luvluv

ex-preacher, I used to enjoy our conversations. Heck I thought we were almost civl towards each other the other day. But you, sir, are becoming increasingly less and less worth arguing with. Who, exactly, do you think you impress with those silly cut and pastes that are not at all involved with the argument at hand but only backhanded slights towards me. Sir I have yet to be deliberately insulting towards you with any of my posts, yet you, deliberately or not, are increasingly hostile towards me. The first third of your post serves no purpose save to attempt to get me upset. I think it is beneath you. If you have a point that is relative to me to make, then make it. What is the point of slandering Christian opinions at the head of every post, particularly Christian opinions you know very well I do not share. It's cheap, it's not very amusing, and I'd like to think you are capable of better. I hope you don't prove me wrong.

Moving on...

I am well aware of all of those quotes, but I also am aware of their context. I did not say that the Bible did not warn people about Hell, I said that God did not use Hell as a means to get people to serve him. Everything you've quoted was a warning about a consequence, not an attempt at intimidation. If God was interested in using Hell to motivate us, He would have done so. The doctrine of Hell was not central to Jesus's teachings, it is not the theme of his ministry.

I understand you have reached an opinion about the existence of God, but it really does you no good to be irrational. We're both intelligent human beings who have a good working knowledge of what the Bible says in it's entirety. Why not deal with the good as well as the bad? It is not a completely terrible document, as you make it out to be.

[ April 12, 2002: Message edited by: luvluv ]</p>

Duck!

Oh come on, what's the difference?

If I said to you that I was going to shoot you if you did a certain thing, would you say it's fair of me to say "that's not intimidation, it's just a warning of the consequences of your actions"?


Duck!

madmax2976

<strong> Luvluv, when will you understand that what you consider a "consequence" can easily be considered coercive by someone else?

Your entire line of argument here, as well as in other threads, is based on your subjective view of what is or is not coercive and thus a threat to this imaginary thing called "free will".

Until you demonstrate an objective criteria for determining what is or is not coercive, your arguments will continue to fail. Additionally, you must actually be able to support whatever arguments you wish to give, and not rely on what seems to be nothing more than sheer speculation.

luvluv

madmax I personally don't see where my arguments have started to fail, but anyway... I've explained everything I've been asked to explain. My theory of what is coercive is something I have been willing to flesh out. If you have any questions, ask them.

Duck if that was all you said, you'd be absolutely right. But if in addition to that, you also said about 1000 pages of other things, some of which ameliorate the things you said above, I would say those 1000 pages worth of data from you should be considered.

You probably have said to somebody at some time or another "I'm going to kill you". Now, if I decided to take that statement and make a sweeping indictment of you, absent everything else you've ever said, I would end up with a distortion of your character (I hope). The same thing applies when talking about God.

Autonemesis

So you admit that god has made misakes that reflect badly on his character. But that we should be as charitable as god and forgive him his sins as he forgives us ours.

Is that what you mean?

ex-preacher

My my, a bit testy, aren't we. To my knowledge, I have not slandered you once. I am responding to your points, one by one. You, on the other hand seem to feel free to pick and choose what you will address and which parts of the Bible you like. If you consider the opinions of most Christians slanderous to you - I can't help you there. I'm just pointing out the inconsistencies between you and other Christians and between you and the Bible. If that's too difficult for you to take, I'm sorry.

<strong> This is a completely false distinction. Who invented hell? If you think your god did, then it is not a "warning", but a threat when Jesus/god starts telling people that they're going to hell. I am well aware of the context of each verse. If you like, I'll post entire chapters. They still come out as blatant attempts at intimidation. I didn't quote the accompanying verses which promise great rewards for those who please Jesus/god. But I'm sure you'll see these not as bribes, but as informational messages.

<strong> He did it over and over and over again.

<strong> Right. Have you actually read Matthew? Hell is mentioned directly or indirectly dozens of times. What does it take for it to become a theme for you?

<strong> Please indicate where I have been irrational.

<strong> I never said it was a completely terrible document. It is a human document and contains both the best and worst that humans have to offer. As Twain said, "It (the Bible) is full of interest. It has noble poetry in it; and some clever fables; and some blood-drenched history; and some good morals; and a wealth of obscenity; and upwards of a thousand lies."

My problem is with people who want to pick and choose the parts that they like. Your statement above indicates that you recognize that the Bible contains bad in it. What kind of god would give his followers a book that has bad in it? Didn't he know how it would be used?

madmax2976

Okay. Why should I or anyone else accept your opinion of what is or is not coercive? Where is your criteria in laying out an objective standard for it?

Unless you can provide this, your arguments are nothing more than your opinion and hardly persuading. Consequences are by their very nature coercive. By the same token, we find things coercive because of their potential consequences, so saying the biblical concept of hell is just a "consequence" and not somehow coercive is incoherent.

Until you provide objective standards for what constitutes "coercion" and until you provide objective criteria for separating consequences as an integral part of anything that is coercive, your not saying anything meaningful. It seems to clear to me that your simply trying to protect your belief system. While all this may help you feel better, it doesn't help anyone else unless you can actually support your arguments other than from your own personal opinion.

luvluv

Coercion: any incentive, positive or negative, which has the effect of causing a person to obey (or disobey) God based more on the incentive than on the love of (or faith in) God.

ex-preacher

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; he that believeth not shall be damned. Mark 16:16

luvluv

6072
posted April 13, 2002 12:56 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"This is so unbiblical!!!"
Christians can believe things that are not in the Bible. The word Trinity is not in the Bible either, nor is the concept, but Christians believe it. Most Christians believe in free-will, though it is not explicitly explained in the Bible. The Bible does not represent the sum total of what Christians are allowed to bellieve. What part of "I am not a Biblical literalist" do you folks not understand? I believe more things than what the Bible explicitly tells me, partly because I feel I and others in the church are in contact with God all the time. Christian doctrine comes through personal and communal revelation, church history, AND the Bible. Not just the Bible alone. There are some doctrines which believe in the Bible only. I am not of that doctrine. Therefore, citing specific passages of the Bible won't generally dissuade me of my opinions. If some parts of the Bible don't connect with the God I know (personal revelation) or the God that has dealt with the church throughout it's history (church history) I am inclined to believe that it is a mistake. It's simply not relavent to this discussion to tell me what other Christians believe.