tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post157375776326525978..comments2024-03-25T02:16:16.247-07:00Comments on Christ the Tao: Why Christianity passes the OTF, and Humanism failsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger40125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-67459026222317201122012-06-26T15:25:44.737-07:002012-06-26T15:25:44.737-07:00@Anon;
Well, I'm still not sure how I missed ...@Anon;<br /><br />Well, I'm still not sure how I missed this comment the first time around, but, I'll go ahead and destroy it anyway.<br /><br />"Oh I never said that you did say those things BR, but it's your attitude. You don't have to spell out an attitude."<br /><br />Whatever.<br /><br />"So you're not trying to convince everyone you're right, but you happened to post your response publicly where anyone can see it huh?"<br /><br />Are you mentally impaired somehow? Disagreeing with ignorant internet comments doesn't mean that I go around trying to convince everyone I'm right. Some of my best friends are Christians, and I've never tried to deconvert them. <br /><br />"No, I didn't say Christianity is true because it's a (popular) major religion, although it happens to be)."<br /><br />Remember this?<br /><br />"The bottom line is that Christianity definitely passes the OTF, else it would still be an obscure Israel-based religion instead of spread all around the world like we find it today."<br /><br />"I agree just as much as you do that there would be no basis for choosing beliefs based solely on a numbers game. This has nothing to do with numbers. You misinterpreted what I said and resorted to calling my posts "ignorant" because you didn't understand them."<br /><br />And yet, despite all this, you still said that Xianty passes the OTF, otherwise it wouldn't be as widespread as it is today. If that isn't arguing from numbers, what is? Popularity has little to do with the veracity of any given belief, so it really doesn't matter how many "cultural barriers" xianty crossed, it doesn't provide evidence for the core tenets of the faith.<br /><br />"The topic at hand is whether Christianity passes the OTF. And whether it is the biggest religion or the smallest, people outside of Israel throughout history have felt there was more evidence for Christianity than the others."<br /><br />Does that include the tens of millions of pagans massacred in the name of Christianity? Just curious. Or the ones who only converted because their kings did; i.e., the Saxons and the Scandinavians in general.<br /><br />"What I said originally, is that Christianity wouldn't be around any longer at all if there wasn't sufficient evidence to people on the outside throughout history. Then you brought up the inquisition, as if to imply that were largely the reason everyone believes today."<br /><br />Once again; you're completley missing the point by assuming that these converts were won through evidence. If you can find a passage belong to Aquinas or Augustine that actually provides non-biblical proof for your religion, let me know; because what they really used was intimidation, murder, and in peaceful cases, slick lines. How many people in the 19th century were taken in by snake-oil salesmen? Thousands? Tens of thousands? How much physical proof do you think they provided for their claims? Eh? The fact is, you're still making pre-suppositions, and still arguing from numbers. What if Christianity was less widespread? Would you still insist that all the converts of antiquity were won through evidence? Because faith doesn't need evidence, and if the church had evidence, it would have come forward with it long before now. It's like medieval tales of saints; they performed miracles day and night, it seems, and yet no pagans ever wrote about it, and nowadays, in the age of science, we never seem to see any miracles at all.B.R.https://www.blogger.com/profile/14763090947684348998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-34325160273252453722012-02-28T16:54:40.415-08:002012-02-28T16:54:40.415-08:00Oh I never said that you did say those things BR, ...Oh I never said that you did say those things BR, but it's your attitude. You don't have to spell out an attitude.<br /><br />So you're not trying to convince everyone you're right, but you happened to post your response publicly where anyone can see it huh?<br /><br />No, I didn't say Christianity is true because it's a (popular) major religion, although it happens to be. That's an important distinction which you're not making. I agree just as much as you do that there would be no basis for choosing beliefs based solely on a numbers game. This has nothing to do with numbers. You misinterpreted what I said and resorted to calling my posts "ignorant" because you didn't understand them. The topic at hand is whether Christianity passes the OTF. And whether it is the biggest religion or the smallest, people outside of Israel throughout history have felt there was more evidence for Christianity than the others. What I said originally, is that Christianity wouldn't be around any longer at all if there wasn't sufficient evidence to people on the outside throughout history. Then you brought up the inquisition, as if to imply that were largely the reason everyone believes today.