Unconditional love

[floo]

What a daft excuse Hope that really takes the biscuit! If the deity, should it exist, be such a crazy b*stard it doesn't deserve people to believe in it!

Allowing people to make a choice means that one is a "crazy b*stard"?  In which case, that describes you, as you clearly allowed your children to make their own choices.

Allowing them the choice, but if they don't make the 'right' one apparently there are consequences, certainly makes it a psycho!

[Outrider]

What a daft excuse Hope that really takes the biscuit! If the deity, should it exist, be such a crazy b*stard it doesn't deserve people to believe in it!

Allowing people to make a choice means that one is a "crazy b*stard"?  In which case, that describes you, as you clearly allowed your children to make their own choices.

No, I think the idea of saying 'love me', and saying that you have a choice, but then the penalty for the 'wrong' choice being eternal damnation/torment is serial-killer crazy.

Just one more reason why accepting that Christian depiction of a god is incomprehensible.

O.

[Hope]

Allowing them the choice, but if they don't make the 'right' one, apparently there are consequences, certainly makes it a psycho!

So, are you suggesting that a person should be allowed to make their own choices, but that then, when their earthly life ceases, those choices should be overridden by the deity?  Certainly doesn't sound very loving to me.

[Shaker]

What a daft excuse Hope that really takes the biscuit! If the deity, should it exist, be such a crazy b*stard it doesn't deserve people to believe in it!

Allowing people to make a choice means that one is a "crazy b*stard"?  In which case, that describes you, as you clearly allowed your children to make their own choices.

No, I think the idea of saying 'love me', and saying that you have a choice, but then the penalty for the 'wrong' choice being eternal damnation/torment is serial-killer crazy.

Just one more reason why accepting that Christian depiction of a god is incomprehensible.

O.

It's akin to the sort of choice that used to be offered by Ron and Reg or Charlie Richardson and his chums back in the 60s - "Of course you don't have to pay us protection money if you don't want to. Provided that you don't have any plans for the next four months or so that involve walking, speaking or feeding yourself."

[Hope]

No, I think the idea of saying 'love me', and saying that you have a choice, but then the penalty for the 'wrong' choice being eternal damnation/torment is serial-killer crazy.

But who makes that choice, O?  I believe that Floo is all about people accepting the consequences of their choices.  If someone chooses to live their life without God, why should that same God override that choice once they die?

Just one more reason why accepting that Christian depiction of a god is incomprehensible.

Couldn't agree more, O.  I can't think of any Christian who does accept the depiction you outline.  In fact, I can't even think of any Biblical passge (not verse because they can, too easily, be taken out of context) that even suggests the depiction you seem to wish.

The only people I can think of who preach that depiction are the likes of Floo.

[floo]

What a daft excuse Hope that really takes the biscuit! If the deity, should it exist, be such a crazy b*stard it doesn't deserve people to believe in it!

Allowing people to make a choice means that one is a "crazy b*stard"?  In which case, that describes you, as you clearly allowed your children to make their own choices.

No, I think the idea of saying 'love me', and saying that you have a choice, but then the penalty for the 'wrong' choice being eternal damnation/torment is serial-killer crazy.

Just one more reason why accepting that Christian depiction of a god is incomprehensible.

O.

It's akin to the sort of choice that used to be offered by Ron and Reg or Charlie Richardson and his chums back in the 60s - "Of course you don't have to pay us protection money if you don't want to. Provided that you don't have any plans for the next four months or so that involve walking, speaking or feeding yourself."

Good analogy!

[Shaker]

You understand you are challenging the idea that human bodies rot away? 

No, I am not, challenging that fact.  What I am challenging is the assumption that some here make, that Jesus was merely/purely human.

Anybody floating the idea that Jesus wasn't is the one who bears the burden of proof for demonstrating it to be the case.

Remember that we say, on the basis of rather a lot of very obvious evidence, that human beings are merely and purely human with no supernatural or paranormal powers and that when they die they die and they stay dead. Finito. If you want to make your ancient middle-eastern handyman an exception to that, it's up to you to provide the evidence that proves this to be the case.

