Hell Is Real And Souls Go There

[pittbulll]

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
If the Muslim people would rise up against their leadership and get rid of the extremist elements in their countries my mind would be changed. [/quote]

You could say the same about the US. [/quote]

IMO, if we continue down the path of Socialism then we will.
[/quote]

Do you mean the socialism where Obama mandates all people use a commercial enterprise ?

Or did you mean the advent of Police , Fire , Military ,Schools , Roads and freeways , Water ,Electricity,Parks , Air Traffic Control, Food Inspectors , and the like ?

Are you saying we should abolish any resemblance to Socialism ?
[/quote]

Are you Racists?
[/quote]

I really try not to be but I probably have some preconceived thoughts on the matter of race that would be classified as racist

[dmaddox]

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
If the Muslim people would rise up against their leadership and get rid of the extremist elements in their countries my mind would be changed. [/quote]

You could say the same about the US. [/quote]

IMO, if we continue down the path of Socialism then we will.
[/quote]

Do you mean the socialism where Obama mandates all people use a commercial enterprise ?

Or did you mean the advent of Police , Fire , Military ,Schools , Roads and freeways , Water ,Electricity,Parks , Air Traffic Control, Food Inspectors , and the like ?

Are you saying we should abolish any resemblance to Socialism ?
[/quote]

Are you Racists?
[/quote]

I really try not to be but I probably have some preconceived thoughts on the matter of race that would be classified as racist
[/quote]

That was a joke.

[pittbulll]

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
If the Muslim people would rise up against their leadership and get rid of the extremist elements in their countries my mind would be changed. [/quote]

You could say the same about the US. [/quote]

IMO, if we continue down the path of Socialism then we will.
[/quote]

Do you mean the socialism where Obama mandates all people use a commercial enterprise ?

Or did you mean the advent of Police , Fire , Military ,Schools , Roads and freeways , Water ,Electricity,Parks , Air Traffic Control, Food Inspectors , and the like ?

Are you saying we should abolish any resemblance to Socialism ?
[/quote]

Are you Racists?
[/quote]

I answered your question as honestly as I know how please answer mine

[dmaddox]

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
If the Muslim people would rise up against their leadership and get rid of the extremist elements in their countries my mind would be changed. [/quote]

You could say the same about the US. [/quote]

IMO, if we continue down the path of Socialism then we will.
[/quote]

Do you mean the socialism where Obama mandates all people use a commercial enterprise ?

Or did you mean the advent of Police , Fire , Military ,Schools , Roads and freeways , Water ,Electricity,Parks , Air Traffic Control, Food Inspectors , and the like ?

Are you saying we should abolish any resemblance to Socialism ?
[/quote]

Are you Racists?
[/quote]

I answered your question as honestly as I know how please answer mine
[/quote]

Your questions are leading to a particular answer. That answer is not my answer. Socialism is where the government is in control. We have been going down this path for over 100 years. I think with the implement of ACA we have finally come to a head. Are we going to head down the same path, or change? We will know in due time.

[zecarlo]

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
Socialism is where the government is in control.
[/quote]
Governments of all types are only in as much control as the people let them.

[dmaddox]

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
Socialism is where the government is in control.
[/quote]
Governments of all types are only in as much control as the people let them. [/quote]

Which brings us back to my point.

[pittbulll]

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
If the Muslim people would rise up against their leadership and get rid of the extremist elements in their countries my mind would be changed. [/quote]

You could say the same about the US. [/quote]

IMO, if we continue down the path of Socialism then we will.
[/quote]

Do you mean the socialism where Obama mandates all people use a commercial enterprise ?

Or did you mean the advent of Police , Fire , Military ,Schools , Roads and freeways , Water ,Electricity,Parks , Air Traffic Control, Food Inspectors , and the like ?

Are you saying we should abolish any resemblance to Socialism ?
[/quote]

Are you Racists?
[/quote]

I answered your question as honestly as I know how please answer mine
[/quote]

Your questions are leading to a particular answer. That answer is not my answer. Socialism is where the government is in control. We have been going down this path for over 100 years. I think with the implement of ACA we have finally come to a head. Are we going to head down the same path, or change? We will know in due time.
[/quote]

so·cial·ism
Ë?sÅ?SHÉ?Ë?lizÉ?m/
noun
noun: socialism

1.
a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

I do not see any connection to Obama care, Do you ?

[dmaddox]

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
If the Muslim people would rise up against their leadership and get rid of the extremist elements in their countries my mind would be changed. [/quote]

You could say the same about the US. [/quote]

IMO, if we continue down the path of Socialism then we will.
[/quote]

Do you mean the socialism where Obama mandates all people use a commercial enterprise ?