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-49723821548028233342012-02-25T20:37:43.648-08:002012-02-25T20:37:43.648-08:00"Right BR, anyone who doesn't agree with ..."Right BR, anyone who doesn't agree with you is obviously ignorant and hasn't done their research."<br /><br />Have I said that? No. You're making a straw-man.<br /><br />"1) Of course it spread with the inquisition, nobody is denying that. But to assume that's the only reason it spread is ridiculous."<br /><br />Did I say that? NO. You might want to take the time to read my comments.<br /><br />"The OTF (to me) comes down to why you'd choose Christianity over any other faith/religion if you were looking in from the outside at everything (a total unbeliever). I get that you don't think there's enough evidence to choose Christianity over the others, but there are a lot of people who do feel there is enough evidence to make this decision. Who are you to tell them they are wrong?"<br /><br />I was disagreeing with your comment. That certainly does not mean that I go around trying to convince everyone that I'm right. You lack perspective.<br /><br />"In fact, lots of people don't think there's enough evidence to be an athiest. I realize people tend to make generalizations, but your overgeneralization and pigeonholing every believer is just pathetic and much more ignorant than anything I said."<br /><br />Your extraordinarily dishonest straw-man is far more pathetic than anything I could do or say here. Your comment that I first posted on was far more ignorant than anything I've ever said on this blog or any other. Saying that a major religion must be true because it's a major religion is stupid. Islam is as big as Christianity, but I don't see you arguing for that one, or Buddhism, Judaism, Hinduism, etc.B.R.https://www.blogger.com/profile/14763090947684348998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-59964695058032539002011-12-01T10:53:14.688-08:002011-12-01T10:53:14.688-08:00Right BR, anyone who doesn't agree with you is...Right BR, anyone who doesn't agree with you is obviously ignorant and hasn't done their research. Why bother even saying something like that? Perception of human intelligence comes largely from how much we agree with that person. So, I imagine the fact that YOU don't agree with ME...well we'll see if you can figure that one out.<br /><br />1) Of course it spread with the inquisition, nobody is denying that. But to assume that's the only reason it spread is ridiculous.<br />2) The OTF (to me) comes down to why you'd choose Christianity over any other faith/religion if you were looking in from the outside at everything (a total unbeliever). I get that you don't think there's enough evidence to choose Christianity over the others, but there are a lot of people who do feel there is enough evidence to make this decision. Who are you to tell them they are wrong? In fact, lots of people don't think there's enough evidence to be an athiest. I realize people tend to make generalizations, but your overgeneralization and pigeonholing every believer is just pathetic and much more ignorant than anything I said.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-7756583969646081352011-11-13T16:56:17.829-08:002011-11-13T16:56:17.829-08:00"Can't" be civil, that is, not "..."Can't" be civil, that is, not "can".B.R.https://www.blogger.com/profile/14763090947684348998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-15443953185283269702011-11-13T16:55:15.368-08:002011-11-13T16:55:15.368-08:00"BR: If you've "won" any debate..."BR: If you've "won" any debates here, it was in your own mind."<br /><br />Which explains the outcome of our very first debate, your "Confucius" post. Anon was ignorant, David; you can defend him/her all you want, but it doesn't change anything. Furthermore, if my comment earns rebuke, it is in your own mind. And by the way, you asked if I thought I knew more than *you*, and told me not to blow smoke at *you*, when my comment was addressed solely to Anon. It's almost as though I called you ignorant instead of Anon. Over-defensive much?<br /><br />"Then you also add the truly childish insult, "imbecile," along with stupid bragadocio about allegedly winning debates (in your mind), plus the "kindergartener" remark."<br /><br />You said that I didn't know know what I was talking about(without evidence, I might add); an extremely rude and unfounded insult. You then said that would probably approve of something "grossly simplistic", another deeply petty remark. And then you called me "Junior", an obviously disdainful and condescending name. I don't have to take that kind of crap from anyone, David, least of all you. If you can be civil, then don't expect me to be so either. I respect more than Anon, but I won't be your garbage boy. And out of politeness, I'll ignore the next portion of your comment.