[Hope]

It's akin to the sort of choice that used to be offered by Ron and Reg or Charlie Richardson and his chums back in the 60s - "Of course you don't have to pay us protection money if you don't want to. Provided that you don't have any plans for the next four months or so that involve walking, speaking or feeding yourself."

Precisely, Shaker; that is why I nor any Christian I know subscribe to that depiction.  As I menioned to O in my previous post, it seems to be a depiction much loved of folk like Floo, but nowhere exists in Christian doctrine.

[BeRational]

It's akin to the sort of choice that used to be offered by Ron and Reg or Charlie Richardson and his chums back in the 60s - "Of course you don't have to pay us protection money if you don't want to. Provided that you don't have any plans for the next four months or so that involve walking, speaking or feeding yourself."

Precisely, Shaker; that is why I nor any Christian I know subscribe to that depiction.  As I menioned to O in my previous post, it seems to be a depiction much loved of folk like Floo, but nowhere exists in Christian doctrine.

I does exist in practice.

The analogy is accurate.

Do as I say or suffer. That is not a choice.

[Shaker]

It's akin to the sort of choice that used to be offered by Ron and Reg or Charlie Richardson and his chums back in the 60s - "Of course you don't have to pay us protection money if you don't want to. Provided that you don't have any plans for the next four months or so that involve walking, speaking or feeding yourself."

Precisely, Shaker; that is why I nor any Christian I know subscribe to that depiction.

You should know more Christians, then.

[Outrider]

But who makes that choice, O?  I believe that Floo is all about people accepting the consequences of their choices.  If someone chooses to live their life without God, why should that same God override that choice once they die?

If it exists, because any god would know that the evidence available doesn't support the contention 'god', and that people shouldn't be punished for reasoning.

Couldn't agree more, O.  I can't think of any Christian who does accept the depiction you outline.  In fact, I can't even think of any Biblical passage (not verse because they can, too easily, be taken out of context) that even suggests the depiction you seem to wish.

And yet I've come across too many 'fire and brimstone' preachers, at various times...

O.

[Hope]

Anybody floating the idea that Jesus wasn't is the one who bears the burden of proof for demonstrating it to be the case. ...  If you want to make your ancient middle-eastern handyman an exception to that, it's up to you to provide the evidence that proves this to be the case.

As has been said on numerous occasions, there is documentary evidence to this effect.  That you regard this with suspicion is perfectly understandable and normal.  People have been treating it with suspicion since the day it happened - but no-one has ever produced solid evidence to support that suspicion.  All the evidence produced has been circumstantial - like the idea that he must have been purely human, because most of us have only ever met 'purely human' beings.

[Outrider]

Precisely, Shaker; that is why I nor any Christian I know subscribe to that depiction.  As I menioned to O in my previous post, it seems to be a depiction much loved of folk like Floo, but nowhere exists in Christian doctrine.

Even if it's the more modern depiction of Hell as 'separation from God' in some way - oblivion or some sort of limbo - that's still an eternal punishment for the temporal 'crime' of looking for evidence, not finding it and therefore being rational.

O.

[BeRational]

Anybody floating the idea that Jesus wasn't is the one who bears the burden of proof for demonstrating it to be the case. ...  If you want to make your ancient middle-eastern handyman an exception to that, it's up to you to provide the evidence that proves this to be the case.

As has been said on numerous occasions, there is documentary evidence to this effect.  That you regard this with suspicion is perfectly understandable and normal.  People have been treating it with suspicion since the day it happened - but no-one has ever produced solid evidence to support that suspicion.  All the evidence produced has been circumstantial - like the idea that he must have been purely human, because most of us have only ever met 'purely human' beings.

So do you admit that you have not met the burden of sufficient proof then?

[Nearly Sane]

And as has been said many times, you need a method for supernatural claims. History as a study is methodologically naturalistic. Care to provide your methodology, Hope, or will you evade as you have done so often, or run away like Vlad?