Or did you mean the advent of Police , Fire , Military ,Schools , Roads and freeways , Water ,Electricity,Parks , Air Traffic Control, Food Inspectors , and the like ?

Are you saying we should abolish any resemblance to Socialism ?
[/quote]

Are you Racists?
[/quote]

I answered your question as honestly as I know how please answer mine
[/quote]

Your questions are leading to a particular answer. That answer is not my answer. Socialism is where the government is in control. We have been going down this path for over 100 years. I think with the implement of ACA we have finally come to a head. Are we going to head down the same path, or change? We will know in due time.
[/quote]

so�·cial�·ism
Ã??sÃ??SHÃ??Ã??lizÃ??m/
noun
noun: socialism

1.
a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

I do not see any connection to Obama care, Do you ?
[/quote]

You are not understanding my argument.

[Bismark]

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
Socialism is where the government is in control.
[/quote]
Governments of all types are only in as much control as the people let them. [/quote]

Which brings us back to my point.
[/quote]

As Max Weber so eloquently put it, the state is “a human community [government] that successfully claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory.” So no, the people are allowed as much freedom as the possessors of superior coercive force permit them to have.

[pittbulll]

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
If the Muslim people would rise up against their leadership and get rid of the extremist elements in their countries my mind would be changed. [/quote]

You could say the same about the US. [/quote]

IMO, if we continue down the path of Socialism then we will.
[/quote]

Do you mean the socialism where Obama mandates all people use a commercial enterprise ?

Or did you mean the advent of Police , Fire , Military ,Schools , Roads and freeways , Water ,Electricity,Parks , Air Traffic Control, Food Inspectors , and the like ?

Are you saying we should abolish any resemblance to Socialism ?
[/quote]

Are you Racists?
[/quote]

I answered your question as honestly as I know how please answer mine
[/quote]

Your questions are leading to a particular answer. That answer is not my answer. Socialism is where the government is in control. We have been going down this path for over 100 years. I think with the implement of ACA we have finally come to a head. Are we going to head down the same path, or change? We will know in due time.
[/quote]

so�?�·cial�?�·ism
Ã???sÃ???SHÃ???Ã???lizÃ???m/
noun
noun: socialism

1.
a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

I do not see any connection to Obama care, Do you ?
[/quote]

You are not understanding my argument.
[/quote]

possibly , but it could be that you are espousing the standard Republican Rhetoric rather than the true meaning of words

[pat]

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
Socialism is where the government is in control.
[/quote]
Governments of all types are only in as much control as the people let them. [/quote]

Bullshit. That’s tough sell to the many oppressed peoples of the world. ‘Comply or die’ is technically not an option. Many governments are in control whether the people let them or not.

[pat]

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]doogie wrote:
So if I drive a Prius, I won’t get my head chopped off. Excellent!![/quote]

No, but you have to voluntarily have your testicles removed. [/quote]

By driving a Prius, you already have de facto emasculated yourself.

[pat]

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
And you have no proof it’s a ‘fairy tail’ nor that it didn’t happen.[/quote]

There is a mountain of evidence that says that things in the Bible didn’t happen. You may not think it’s been “proved,” but the evidence is there and it’s a hell of a task for anybody to reasonably deny it.
[/quote]
Which things are these? You know that the bible isn’t a history book right? Not everything in it is a historical account? Make sure this supposed evidence is dealing with something that is actual and non allegorical.[/quote]

Genesis makes no claim of allegory for itself. And if you say that it is indeed allegory, then I say so is the resurrection of Jesus.
[/quote]
The point is this, you cannot just say there is reems of evidence against the Bible being false without pointing out which part and what the evidence against it is. It’s a big book and it’s a collection of works.

The Bible doesn’t make claims on what kind of works the different parts are. For instance, as stated the creation stories aren’t a historical account because they cannot be. Nobody was there to witness and take account.
The resurrection story had many witnesses. You don’t believe it happened and that’s fine, but there were plenty of witnesses to the event and yes that is recorded in the Bible. I wouldn’t expect the Romans to record it as they were trying to crush the movement.

[quote]

[quote]

[quote]
But forget that. The burden of proof lies with the guy who believes in miracle, not the guy who doesn’t. If you tell me that you own a talking hermit crab, I don’t say to myself, “well, maybe he does and maybe he doesn’t.” I assume that it’s nonsense until it says “hello” to me.[/quote]

Burden of proof lies with the one who makes a claim. You just made the claim the whole bible is false. [/quote]

I made no such claim.

