Inquisition and the fear of capital punishment on Earth for disbelief.

I wonder why the early christian cult for centuries (and not just the result of one or two "bad" apples in the bunch, but for centuries) had to resort to such dire methods, if, as you make it seem, the whole thing is all about love and not fearing a vengeful gods?

The fear comes from the source, so whatever point you're trying to make is moot. Some cults don't emphasize it (as I mentioned) and others do, but that doesn't change the fact that it's right there in type on the page that every cult member is supposed to read (and then have it re-interpreted, typically, in church the next day).

Yes, of course, but then we are no longer talking about christianity.

Everything, as you've just demonstrated. If you aren't inculcated into a belief based on the fear of a vengeful god or a hell that he created to punish the sinners and the non-believers, then you obviously won't believe in a hell.

But then, you're not a christian, either, since christianity comes from the texts that do instill and command you to fear God precisely because he has the power to destroy both body and soul in hell; a burning lake of fire and sulfur where torment lasts for ever and ever.

The fear and punishment is inherent and implicit, so anyone inculcated through the readings of and adherene to those scriptures will have two choices: believe that the scriptures are true and the threats are real, or, do as you apparently do and simply deny that this is what the scriptures actually say, by employing an extremely convoluted and illogical series of disengenuous re-interpretations and selective readings and apologetics so that it seems as if the scriptures did not just command you to fear God; yes I say, to fear him.

So, you're not actually positing somebody who was never taught about hell; you're positing someone who was told that hell didn't really mean an eternal lake of burning fire where Satan and you will be tormented for ever and ever for your disbelief.

There's a tremendous difference between someone who was never taught to believe in hell and someone who was told that the hell described quite vividly in the scriptures they are told are "true," is nonetheless not really true in the manner that is obvious to anyone who reads the words.

In my opinion, that is an even more heinous crime, since it is little more than an even more complex series of lies and misinformation instead of what it should be, which is evidence of fraud.

Indeed, I would posit that all such apologetics come from that very fact; the knowledge that it is all a huge fraud, so the cult leaders better come up with ways to deal with it before the whole thing collapses in upon itself.

The very fact that apologists exist, IMO, proves the fraud they seek to obfuscate.

I am an excellent judge of character, my friend, because all I do is show you a mirror. That question is a perfect example. I never stated that the beliefs are motivated primarily by fear; I said that fear is inherent and implicit within the beliefs; the dogma; the scripture; etc.

But since you've asked, I do think that, especially the theists who on this board, are motivated primarily by fear; the fear of losing their beliefs by the very arguments and reasons regularly posted in these fora.

Why else would you be here arguing with me if not for the fact that subconsciously you know I'm right and seek (often extreme, IMO) means to convince yourself that my arguments are not right?

It's no skin off my nose what you want to believe (so long as you don't preach it or let it effect others in some manner) and I didn't ask you to come and challenge the things I write, yet you do repeatedly, no matter how many times I show you up .

Why? To convince me? Hardly.

So, do you believe out of fear? Only you can answer that, but I would certainly suggest you take a serious look at the enormous lengths you go to in order to make it seem as if someone commanding you to fear your god; yes, fear him--because he has the power to destroy both your body and soul in an eternal lake of burning fire--does not say and believe in precisely what he's telling you!

You have just been told (in no uncertain terms) to believe in Jesus or your will burn forever in God's torture chamber, yet, for some reason (or lack thereof), you simply choose to dismiss that and instead turn it all around so that what is being taught to you is to love Jesus, because he died for your sins.

As I've asked you before, why the hell do you even call yourself a christian if you're just going to selectively deny or equivocate the "icky" parts?

What God meant to say was...

Because that's where the source of your cult comes from? You know, the basis for the beliefs?

Gee, I wonder why that is?

I'm sorry, I guess I just assumed that a christian would actually read their own bibles from time to time. You know, especially the synoptics?

Are you seriously trying to argue that "most" christians are not aware of "hell" or the commandments to "Fear God" or that there are any consequences for their disbelief?

If you'll pardon me, I find that hard to believe...