[Hope]

If it exists, because any god would know that the evidence available doesn't support the contention 'god', and that people shouldn't be punished for reasoning.

So, just to repeat what you are saying, God should have the right to override an individual human being's choices made during their lifetime?

And yet I've come across too many 'fire and brimstone' preachers, at various times...

So have I, but if you look at the contexts of the passages (and more often, verses) that they use as the basis of their sermons, they have nothing to do with 'fire and brimstone'.  In fact, I understand from some Church history texts I read that the 'fire and brimstone' sermon didn't become common until after Dante's Divine Comedy' became popular. 

[Rhiannon]

No, I think the idea of saying 'love me', and saying that you have a choice, but then the penalty for the 'wrong' choice being eternal damnation/torment is serial-killer crazy.

But who makes that choice, O?  I believe that Floo is all about people accepting the consequences of their choices.  If someone chooses to live their life without God, why should that same God override that choice once they die?

Just one more reason why accepting that Christian depiction of a god is incomprehensible.

Couldn't agree more, O.  I can't think of any Christian who does accept the depiction you outline.  In fact, I can't even think of any Biblical passge (not verse because they can, too easily, be taken out of context) that even suggests the depiction you seem to wish.

The only people I can think of who preach that depiction are the likes of Floo.

Oh for goodness ' sake, Hope. You know we don't choose our beliefs. I've said so many times that I would once have given everything to have been able to choose to believe.

So you are not a universalist, and you do believe not making the right 'choice' leaves us damned.

Why should God 'override' that 'choice' (which is no choice at all) post-death?  Because he is loving and merciful and not driven by human petty emotions? How small you make your God, Hope.

[Outrider]

As has been said on numerous occasions, there is documentary evidence to this effect.  That you regard this with suspicion is perfectly understandable and normal.  People have been treating it with suspicion since the day it happened - but no-one has ever produced solid evidence to support that suspicion.  All the evidence produced has been circumstantial - like the idea that he must have been purely human, because most of us have only ever met 'purely human' beings.

No-one needs to produce evidence to disprove it. Yes there's documentary evidence, but the documentary evidence is:
a) not by an impartial source
b) generated well after the fact
c) contaminated after its generation by subsequent add-ons (and possibly deletions) and selective translations
d) not corroborated by the expected other sources of the time.

You have documentary evidence of an allegation, which is at best as reliable as having the allegation, even if we take it at face value.

O.

[BeRational]

If it exists, because any god would know that the evidence available doesn't support the contention 'god', and that people shouldn't be punished for reasoning.

So, just to repeat what you are saying, God should have the right to override an individual human being's choices made during their lifetime?

And yet I've come across too many 'fire and brimstone' preachers, at various times...

So have I, but if you look at the contexts of the passages (and more often, verses) that they use as the basis of their sermons, they have nothing to do with 'fire and brimstone'.  In fact, I understand from some Church history texts I read that the 'fire and brimstone' sermon didn't become common until after Dante's Divine Comedy' became popular.

This idea that you override choice is the mistake.
All you god would have to do to not look like a maniac, is to NOT punish people that did not believe in him.

Why does he need to?

Then peoples choice need no be compromised, and at the moment of death she could jump out and say "Fooled ya, grab a drink of your choice and come on in, we are just having a welcoming party for you".

[Hope]

So do you admit that you have not met the burden of sufficient proof then?

No; I am saying that those who treat the documentary evidence as suspicious have not yet met the burden of proof to show that that suspicion is valid.  The fact that, as NS says in his subsequent post, that "History as a study is methodologically naturalistic", misses the point.  This was not history at the time of the death and resurrection of Christ, yet no-one was ablee to produce evidence at the time that would disprove it.  In view of the reason why the Jewish leaders had Jesus put to death - his claiming to be God (aka blasphemy) - it would have been in their interests to show that the resurrection hadn't occurred if only to show that they hadn't made a mistake.  Did they manage to do so?  Has anyone ever managed to do so?