<br /><br />"As for substance, you don't even attempt to rebut my argument, so there's no need for me to say anything. If you chose to attempt such a rebuttal, you'll be welcome to try: but only if you adopt a more mature tone along the way. I've had to explain this to you before."<br /><br />So, you choose to cop-out rather than debate? Sad. And as far as mature tones go, your first comment could've been much better. And out of respect, I'll also ignore the next hypocritical comment you left. Now, do you want to debate, or have I just been wasting my time? You can always look at the link I left.B.R.https://www.blogger.com/profile/14763090947684348998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-58108128983178284312011-11-13T14:59:10.601-08:002011-11-13T14:59:10.601-08:00BR: Please read through the rest of this comment f...BR: Please read through the rest of this comment forum, for reference, and note the dignity with which both skeptics and Christians generally comport themselves. That's what we want, here.David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-78822479988513471282011-11-13T14:48:22.302-08:002011-11-13T14:48:22.302-08:00BR: If you've "won" any debates here...BR: If you've "won" any debates here, it was in your own mind. You refer to my "childish insults," but I only repeat (and tone down) what you said to Anon, with more propriety since you started on that tone, and since your post really earns the rebuke. Why do you suppose it is OK for you to accuse him / her of a "devastating ignorance of recorded history" and demand that he or she do some "actual research" before "spouting off," but somehow wrong for me to tell you not to "blow smoke?"<br /><br />Then you also add the truly childish insult, "imbecile," along with stupid bragadocio about allegedly winning debates (in your mind), plus the "kindergartener" remark. <br /><br />If you're going to argue like a junior high school kid, do it somewhere else: this is a forum for adults. And if you start off with unfair insults, don't whine about getting insults that hit the mark, in return. <br /><br />As for substance, you don't even attempt to rebut my argument, so there's no need for me to say anything. If you chose to attempt such a rebuttal, you'll be welcome to try: but only if you adopt a more mature tone along the way. I've had to explain this to you before.David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-79551126382115071522011-11-13T09:10:06.282-08:002011-11-13T09:10:06.282-08:00Well, I just did a search and found it on Amazon(t...Well, I just did a search and found it on Amazon(the "rebuttal", that is). First, at no time do you actually mention the organized persecution and censorship of the pagans, and the occasional mass murders that took place against them. A prime example would be the Gaelic Irish, who suffered immensely, yet you remain silent. You also fail to mention the Thirty Years' War, and the numerous Papal Inquisitions that stamped out Christian heretics. In short, your rebuttal, while making some good points, is more propaganda than history. Refusing to go into detail except in cases of peaceful conversion, in contrast to the other sort, which either receives a perfunctory mention from you or doesn't appear at all, is highly dishonest. You only seem to care about the "nice" part of your religion's history, and offer little or no information about the negative aspects.B.R.https://www.blogger.com/profile/14763090947684348998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-31550141491544168542011-11-13T08:42:13.163-08:002011-11-13T08:42:13.163-08:00"Do you really think you know more about the ..."Do you really think you know more about the spread of Christianity than I do?"<br /><br />That depends; do you agree with Anonymous?<br /><br />"I rebutted Carrier's scurilous claim that Christianity "spread by the sword,"..."<br /><br />I doubt that. I don't know what Carrier was saying, but the fact that your religion spread by the sword in an undeniable one. Or maybe several million pagans just magically dropped dead. <br /><br />http://notachristian.org/christianatrocities.html<br /><br />"He didn't know what he's talking about, and obviously, neither do you."<br /><br />My winning our previous debates puts lie to that, but I bet you already know that. Would you mind saving your childish insults for your fellow kindergarteners?<br /><br />As for the rest, post a link so I can examine your so-called "rebuttal". Oh, and I don't smoke, imbecile.B.R.https://www.blogger.com/profile/14763090947684348998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-72989969188386667462011-11-13T00:11:17.565-08:002011-11-13T00:11:17.565-08:00BR: Do you really think you know more about the s...BR: Do you really think you know more about the spread of Christianity than I do? <br /><br />I rebutted Carrier's scurilous claim that Christianity "spread by the sword," and he had nothing to say in response to my detailed decontruction of that claim. He didn't know what he's talking about, and obviously, neither do you. But if you want to get into the nitty-gritty, there's the place to start. I divided the spread of Christianity into 12 periods and geographical regions. In only two of them was violence a significant factor at all, and even there it would be grossly simplistic (which, I'm sure, will suit you fine) to say violence was key to the Church's success. <br /><br />Don't blow smoke at me, junior.David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-61426178005134033162011-11-12T17:27:51.204-08:002011-11-12T17:27:51.204-08:00@Anonymous;