Would you happen to have any stats available on the number of christians who have never heard of "hell" or the consequences for not believing in Jesus? I would very much like to read those.

Well, then, there you go. Before you were a christian, you did not believe in hell or divine punishment, but now that you are, you do, only in marginallized terms.

As I've said several times already, the fear is inherent and implied in the beliefs. As you've just perfectly demonstrated, it comes largely as a result of immersion in the cult. You're proving my point.

Before christianity, no such concepts existed for you. After christianity, they now exist, you just seek to marginallize and re-interpret them into a more palatable form.

Let's end this quickly by my asking you a simple question: If fear on some level (such as the fear of not being called up to heaven) does not exist somewhere in your subconscious as a result of the dogma you marginallize and admit was not present prior to your conversion, then why do you believe that Jesus is your salvation? Salvation from what, if you have nothing to fear? From yourself? Why? What have you done that would require such a sacrifice for your salvation? To grant you eternal life?

If God is not to be feared and is "morally perfect," then what was the entire purpose for Jesus' death and resurrection, if not to save you from God's wrath in order to grant you eternal life?

Whether you like it or not, fear of God, in one way or another, is replete throughout the dogma of the christian cult; whether you personally read it in the scriptures themselves or you just showed up for church every Sunday, one way or another (as you freely admit) the concepts will be introduced. It is a fundamental base of the belief.

Already addressed.

"Warnings" eh? In case you were looking for direct evidence of my marginallization accusations, there would be a good one.

The key word being "lead."

Good cop/bad cop, and, IMO, you're incorrect, but we've got enough on our plate to rehash that hundred page thread.

No, I would not. Indeed, just the opposite.

My "favor?" What would that be? What do I win?

Oh, well, that's obvious, isn't it? I'm a minion of Satan.

Are you seriously trying to accuse me of having some sort alterior motive? Like I'm out to "get" you, or something?

Now do you see what poison springs from the well you champion?

Because you're disengenuously building it that way and discounting, once again, the history (and influence) of the cult. The fundamental quality of fear and punishment for disbelief is inherent within the dogma that is taught to the members. Converts, such as yourself, are likewise inculcated into the dogma--lured most likely (as you claim) not by the actual words (what did you say, most christians have never heard the synoptics...something like that?), but by the apologetics that have formed and reformed over the centuries--to make it all more palatable to modern sensibilities.

You're brought in by friends and family or by reading apologetic literature (again, assuming what you claimed previously is true and not just something you said) and not the actual scriptures and told what it is that "we believe" (again, contrary to what is actually taught in the [b]source[/]b of the cult faction you're alluding to), and then, bingo! Someone who had never heard of hell or divinie punishment is now a firm believer in the obfuscated, watered-down version; christianity 8.0.

That doesn't mean, however, that the fear is gone, it's just never directly spoken of in the harsh and clear terms of the source of the beliefs.

Thus, in people such as you, you have a believer who believes, but denies or otherwise marginallizes selected parts of the dogma to maintain your membership in the cult.

Funny, so have I, and yet I come to the polar opposite conclusion. Now, why is that? Because I'm a minion of Satan? Because I just can't bear to lose an argument? Or is that I'm bitter that Jesus never smiled my way?

Remember, I was a cult member too, even singing in the choir and acting in church plays (Amahl and the Night Visitors; unfortunately, I'll never forget it). My parents are christians and I love them dearly; no preacher or priest ever molested me or did anything at all other than lie to me over and over and over again about things that were obviously untrue.

No nun ever slapped my hand and no one ever said directly that I would burn in hell. Indeed, in the presbyterian sect we belonged to, hell was likewise never mentioned or directly taught. I too, was taught only to love Jesus as my personal savior.

Then I woke up and saw what a tremendous and dangerous fraud was being deliberately perpetrated on everyone I knew and how that dogma controlled behavior and molded society in seriously detrimental ways.

Then I started reading about the actual origins of my cult and the larger cult it sprang from and what was actually being taught in the Sermon on the Mount and in Paul's hatred of the Jews and so on and so on and so on, and the rest is, literally, history.