[Outrider]

So, just to repeat what you are saying, God should have the right to override an individual human being's choices made during their lifetime?

No, I'm saying that it would be more in keeping with the claim of a loving god if there were a chance at accepting the offer once all the information is available. To condemn people for not believing an incredible story with insufficient evidence is cruel.

So have I, but if you look at the contexts of the passages (and more often, verses) that they use as the basis of their sermons, they have nothing to do with 'fire and brimstone'.  In fact, I understand from some Church history texts I read that the 'fire and brimstone' sermon didn't become common until after Dante's Divine Comedy' became popular.

Apologies, I think we're meaning different things with 'fire and brimstone'. I didn't intend to imply the loud, bombastic delivery, but rather the eternal fires content of the sermons.

Dante's Divine Comedy was written in the 1300's, and shaped Western Christian culture from the early 1400s - that's a long time for you to dismiss it as a passing fad. Christianity, at the end of the day, is that which is done by Christians - you might disagree with it, but it is what it is.

O.

[BeRational]

So do you admit that you have not met the burden of sufficient proof then?

No; I am saying that those who treat the documentary evidence as suspicious have not yet met the burden of proof to show that that suspicion is valid.  The fact that, as NS says in his subsequent post, that "History as a study is methodologically naturalistic", misses the point.  This was not history at the time of the death and resurrection of Christ, yet no-one was ablee to produce evidence at the time that would disprove it.  In view of the reason why the Jewish leaders had Jesus put to death - his claiming to be God (aka blasphemy) - it would have been in their interests to show that the resurrection hadn't occurred if only to show that they hadn't made a mistake.  Did they manage to do so?  Has anyone ever managed to do so?

We do not need to disprove it, YOU have to prove it.

Simply relying on some document to be sufficient evidence for a miracle is stupid.

Do you accept the documented miracles of any other religion?

Do you accept the witness testimony (many and varied) for alien abductions?

If not, have you proved that they did not happen?

[Shaker]

As has been said on numerous occasions, there is documentary evidence to this effect.

There's documentary evidence for almost countless things that you disbelieve. I assume (but don't know for sure) that you disbelieve that the birth of the Buddha was attended by a rain of flowers from the sky, or that Mohammed rode to heaven on a horse. Why is your documentary evidence the exception?

That you regard this with suspicion is perfectly understandable and normal.  People have been treating it with suspicion since the day it happened - but no-one has ever produced solid evidence to support that suspicion.

You really just cannot get past the negative proof fallacy, can you?

All the evidence produced has been circumstantial - like the idea that he must have been purely human, because most of us have only ever met 'purely human' beings.

Assertions require proof to be substantiated. You have none.

[Outrider]

No; I am saying that those who treat the documentary evidence as suspicious have not yet met the burden of proof to show that that suspicion is valid.

Skepticism is the default position - it doesn't need to be justified. You make the claim, and until you've offered sufficient evidence to support it it remains unproven.

This was not history at the time of the death and resurrection of Christ, yet no-one was ablee to produce evidence at the time that would disprove it.

So far as we can tell no-one was making the allegation at the time. Certainly none of the authorities at the time recorded it as such. It's only decades later that we have any evidence of anyone making the claims.

O.

[Hope]

All you god would have to do to not look like a maniac, is to NOT punish people that did not believe in him.

Who says he is punishing them?  It seems to me that it is those who read the Bible in extremely non-literalistic ways (and yes, there are a handful of 'Christians' who do this - eg Fred Phelps; followers of the Prosperity Gospel) who beieve that God punishes people when he allows them to face the consequences of their own choices.  I use the term 'non-literal' in the sense that they don't take the Bible's genre-makeup into account when reading it.

Then peoples choice need no be compromised, and at the moment of death she could jump out and say "Fooled ya, grab a drink of your choice and come on in, we are just having a welcoming party for you".

So, you want to be able to live your earthly life without a belief in God, but then to be able to live as if you had believed in God for the rest of eternity?  That smacks of hypocrisy.