My claim is that it is the one who avers miracle who must prove miracle. It was on Joseph Smith to prove that he was visited by Moroni, not on the people to whom he was recounting the tale.

Christians aver miracle, and so they must prove it.

More simply, my claim is this: that it’s written that it happened is not sufficient proof for a reasonable person to believe that a man rose from the dead three days after his murder.

Or, if it is sufficient proof, then so must be the Upanishads for everything therein.[/quote]

I didn’t make a claim, you did. I didn’t make a claim to any miracles. You simply stated the Bible is false. When you make such a claim the burden is on you to prove it. I made no claim whatsoever.

[zecarlo]

Bismark wrote: So no, the people are allowed as much freedom as the possessors of superior coercive force permit them to have.

I would argue that superior coercive force is just a matter of perception. The coercion is only effective as long as it provides a more desirable option to resistance. Once someone says, “give me liberty or give me death,” all bets are off.

[smh_23]

[quote]pat wrote:

I didn’t make a claim, you did. I didn’t make a claim to any miracles. You simply stated the Bible is false. When you make such a claim the burden is on you to prove it. I made no claim whatsoever.[/quote]

“I didn’t make a claim to any miracles.” Are you a Christian? If so, then yes you do make this claim.

Anyway, I’m not saying “the Bible is false” and have not written any blanket statement like that in this thread (or, to my knowledge, on this site). I said that there is a great deal of science standing in opposition to a great deal of what’s in the Bible–that science tells us that things in the Bible, which the bible says happened, didn’t. This, I am absolutely sure, you know.

More importantly, I’m saying that if you make the proposition that a miracle has happened, then, if you want other people to believe you, the burden of proof lies with you. Christianity is, among other things, the proposition that a man performed resurrections, and walked on water, and rose from the dead. Claims this extraordinary require proof of a commensurately extraordinary nature. If the only such proof that exists is an ancient text, then my failure to see how this is any different from the Upanishads endures.

[pat]

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
And you have no proof it’s a ‘fairy tail’ nor that it didn’t happen.[/quote]

There is a mountain of evidence that says that things in the Bible didn’t happen. You may not think it’s been “proved,” but the evidence is there and it’s a hell of a task for anybody to reasonably deny it.
[/quote]
Which things are these? You know that the bible isn’t a history book right? Not everything in it is a historical account? Make sure this supposed evidence is dealing with something that is actual and non allegorical.

But forget that. The burden of proof lies with the guy who believes in miracle, not the guy who doesn’t. If you tell me that you own a talking hermit crab, I don’t say to myself, “well, maybe he does and maybe he doesn’t.” I assume that it’s nonsense until it says “hello” to me.[/quote]

Burden of proof lies with the one who makes a claim. You just made the claim the whole bible is false. Okay, the Bible is the object which has the claims. So that part of burden of proof is fulfilled. You have the claim and it’s explanation written in black and white. I don’t have o do anything but present the book. Your the one who said the whole thing was wrong, so prove the whole thing was wrong.
You’re the one making the claim.

The object in question doesn’t beget burden of proof, somebody who makes a claim about the object is assuming the burden of proof. You assumed the burden that the whole Bible is false, so get to it. You made the claim, you back it up. [/quote]

Pat, you know as well as anyone that one cannot “prove” a negative.

First, you can in fact prove a negative. It’s done in mathematics all the time. That’s just an escape pod atheists use to get out proving their points. Second, that’s not what’s happening here. What’s happening is the counter arguing of made claims. If a claim is made, you can prove it true or false. You cannot say a claim is false then get out of backing up the counter claim by saying you cannot prove a negative. No, if you are counter arguing a made claim, you are not trying to prove a ‘negative’, you are trying to prove that a claim is false.

All one can do is attempt to verify a claim of veracity with evidence supporting it, and failing that, conclude that the initial claim was false.

SMH can no more “prove” that the whole Bible is false than you could prove that elves and pixies and the gods of Asgard don’t exist. Absence of evidence of elves and pixies and Asgardian gods not equalling evidence of their absence, after all.

If you cannot prove a made claim is false, then don’t say a claim is false unless you can bring an argument or evidence that it is. You’re arguing against a ‘claim’ not an absence of one.

What SMH can do, and likely does, is view extraordinary claims such as those found in the Bible with no evidence supporting them, such as nine-hundred year old men, a planet stopping its entire rotation for several hours so that a battle on a dusty field may continue in sunlight, or five loaves of bread and two fish increasing parthenogenically so that they were able to feed a crowd of five thousand people, with a degree of skepticism and incredulity.