Many do, but as for the rest of your point, already addressed. The subconscious level is what reinforces and maintains the adherence to the cult.

It does? I thought fear of god was not a part of your indoctrination?

And why is that? What are the consequences for not doing this? Why don't you tell us how it was explained to you and then we'll go to the actual source to see if it coincides with God's word, yes?


I'm not. I'm "psycho-analyzing" the basis of the beliefs and how such a basis arguably effects believers. And remember, since you asked me to, I "psycho-analyzed" your own position based on readily demonstrated examples and deconstruction of your arguments.

The topic of this thread is "Why I am a christian," yes? Am I not allowed to introduce my own deconstruction of why anyone might be a christian and what that means, based upon an analysis of the beliefs of christianity?

You are claiming to not just speak for "most" christians, but also to explain what it is they all believe in. I'm not allowed to do likewise?

I not only made case, I demonstrated how it was true.

My "case?"

How would that "hurt my case?" No one's questioning what the dogma [b]also[/]b includes (though I have, subsequently, based on your posts).

How indeed? Especially since God tells you not to fear him because of and so long as you believe in him. That would be another example of your convenient denial, by the way.

What are you told are the consequences for disbelief? In the bible, you are told to fear him, because he has the power to destroy both body and soul in an eternal lake of burning fire as a direct consequence of disbelief.

It's no wonder you missed it, having not, like most christians, read the passages I'm referring to.

OK, it's late and I'm tired. I'll get to the rest tomorrow.

openeyes

Koy: :notworthy :notworthy :notworthy

Jobar

[Cartman] Kickass. [/Cartman]

Luvluv wants to concentrate entirely on the carrot of Heaven and ignore the stick of Hell. A very common thing. But if you derive your beliefs from the Bible, you have to face the fact that Hell is mentioned there at least as often as Heaven.

(It would be interesting to do a word search on those two, in the NT, the OT, and the Bible overall. I would not be surprised if Hell and the synonyms for it was mentioned more often that Heaven and its synonyms.)

Koyaanisqatsi

The rest...

Not christians! A christian must believe that Jesus the Christ was/is your personal savior and God, yes? You must believe further that Jesus died for your sins in order to protect you from God's wrath in order for God/Himself to grant you eternal life, yes?

Correct me if I am wrong about those two fundamental precepts that must be adhered to religiously, one might say, in order to be even remotely called a "christian."

It does? I thought you said, once again, that you were never indoctrinated into this belief?

So, how is this a contradiction of what I stated? Why should you avoid eternal damnation if there is nothing to fear from it?

Just keep cranking out those rationalizations and marginallizations, luvluv, because you're proving my "case" far better than I ever could.

He didn't have to, his minions were doing it for him based upon the Old Testament's vengeful and angry God Yahweh, but, again, you are arguably incorrect on this point, too.

Jesus, who is supposed to be God, which, by your own admission is a precept that is accepted by "most christians" long before any of them ever actually read the source of their beliefs, so going into the cult you have the accepted precept that Jesus is God, yes?

Since actions speak louder than words, how would you describe the Jesus in the temple who causes a near riot by overturning the money changer's tables and chastises the crowd? A "happy" God?

Here, since you're presumably like "most christians" and haven't read the source:

Why does he tell his minions that it is better to cut off a hand or poke out your eye than to risk hell fire? Because he's a slightly silly God?

Or how about the Parable of the Wedding Banquet, from Matthew (or didn't you read that one either)?

Since the King is supposed to God and Jesus is God, then what does this parable say about him? That's he's a genial, laissez faire kind of God?

And then a little farther down we have this little gem:

Sounds like you luvluv. Let's see what Jesus, your savior means by that:

So Jesus, who is God is the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, aka, Yahweh, the Old Testament god. Care for me to list a few of the fearful things the Old Testament god did?

Funny how it is you knew about the very next section of what Jesus preached (the "Greatest Commandment" parts one and two), but selectively missed these previous examples.

And don't get me started on Matthew 23 with all of the Seven Woes bullshite!

What's that? Jesus' coy, effervescent, kidding side?

