This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Looking at common apologetics about Hell.

  • Topic Archived
You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.
  1. Boards
  2. Religion
  3. Looking at common apologetics about Hell.

User Info: countzander

3 years ago#141
definitely. **** yeah america, the most Jesus filled nation in the world! the Bible doesn't say "Hey, I'll feed you but I'll starve you sometimes to see if you love me" it says "I'll feed you". while this life is negligible compared to Heaven, that doesn't change the fact God guaranteed sustainment in this life. Also, you are really vein and really deluded if you're just going to pull "no true scotsmen" on all the starvers. You don't think a single one of them was saved? what do you think of the five thousand fed by bread in the Gospel? Jesus has no problem feeding the masses using instant magic back then.

Are none of them saved? Maybe. I don't see how that's impossible. But even if they're all saved, I don't see how their suffering is problematic. Compared to an eternity of happiness, any temporal suffering on earth would just be a blur.

Well, if you go actually, yknow, research, I doubt you'll find many times in which a humanist was issuing punishment because someone 'rebelled' against them and deserved torture eternity.

Please point me in the right direction. :)

So if you might be wrong then why do you continue to act like it's right? Shouldn't you be agnostic like the rest of us? Oh wait, intellectual dishonesty and all that.

Even if I were a hardcore agnostic, I would have to act as if was right about agnosticism.

What did he see too much of to deny God? But yeah, you would think a God so madly in love with us would be a tad bit more communicative. I mean, he came down here once and continuously directly

No one is entitled to direct communication.

you could have also just said proof. in fact evidence to eliminate most doubt would be sufficient.

Doubt is a necessary component of faith.

User Info: countzander

3 years ago#142
are you actually going to demonstrate the weakness of the teapot analogy, or just call it dumb and give it no counter point?

That which can be ignorantly asserted can be ignorantly dismissed.

Also, I can prove the triangle has 3 sides by looking at how many sides it has.1... 2... 3.... derp. I'm sorry to be rude but these are some of the worst arguments I've ever seen. Also, if I did see a triangle with 3 sides, I wouldn't ****ing go "well there could be a fourth side that no human can observe and its actually a square!!!' You have the burden of proof. YOU have to demonstrate the morality. again, by your logic zero, zero,zero is verifiable including literally any reason/evidence/proof you could possibly ever give me to believe in the Biblical God, so I suggest you quit shooting yourself in the foot with this asinine, demonstrably flawed argument. In the mean time, null hypothesis, gg.

That's not a proof. A triangle is defined as having three sides. By pointing out a three-sided shape, you simply assumed that the definition is true, which is circular logic. Why is a triangle not a circle? Because it isn't. You can't prove it because the definitions are true by definition.
So if God is defined as being omniscient, then he just is. That's how definitions work.

nope, actually you would have to go "well there could be another factor you don't know/you can't disprove it", hence you'd be appealing to the possibility that something we don't know could be true. hey yeah, you did. look up the argument from ignorance before you make up any more ****.

That's just healthy skepticism, not an ignorant argument. See, I'm a part-time statistician, so I do this in real life quite often. A sound conclusion is impervious to the type of attacks I'm making. As many variables need to be accounted for as possible. If you're unable to defend against my proposals and patch up the holes I'm pointing out, your position needs to be modified.

dont know how youre automatically getting "good" out of "the sentient being that created the universe". (had to stray away from the usual "omnistuff" definition, since as sivirio said, the Biblical God is not omnipotent.) but I've already demonstrated that knowing good does not necessitate being good. Clearly I know murdering is wrong. I've never murdered though (unlike God). Likewise, I know that, Biblically, lusting is wrong. But does my knowledge of this mean I have not lusted? (before you respond, please keep in mind that I have yet to assert whether or not I actually have lusted before). regardless, I have already demonstrated the dichotomy of what we conclude about the God claim of the Bible. Yet to receive a counterpoint, its somewhere in the first fifty posts. Also, someone make the Ori comparison. Idk enough about them to argue it, haha. (cough wheres gohan when you need him cough)

Murder is not the correct term since it refers to unlawful killing. You can't say God is a murderer until you've shown his killings are wrong. For the rest, subjective repulsion is not a strong argument.

User Info: countzander

3 years ago#143

The second account may be a reiteration of the first one. There are other parts of the Bible where stories are repeated and told in different ways: the Gospels and the narrative of the monarchy, for instance.

Isaiah and Deuteronomy

The thing in Isaiah is a taunt to the king of Babylon. The thing in Deuteronomy is a law for the Israelites. (Read the entire chapters.)