I would arguing that witnesses to the claims would be supporting evidence that they happened. Choosing to disregard the source of the claim does not prove they didn’t happen. It’s a tough sell that everybody are liars and the whole source was written by people whose sole intention was to deceive and lie about everything thing. We have no reason to believe the authors and witnesses are all liars. We have no evidence that it’s all a grand deception. And if they were, the scope, magnitude, and effectiveness of it would be a miracle in itself.

You’re not stupid, Pat. Not a caveman by any stretch, which probably adds to SMH’s amazement: that you find it so easy to believe the entirety of the implicit claims of the Bible without evidence, going so far as to say that they have been proven, by virtue of their being in the Bible, and that you find it just as amazing that anyone would not believe them.

I never said I believe things in the Bible to be true simply because they are in the bible. There are verifiably true things in the bible. There are, at the very least true moral lessons and advice on behavior and dealing with your fellow man, for instance, that lends credibility to the work. Because it does have true things in it, because I have found applicable and effective lessons and wisdom from it, I have every reason to give it the benefit of the doubt on other things I cannot verify myself.

[quote]

No, one cannot “prove” the Bible is false, and it would serve no purpose to do so. A believer would still believe, because faith requires no proof. I actually envy people who are able to believe so completely in something without skepticism. It must be a wonderful feeling, one that I have missed out on all my life. [/quote]
Faith does require ‘proof’ or some degree of evidence to it’s validity. If it had none whatsoever, it’s value would have expired long ago. Part of a journey of faith is skepticism. It does nobody any good to take things at face value without question. Being a theist, being religious is partially a journey of doubt. Doubt with effort is a good thing, as in the seeking you gain wisdom. Doubt without effort is just blind faith, the kind of blind faith that we ‘believers’ are accused of having. I am interested in the truth and I am willing to put in the work to seek it out.
I neither believe nor doubt without some effort to make sure I am right.

[pat]

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
No, I want to know the ‘truth’ that zcarlo speaks of. The truth that man does not know and invents gods to take it’s place. What is that truth.

I am not looking for some dead guy quotes whose opinion is as wrong then as it is now.

Cavemen used gods to explain not understood natural phenomena. We haven’t done that since at least Greek times, perhaps even earlier. [/quote]
Voltaire was right otherwise you are wrong. You have a choice: either all gods ever mentioned were real, some or one were real or none were/are real. If Voltaire was wrong then man has never invented any gods which means they are all real. You don’t believe that so you agree with Voltaire. Voltaire did not say all gods were invented.
[/quote]
I have a choice to believe whatever I want for any reason I want, but that’s not what I do. I followed where the evidence, where reason and logic leads. And to follow that leads to no other choice than to believe God exists. Reason and logic do not lead to the conclusion that these other gods exist. Voltaire like yourself are following biases against those who believe based on the false notion that it’s blind and illogical and that we are all suckers. You too are free to believe what you want, but that assertion is false.

[quote]
What about the questions of good and evil? What about the purpose of our existence? You don’t look to religion and God for those answers? [/quote]
What’s your answer to these questions?

[smh_23]

In other words, the conservation goes like this:

Skeptic: Did Jesus walk on water, and turn water into wine, and rise from the dead?

Christian: Yes.

Skeptic: How do you know?

Christian: Because it is written in the Bible.

Skeptic: How do you know that the Bible is telling the truth? How do you know that the Upanishads are not? How do you know that they aren’t somehow both telling the truth?

To which the answer is?

I’m not being a dick, by the way. I am genuinely curious as to how you concisely answer that question. My guess is that the answer is “faith.” Which is perfectly respectable, but you will have to admit that your believing in proposition Y does not make proposition Y, and that, therefore, proposition Y may, in fact, not be true.

[smh_23]

[quote]pat wrote:

First, you can in fact prove a negative. [/quote]

Not of this kind. Absolutely not.

[pat]

[quote]Severiano wrote:
The fiery God of wrath and hate towards those that eat pigs isn’t the same God depicted today by Christians.

Yet, it’s the very same God? A god who would kill you, either for eternity in a fake hell, or just because eating pigs pisses him off doesn’t seem to be a good God. but one with pet peeves… Only a matter of time before he gets pissed and kills you, or sends you to hell. Reminds me more of a Toddler playing God than an all good, morally perfect creator being.

Just kill me and be done with it already lol. Oh yeah, that’s right, you most likely don’t even exist. [/quote]

Yet another person who has not read the book, who feels qualified to discuss his misconceptions about the book with those who have.
It’s so strange to me. If one presents a fiery commentary about another book they never read, that person would be dismissed as a full fledged moron. But not so with the Bible. Everybody’s an expert especially those who are against it, though they have never read it.
Reading a couple of passages doesn’t count.