There are so many more examples of this (such as the admonition to Satan in the wilderness--"Thou shalt not put your god to the test," or some such nonsense), but, I guess what is actually written in the scriptures just doesn't interest you is it isn't first sanitized through your apologetics, yes?

He tells you to fear--yes, fear--the One who can destroy both body and soul in hell and that it is better to pluck out your eye or cut off your hand and to not even call someone a "fool" or risk hell fire!

He also tells oppressed people that they should rejoice in their oppression! Why? Because one day they will be set free from this oppression while still alive? NO! Because it is this very oppression that makes them blessed in god's eyes after they are dead and their oppressers can no longer oppress them anyway!

He tells you to love your enemies. Why? Because that love will stop them from being your enemies and stop their aggression against you? NO! Because one's enemies likewise mean that you are blessed in god's eyes after you are dead and your enemies can no longer hurt you anyway!

In other words, he tells you to fear punishment for disbelief and relish in your suffering, since that will mean you win anything off the top shelf once you're dead and it no longer matters.

Some "god of the living!"

Indeed. He equates himself (or rather, the authors of the myths do so) with the vengeful god of the Old Testament; tells you it is better to pluck out your own eye and cut off your own hand and to fear the One who can destroy both body and soul in an eternal lake of fire, almost at the same time he tells you to consider your suffering a blessing (and therefore not to seek redress), because you will be rewarded for it once you're dead and it no longer matters and his claims cannot be verified or challenged, and then he says, but don't fear all of that because I am your savior and god so long as you believe that I am.

For those who don't believe, well, he said it. Heaven is like a wedding banquet where the King will tie and bound you for showing up wearing shabby clothes and there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth (a thinly veiled referrence to hell, no less), because "many are invited, but few are chosen."

You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell...?

How indeed? But no fear in any of that. Lord no!

Address the arguments I post explaining why the statements you choose do not "fully contradict" my "hypothesis" for starters!

You see, the way it's supposed to work is, you quote something to support your argument or counter mine. I then explain (in great detail) why it does not support your argument or counter mine.

You are then supposed to offer a rebuttal, with even more detailed and coherent counter-argumentation as to the flaws in my arguments and evidence, if you are capable of doing so, not just claim you've done it by offering a counter quote and leaving it at that.

If you'd care to notice, when I quote something, I demonstrate how it applies to my arguments. It is the how that you will have to counter. So far, as many more than myself can readily confirm, you have not (at least none that haven't then in turn been countered by me that I can see; if I'm wrong, kindly point out any arguments you have made that I failed to counter with detailed deconstruction as to how your counter was either not valid or not applicable).

Remind me again to keep pointing out your evasion tactics.

As a matter of fact, I have a minor in Psychology from Boston University, if that helps you to fallaciously dismiss valid arguments with a call to authority.

I have news for you. Denial is not exactly a Rubric's cube of the human psyche.

Piercing counter argument. So, you now fully agree that punishment is part and parcel to your beliefs? It's just that the punishment--eternal torment in a burning lake of fire--is a result of love? Is that it?

Oh, that's right. God and Jesus and the apostles and the authors of the myths were all wrong about there being an eternal lake of fire.

So, to recap, just about everything you initially stated about what "most christians" believe, turns out to fall almost directly in line with what I have presented here; the fear of god and the punishment and consequences for disbelief, etc,., etc., etc., it's just that you personally don't think that God or Jesus actually meant any of those things about the fear of god and the punishment and the consequences for disbelief (and the plucking of the eyes and cutting of the hands and flavin!)

That's a mighty convenient standard of belief you have there. To hell with what is actually written about how and what we're supposed to believe in to call ourselves christian! We can believe anything we want to believe!

Again, I will ask, why then do you call yourself a christian?

What PUNISHMENT is that exactly? You keep flipflopping around on this issue, so perhaps it's better to get your definition. We know what the Bible's definition is, but since that doesn't apply to you, please, do tell.

And the call to the parent analogy. But what are the actions of the child that a parent is punishing? Disbelief in their existence or just disbelief in their authority to punish?