Astronomical bodies are spherical, and you cannot see the entire exterior surface from anyplace. The kingdoms of Egypt, China, Greece, Crete, sections of Asia Minor, India, Maya (in Mexico), Carthage (North Africa), Rome (Italy), Korea, and other settlements from these kingdoms of the world were widely distributed.

The verse in Isaiah is explicitly metaphorical... Grasshoppers, curtains... To say nothing of the fact that God is supposedly omnipresent...
As for the Temptation, you don't think that maybe this evil entity could just--I don't know--show Jesus an image of the world empires? I mean, the Bible does ascribe supernatural abilities to the devil.

Moses' character.

People change, and meekness doesn't mean you're immune to anger.


Maybe he hanged himself over a cliff or something.

User Info: countzander

3 years ago#144
Death of Jesus

The Gospel's were passed down orally for several decades before being written down. Of course minor details are gonna differ.

Judgment for the census.

That's actually a translation error. In the Greek version, the word three is used. But in the Hebrew texts, seven is used.

n two places in the New Testament the genealogy of Jesus son of Mary is mentioned. MAT 1:6-16 and LUK 3:23-31. Each gives the ancestors of Joseph the CLAIMED husband of Mary and Step father of Jesus. The first one starts from Abraham(verse 2) all the way down to Jesus. The second one from Jesus all the way back to Adam. The only common name to these two lists between David and Jesus is JOSEPH, How can this be true? and also How can Jesus have a genealogy when all Muslims and most Christians believe that Jesus had/has no father.

This one is as old as Christianity itself and has numerous rebuttals.

Alleged contradiction of God's benevolence.

God's tempting

The first one refers to a test of faith. The second one refers to encouraging sinful behavior. Read the entire chapters.

User Info: countzander

3 years ago#145
Ascendance into heaven.

This is just based on a complete ignorance of 17th century English. But you just copied and pasted it so you're excused. The verse in John conveys the meaning of "No one has gone to heaven and returned." Find a more modern translation.


You can do great deeds and not seek recognition.


Such an appropriate one to put at the end. When you get into an argument with a fool, you're faced with a dilemma. If you try to correct him, you're a fool for trying. If you don't, you're allowing him to remain in ignorance. Moral? Don't associate with fools. Seriously, DC, the fact that these verses are f****** next to each other should have been a clue. But you just copied and pasted that nonsense, so you're excused.

Next. I've read the SAB, and I know you have more.

User Info: OrangeWizard

3 years ago#146
Also, that's what I THOUGHT, Thuggernautz
Trolling and making valid arguments are not mutually exclusive things.

User Info: Thuggernautz

3 years ago#147
Hmm? You thought I don't care to argue with you, and that The Ghost That Never Lies doesn't care if you believe in it for its message to be true? Excellent, we're on the same page.

P.S. I don't take your argument for God's definition seriously, either.

User Info: OrangeWizard

3 years ago#148
From: Thuggernautz | #147
P.S. I don't take your argument for God's definition seriously, either.

You don't have to, because you necessarily agree upon a definition when you assume God to be true.

However, nobody but you is assuming the ghost.
Trolling and making valid arguments are not mutually exclusive things.

User Info: DarkContractor

3 years ago#149
From: Silviiro | #139

The moving mountains was again told to the same 12 men. (Interestingly enough, they were told they could do it with the faith of a mustard seed, that is hardly any faith at all.) The healings performed by him were performed by him. You cannot generalize "this guy did this so more people can too." People can't run like ultramarathon man just because ultramarathon man can.

You still have yet to demonstrate that its to that specific group. Connect the dots. You have a fitting puzzle piece, but you have no reason to think that puzzle piece is reality.

"That's just the "other religions exist therefore all religions are wrong" argument. I've never found that one compelling. "

No it's not. If I decide I want to find Jesus, I should go to him in prayer and scripture, right?

"Even your observation of reality is based on axioms such as the axiom that you are not a brain in a vat or a man metaphorically chained to a wall in a cave perceiving only shadows without understanding that the shadows have a source. Everything must have axioms."

Ah, the faulty senses argument. I find it even less compelling. After all, Jesus could pop right up in my grill, perform some miracles, and the invoke rapture and I would still have to rely on my senses in order to know that. You have to make axioms like that in order to believe in Jesus so it's a moot point.

"I am taking it literally as "those" referring to specific people instead of a broad generalization. In fact, the word here for "those," "tois," is often translated into English as "the." So here's a random Googled page because I'm too lazy to do anything in depth on this verse"

the vs those means nothing. I am taking it literally too. hence I don't find the believers/those who believe/etc. anything more specific than believers.