"The bottom line is that Christi...@Anonymous;<br /><br />"The bottom line is that Christianity definitely passes the OTF, else it would still be an obscure Israel-based religion instead of spread all around the world like we find it today. You can't simply cop out that all of those foreign cultures adopting it over the years (and now) were "highly superstitious". The fact remains that they adopted and believe Christianity over any of their previous beliefs (whatever they may have been), when they otherwise would not have had any reason to do so."<br /><br />This comment is extremely stupid and displays a devastating ignorance of recorded history. First off, you're blatantly ignoring the fact Christianity became the dominant religion in Europe mass murder and genocide, and only manged to hang on to it's position through Inquisitions and pogroms. And for all of these "foreign cultures adopting it when they had no reason to", having to choose between death or lip-service to a new cult can be very persuasive. Christianity does NOT pass the OTF, simply because it never convert anyone but the ignorant and superstitious, who, after believing in evil spirits and nature gods, probably don't find belief in a magical Sky Zombie any more odd. My advice is to do some actual research into a subject before spouting off.B.R.https://www.blogger.com/profile/14763090947684348998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-12730369221998024252011-10-26T14:38:26.458-07:002011-10-26T14:38:26.458-07:00The bottom line is that Christianity definitely pa...The bottom line is that Christianity definitely passes the OTF, else it would still be an obscure Israel-based religion instead of spread all around the world like we find it today. You can't simply cop out that all of those foreign cultures adopting it over the years (and now) were "highly superstitious". The fact remains that they adopted and believe Christianity over any of their previous beliefs (whatever they may have been), when they otherwise would not have had any reason to do so.<br /><br />As to the second argument, "It is about supernatural claims and claims of supernatural origin.", I say:<br /><br />Just like the claims that "something came from nothing".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-91317941565462830352011-07-04T22:11:12.136-07:002011-07-04T22:11:12.136-07:00"...One does not want to fall prey to some fo..."...One does not want to fall prey to some form of ad populum. On the other hand, if God intended to bless the world through Abraham's seed, as prophesied in the OT, one would expect the life of Christ to make a noticable impact on the world. And if one wants to get "outside one's own culturally-influenced head" and see if Christianity remains plausible, the thought experiment explored above is a great way to do so."<br /><br />Native Americans, Africans and Pacific islanders might have a very different opinion about the 'blessings' and impact of Christianity. Consider the near obliteration of Hawaiian culture by missionaries as a case in point.<br /><br />And getting 'outside one's culturally influenced head' is not what the OTF is about. One need not think like a Hindu to reject Hinduism or like a Mormon to reject Mormonism.<br /> Nor is the OTF intended to be relevant when applied to the positive moral teachings of your religion or any other. It is about supernatural claims and claims of supernatural origin.<br /><br />This is of course, ManhattanMC posting anonymously because I'm not about to give you my google account.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-26596450955912203432011-02-14T07:03:03.975-08:002011-02-14T07:03:03.975-08:00CL: Thanks; I admired the way you handled yourself...CL: Thanks; I admired the way you handled yourself in the discussion on John's blog. I'm not patient enough to keep my sarcasm in check with some of them blokes, but appreciate those who are. <br /><br />I've just posted a more positive argument based on "OTF 2.0." It probably still needs a bit of editing, and I may add a third point if I can distill another still inchoate thought out . . .David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-25026937568584099312011-02-13T23:53:00.359-08:002011-02-13T23:53:00.359-08:00@ David,