The punishment we're discussing (and you finally concede exists) is for the lack of belief, not for spilling on the carpet or making a move to touch a burning stove, so kindly don't try to muddy the waters further with this exploded, fallacious analogy.

Setting aside the fact that we're talking about an allegedly absolute being that in no substantive manner can be compared to a fallible father or mother on earth, in this scenario--the punishment for disbelief--you are being punished for something you did not do, not for something you did do.

Parents punish their children for doing things they were not supposed to do; i.e., for things they did do, but shouldn't have, according to the particular rules and regulations the parents establish (often in a random and haphazzard manner). In this scenario (disbelief), God is punishing you for something you did not do (and, arguably, could not do, because of his own design flaw).

In other words, you are being punished unjustly for a crime you did not commit. Are you to love an unjust punishment or the one who unjustly punishes you for it?

Not to mention the fact that the crime should equal the punishment. A parent doesn't (or shouldn't, anyway) chop off a child's hand for stealing a cookie, even though that would most assuredly stop that child from ever stealing another goddamned cookie in his life.

If you're going to appeal to this fallacious analogy, then take it to its logical conclusion (if you're capable); which is that a loving parent would not punish their children "for ever and ever" in a "burning lake of fire" for not believing that they exist, now would they?

That seems to be a leit motif of yours .

So, if I may recap, in your mind, God loves you so much that he will punish you for all eternity in a burning lake of fire for not believing he exists. Does that cover it?

Oh, right. The hell thing again. Then is it, God loves you so much that he wants you to believe in him, so that he can then grant you eternal happiness, but if you choose not to believe in him, it's all your fault and therefore you bring hell upon yourself (hell being some sort of nebulous state of not being in god's grace that means, what, exactly)?

Shall we note again that you have affirmed the punishment aspects inherent in the dogma, BTW?

I see. So God is not "morally perfect," since he kills without justification into the third and forth generation (not to mention, the entire globe, but for a handful of people and the animals they chose).

I thought god commanded: Thou shalt not kill. I don't recall any qualifiers in there, but then, that is just more support for my argument that it's all a fraud.

Actually, you've got that one in reverse. The more literal translation is not to "kill;" the more modern apologetics on it is "murder" in order to avoid the obvious contradiction, but what the hell.

And for uncertain ones. Funny how you call it "obvious" and I call it "evidence of fraud," but then, of the two of us, only you selectively redefine what is actually written in order to make it more palatable.

God says "thou shalt not kill" (or "murder," which) and then proceeds to do both several times over. So, again, he cannot be "morally perfect," since that would mean morality is an objective quality that must also apply equally to him, or it can't be considered "objective."

And depending upon the subjective wants and desires of the individual engaging in acts that call morality into question, such as genocide unto the third and fourth generation (or is that second and third? I can never remember that one, because it makes me sick every time I contemplate it?).

So, here's the given situation. God commands you to believe in him or burn in eternal hell for disobeying his commandment. Morally justifiable?

Only if it is declared that God is just "Morally Perfect," of course, regardless of his actions that demonstrate the contrary.

That must be one incredibly sore spot for god, that whole disbelief thing, if he's inflicting the same punishment Satan earns, but how is it morally justifiable?

Is he now? And why would that be?

So, by that logic, god should just forgive us our disbelief and let us into "heaven" (or, at the very least, remove us from the eternal agony of hell fire), since that would obviously "bring about the best possible state of affairs" in as much as he is able, right?

Or is god somehow not able to forgive us for our disbelief without the need for eternal punishment?

Again with the parent analogy. Sorry, not applicable, especially if we take your qualifications on the "best state possible."

And since I have no choice but to disbelieve based on the evidence presented, wouldn't god also be in a position to know this too and forgive me for it anyway? Or at the very least, cut me some slack on the whole eternal punishment deal, if, indeed, he seeks to bring about a better state of affairs?

After all, it is largely the whole unjust aspect of the punishment concepts that lead me to my loss of faith to begin with, so, for me (and arguably all of those I will be burning in that lake with) he did not seek to bring about a better state of affairs through such a threat.