He makes a couple of faulty points. He doesn't demonstrate the 11 specific people, just assumes it since he reads the 11 performed miracles. When he talks about believe/committed, he says nothing to differentiate the 11 from a modern day very faithful missionary. I mean these people literally wonder from Church to Church to mission field to mission field, just preaching, and relying on God to pave the way. they have zero miracles. my favorite was the 1. Corinthians verse. What would Paul have to say if he couldn't perform any of the miracles? An appeal to emotion fallacy, that's what. tell me, how come I don't feel anything 'spiritual' whenever a disciple 'loves/invests" in me in the modern day? Can you give me a reason to believe? Any evidence? Since Jesus seems to think actually proving himself isn't a good way of getting people to believe, and the whole "love/follow Jesus/be a light" thing didn't work, I have 0 reason to believe.

"Have you read the 13th chapter of 1st Corinthians? It's beautiful. If he went into detail on every little point do you think it would be up there with the 23rd Psalm in recognition by the average person? "

appeal to emotion

You are free to criticize it in any argument in which it is not taken as an axiom. If it merely a deduction from other axioms it is open to criticism.

You're operating on the axiom that the authors of the Bible were divinely inspired and not a trickster God and were intellectually honest. Doesn't the fact you have to completely re-evaluate the way we even determine evidence of any kind tell you something? the axioms made in secular science have yielded tons and tons of fruit. It has been 2000 years and what has assuming the axioms of the Bible led to?
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

User Info: DarkContractor

3 years ago#150
"It's a very good counterpoint. You ask how good discipline would be to someone without faith. It's no good at all. It is now nearly impossible for you to receive any revelation from God, provided he exists. "

Why is it impossible? If I just knew he existed instead of having 'faith', then I would be capable of receiving discipline as well.

"Your subjective repulsion is irrelevant, as are the similar sentiments of philosophers. "

I literally just de-constructed the intent of a specific law and showed how its weaknesses and specifically gave examples of problems it created. it is fact that if a woman doesn't scream during rape, God said to kill her. It is fact that just because you can actually be raped without screaming. It is a fact that the man can threaten the womans life, kids, etc if she screams. It is a fact that your logic can be applied to anything.

"If God exists, he doesn't care what you guys think. "

How loving. It's not a religion, it's a relationship, right? Y'know, we're supposed to be his bride, well I think God's a wifebeater. I mean if we 'sin', he kills us and sends us to burn forever, unless we beg for forgiveness and dedicate our lives to glorifying him. And he doesn't care about our opinion at all. I want a divorce, but he tortures me with fire if I go through with it :C But hey, being a wifebeater is automatically good.

"Unless an objective morality can be demonstrated, these attacks and accusations are just opinion."

No, we can get closer to certainty with some moralities than we can others, there's just a margin for error. In fact, I don't think an objective morality exists. As I demonstrated with the Bible's rape law, when we let morals shape situations rather than situations shape morals, it's bound to blow up in our faces. You keep on acting like God's morality is objective. You keep assuming he has good intentions for us. When I read the Bible, I am addressing the claim that God is real and omnibenevolent. When I read the claims of what I consider evil and you consider good, I'm trying to find the conclusion he's omnibenevolent. I can't just accept my premise as my conclusion.

"I am reserving my judgment... The Bible defines God as being benevolent. Until I'm shown an objective standard or morality, there is insufficient evidence to reject the definition. I'm not making any judgments of my own...yet.""

neither should you accept that God is real. And I sincerely hope you wouldn't dare extrapolate this to your voting (gay marriage, abortions, indoctrinating via mission trips, fear mongering by telling people they'll go to Hell if they don't do this, telling people to save sex for marriage, etc etc. Hope you don't force your kids to Church, anything like that. Since you're claiming to reserve judgment.

Probably the biggest relief of de-converting was abandoning Christian morals. I felt like an absolute ****head for acting as though homosexuality was immoral. I honestly haven't felt more evil in my life than I did then. I mean, I couldn't think of a single moral problem it would propose for the life of me. As a bisexual, I know my homo urges are just as legitimate and realistic as my hetero urges. I don't play on my homo urges at all (I'm open if someone happened to ask, but I can find sexual fulfillment entirely through women so I stick to chicks because of the social stigma that I can thank the body of Christ for). If God is good, then I wanna be evil. Not until he quits playing ****ing games and actually starts to disciple us.
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
  1. Boards
  2. Religion
  3. Looking at common apologetics about Hell.

Report Message

Terms of Use Violations:

Etiquette Issues:

Notes (optional; required for "Other"):
Add user to Ignore List after reporting

Topic Sticky

You are not allowed to request a sticky.

  • Topic Archived