Thoughtful post. I enjoyed it. I'd s...@ David,<br /><br />Thoughtful post. I enjoyed it. I'd seen your name around, this is the first time I've stopped by.<br /><br />@ Brenda,<br /><br /><b>It simply does not follow from the fact that some or even most people believe in X due to social conformity that therefore belief X must be false. Nor does it follow from the fact that belief X enjoys a majority status or has overcome adversity that therefore it must be true. These are freshmen class errors.</b><br /><br />It seems to me that the real "freshman class error" here is your inability to correctly frame your interlocutor's argument. David--and may he correct me if I'm wrong--did not claim either of the things you seem to ascribe to him. You imply that he does through simple assertion, yet, you fail to substantiate that which you imply.<br /><br /><b>What I mean is that the claims of virtually all religions refer to things which cannot be said to exist and so are meaningless. </b><br /><br />Bare assertion is also a "freshman class error," is it not?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-82160577215991431672011-02-13T15:56:17.721-08:002011-02-13T15:56:17.721-08:00Brenda: I see several problems here:
(1) You say...Brenda: I see several problems here: <br /><br />(1) You say the claims of all religions "refer to things which cannot be said to exist and so are meaningless." <br /><br />The first problem is, God CAN be said to exist. God exists. I just said it. Anything that is done, can be done. So God "can be said to exist."<br /><br />(2) Perhaps you mean, "God cannot be said truthfully to exist." In which case my question is again: how do you know? <br /><br />(3) Your example raises another problem: <br /><br />"Santa Clause does not exist so statements about him as a real living entity are senseless."<br /><br />But why should we take that as true? "Santa Claus is coming to town, making a list, gonna give you a red wagon or a lump of coal" are all sensible claims. I happen to think they are false claims, but that doesn't mean they lack meaning. "Earth has two suns" is a meaningful, but false, statement. "God created the universe" looks to me like a meaningful statement that could be either true or false. <br /><br />(4) Lots of religious statements are about events much like other events in this world. The tortoise shell in Shang China that reads, "Go, and you will conquer the Di Yi," is obviously meaningful, and results of the battle test its veracity. "Jesus died under Pontius Pilate" is a plain historical statement as well as a religious statement. "Jesus rose from the dead" is a meaningful statement, and also an important religious statement. <br /><br />(5) You say Buddha "cannot be said to not exist." Watch me do the impossible again: "Buddha does not exist." I may be wrong -- maybe somewhere in this or some other universe there is a being that resembles him -- but clearly I can say it, and clearly it means something when I do. <br /><br />Or am I missing something?David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-23513516542116849112011-02-13T13:54:35.454-08:002011-02-13T13:54:35.454-08:00"Brenda: What does that mean? How do you know..."Brenda: What does that mean? How do you know religious statements have "no objective referents?""<br /><br />What I mean is that the claims of virtually all religions refer to things which cannot be said to exist and so are meaningless. Santa Clause does not exist so statements about him as a real living entity are senseless. Santa Clause does have a cultural meaning, he stands for a spirit of universal giving, compassion, joy etc. But that is not what people mean when they say that when you die you'll go to a real place, heaven or hell, and meet a real spiritual being, God or the Buddha or Allah.<br /><br />These beings and the places they inhabit cannot be said to exist (they also cannot be said to not exist) and so statements about them are without meaning. Equally, the claims made by atheists, that god does not exist and so on, also have no objective referents and so also are meaningless.brendahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14544680532155804010noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-33599809948580135622011-02-13T12:24:49.147-08:002011-02-13T12:24:49.147-08:00*So what if some other belief system involves a sa...*So what if some other belief system involves a savior?Alexandernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-72348517922544777402011-02-13T09:12:54.230-08:002011-02-13T09:12:54.230-08:00"Hell has one flaw as a deterrent: Once you s..."Hell has one flaw as a deterrent: Once you stop believing you'll go there--whether because you've stopped believing the whole business or because you've stopped believing a particular theology--it can't, or shouldn't, care you. Sure, social pressure's still there, but that's not hell." <br /><br />Even if I don't believe in it now, however, it still is a concept which is emotionally taxing to rid oneself of. Even if when one doesn't believe the concept of Hell completely fades, it still creates mental slavery. All I am saying is that it is just another restraint on the believer which states that he must believe. Any system of belief that necessarily punishes the act of simply holding a different opinion is oppressive.