But then, since he's morally perfect, it's just all my fault for not simply doing as you do and just gloss over all that stuff and believe anyway, right?

luvluv

According to whom? You have sources on this? How do you know that the Christian concept of Hell was purposely designed to be harsher than the Pagan concepts of Hell ESPECIALLY when there is barely any description of hell in the Bible.

So you're saying that the Inquisitions were simply a theological tactic of the clergy to get people to conform to orthodoxy, and nothing more, and I'm the one who needs to read up on his history?

But if some don't then your critique would only apply to a minority of Christians, all of whom in my opinion probably died hundreds of years ago, so the critique is still anacrhonistic at best.

I know, but the point I was making is that fear has nothing to do with belief formation. You are implying that whatever is scarier is believed by most people. That is utterly absurd.

Stuff like the above? That's why I think you're a poor judge of character. You think too little of theists to ever be capable of accurately assesing their motivations. You cannot understand that which you belittle and marginalize.

HA! Why would you come back to this website unless you subconsciously know that God exists and seek means to convince yourself that the theistic arguments are not right?

See how much fun it is when EVERYBODY thinks they know everything?

Which is precisely how I know your critique to be invalid. You don't get around much in Protestant circles. If you asked half the people in half the churches in America to finish those scriptures you furnished, most of them would not be able to do it. Sad but true. Most church-going Christians have almost no knowledge of the Bible. The fact that you do not know that means you have not done enough research. (Have you done any research, or are we supposed to take your word on all this because you just KNOW you're right?)

In what world? Can you make it more plain to those of us who live in this one?

Is there anything anyone can say which would not prove your point in your mind?

To be honest, I don't think about the next world that much. He saved me from a crappy, selfish, self-centered life I was leading. He helped me to learn to love myself and other people. I love Him and follow Him because He helped me to become a better person.

BUT of course that, LIKE EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE WORLD WHICH TOTALLY CONTRADICTS YOUR POINT, simply proves your point. Right?

You really don't think you are leaving anything out of the Christian doctrine in these posts.

If so, great. I don't feel bad about not taking you seriously anymore.

It was sarcasm, Johnny Quick. That's what you keep saying to myself and the cave ("why would you believe that...") I was trying to quote it back to you so you could see how silly it sounds. But again, you think too little of theists to even detect a bit of bald sarcasm, but I am supposed to believe you are privy to their innermost motivations?


No. There are Christians who believe neither. Who decides whether or not they are Christians. Let me take a wild stab in the dark. You?

Well, that's something. Of course it hardly qualifies you to make the kind of assertions you are making. You really can't assess the motivations of belief of millions of people by simply reading the Bible. You'd have to actually do some research. Take some polls. Something other than simply have great faith in how much smarter you are than everyone else, which is what your argument seems to be based on.

You've read a few passages in the Bible that refer to hell, and you've decided that everyone believes based on fear. If you ask someone whether or not there belief is based on fear, and they say no, you would say "Well that is EXACTLY what a person whose belief was based on fear would say." If a person is sufficiently suspicious and sufficiently disrespectful of the rationality of a certain group of people, he can have beliefs which are effectively immune from doubt. You think so little of Christians that you would not even take their own authority for the reasons for the formation of their own beliefs. In your mind, when someone contradicts what you say that only proves what you are saying. And why?

Because their just stupid little brain-washed cult members suffering from massive cognitive dissonance. So what do they know about the reasons they believe? And besides, you just know all this because you are an EXCELLENT judge of character. And if anybody doubts that, they can just ask you.

Way to change the subject when you don't have a point. So are you conceding that it is not the presence or absence of love that alters but the presence or absence of punishment.

Isn't everything?

If you were to say to your kids "thou shalt not drive the car" and then you drove the car, would you be breaking a moral law?

He WILL forgive you Koy, if you are willing to accept His forgiveness. But He is not going to shove Himself down your throat and force you to repent so that you may be forgiven. Forcing people to believe in Him and have faith in Him is not the best possible state of affairs. The best possible state of affairs would be one in which people freely believed in Him.