<br /><br />On an unrelated note, I would also like to point out that Jesus as the final sacrifice has no relation whatsoever to animal sacrifices and such throughout the history of human religion. The sacrifices of other people were to different god sand for varying purposes, mostly, though it was to please them. It is certainly odd, though, that a god should be pleased to see animals brutally killed. In any case, however, there is no evidence that the concepts of Jesus and the ancient sacrifice rites are related in any way. They may sound similar to some degree, but that means nothing. <br /><br />The same is true with a savior figure. So what is some other belief system involve a savior? What does that have to do with Jesus? He doesn't fulfill anything, and the Gospel writers actively edit stories about him to get them to work with certain passages of the Hebrew scriptures. <br /><br />Finally, God does not pass the test. If Christians would put the Judeo-Christian god who directs infanticide and has emotions into another religion they would likely not believe in him. It is also important to ask: which god? Not all are even remotely the same.Alexandernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-55707651616920357562011-02-13T07:05:57.692-08:002011-02-13T07:05:57.692-08:00This was an impressive response to Loftus' arg...This was an impressive response to Loftus' argument. I'm convinced that it does away with the OTF, which I had previously also held. <br /><br />Humanism may be the result of the immense amount of knowledge that we moderns have about the world, which all of those billions of converts never had.J. Siemionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16690864216542054613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-34073153579360958462011-02-13T00:02:45.531-08:002011-02-13T00:02:45.531-08:00What I a stating is simple, that the concepts of h...<i>What I a stating is simple, that the concepts of heaven and hell almost guarantee that those born/converted into the faith will not leave.</i><br /><br /><i>No.</i> I this this has some validity for converts, but you are <i>emphatically wrong</i> when it comes to those born into the faith.<br /><br />Do you know how many people I've met in my life who were raised in some kind of conservative Christianity with a hell-concept and have since left the fold? Even those who haven't often switch to liberal enough beliefs that they run the risk of being considered outside the fold by those who brought them up in the faith. Hell has one flaw as a deterrent: Once you stop believing you'll go there--whether because you've stopped believing the whole business or because you've stopped believing a particular theology--it can't, or shouldn't, care you. Sure, social pressure's still there, but that's not hell.Dan Lowerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13013884098326991088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-2592740084332487942011-02-12T23:38:30.412-08:002011-02-12T23:38:30.412-08:00*What I am stating*What I am statingAlexandernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-17359527824414637602011-02-12T23:37:37.035-08:002011-02-12T23:37:37.035-08:00Also, I'm not saying it is responsible. There ...Also, I'm not saying it is responsible. There are other elements responsible for Christianity's wide spread. What I a stating is simple, that the concepts of heaven and hell almost guarantee that those born/converted into the faith will not leave.Alexandernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-90972614563550189282011-02-12T23:35:49.235-08:002011-02-12T23:35:49.235-08:00The concept of Hell is inherent in, at the least, ...The concept of Hell is inherent in, at the least, most of modern Christianity. Why else does one need to be saved? They need to be saved from something; and that something is Hell. One cannot be mentally free and believe in Hell. <br /><br />You can't run from that truth and it is one I understood when I was a Christian. I was raised in a fairly conservative, Christian family and I know the doctrines of the Christianity that millions believe in the US. I know how it constrains critical thinking and keeps people from converting away from Christianity.<br /><br />Every coin has two sides. You are allgedly saved by Jesus, but enslaved into believing in only one thing by Hell. Miracles happen to those favored by God, but what of those who die during a miracle (i.e. those who die during a car crash where someone else is saved as a result of a miracle)? Are they collateral damage in God's eyes? God is loving, but leads infanticide in the Hebrew Scriptures. God is omniscient, but creates a world he knew he would later have to destroy. God is allegedly non-human, but he has human attributes (emotions, body parts). <br /><br />I know that there are some forms of Christianity which reject the concept of Hell, but those forms are not mainstream.<br /><br />For many years, my critical thinking skills were repressed because I, by my religion's own oppression, was not allowed to think outside the box of orthodoxy.Alexandernoreply@blogger.com