Burn in hell (aka miss an episode of Sesame Street)

[WAR_ON_ERROR]

I was "invited" here to TWEB by J. P. Holding from his blog (http://tektonticker.blogspot.com/201...46175455304390).

The topic on Holding's blog was somewhat unrelated to hell, however when dealing with what a god would or wouldn't do providentially in the gospels that may or may not resemble legend, myth borrowing, normal religious nonsense we see every day in the modern world, and what not, I pointed out that Yahweh's intentions on such fine details are way missing a bigger picture that is much easier to discern and does the case for the resurrection no good. Billions of Muslims have no problem with Allah simply forgiving from the hip, but we can be sure Yahweh wants to resurrect and incarnation of himself from the dead to correct a smidgen of the human honor deficit in the universe? Yeah, whatever. It's like trying to decide whether Jesus parts his hair on the right or the left.

Moving on to those bigger more discernable issues, when theists lose the argument from evil they tend to instinctively declare that atheists are in no position to judge their god. They will feel free though to judge that of course everything they think is in support of Christianity is exactly what Yahweh would do as though they haven't debased all of our judgment calls on the issues. Holding seems to think we can figure it out and in some cases I agree. I ran through the list of usual suspects with Holding where its pretty obvious if we are allowed to make an educated guess, no good god would want to take moral responsibility for this world or Yahweh's abysmal resume in the Bible. Holding focused on the doctrine of hell that I listed and so I went with that.

Fortunately I'd already reviewed his material on the subject and incorporated it into my comprehensive argument map on the injustice of the doctrine of hell with 40 some other apologetic excuses (http://war-on-error.xanga.com/747716...ell-is-unjust/). Here I'll give Holding some specific warranted grief on his views.

Apparently, in order to be J. P. Holding on the doctrine of hell one would have to (http://www.tektonics.org/uz/2muchshame.html and here: http://tektonticker.blogspot.com/201...onas_08.html):

A.Dishonor your god, by insinuating direct rejection by him is akin to missing an episode of a children's television program. I think we feel more burn when we get rejected from having a date with the opposite sex (or the same sex, if that's the way you swing), but apparently Yahweh's a downgrade from that.

B. Pretend like his pseudo-benign version of hell (where apparently Richard Dawkins shrugs it off and goes along his merry way to have a drink with Hitchens and Harris) even remotely does the scriptural imagery any justice.

C. Pretend like physical harm (literal flames and pitchforks) forever is morally different than unavoidable unending psychological harm. Is psychological abuse not on Holding's moral radar? Yikes...

D. Pretend like focusing on honor and shame somehow negates the eternal torment aspect. Using rhetoric like "it's more about x than y" (as he does in his article) would be no comfort to the actual people suffering y for all eternity. Why didn't Abraham give the rich man a lecture on his own honor culture?

E. Not recognize the incoherence of A and C since Holding both seems to pretend like it isn't a big deal while also condoning the psychological harm aspect talked about in Glenn Miller quotes, while also blowing off the psychological harm aspect, while also disowning the picture painted by scripture in favor of the Gospel of C. S. Lewis and claiming it still matches.

Also, according to Holding, it seems that there is "no excuse" for getting a position wrong in the first place as I was told by him on his blog (http://tektonticker.blogspot.com/201...37720173252323) even when you have every opportunity to correct it and simply choose not to engage. Holding didn't like that I went ahead and pointed out that if hell isn't about an infinite *quantity* of sinning, it must be about infinite *quality* of sinning to warrant the infinite punishment. "That's not what I said!" Cry me a river. If it's *not* an infinite quality, it's not a justified punishment. If it *is* supposed to be an infinite quality, humans simply aren't capable of infinite quality anythings as I pointed out on the map. Holding still won't pick either of the refuted positions or any other. Someone else can pick up the slack where he left off and I'll update the map accordingly with the new fail.

The invitation to correct anything on my argument map is open to any and all Christians who are not given to premature value judgments and hasty generalizations about ideological opponents you don't even know. I imagine that Holding's problem is thanks to his many years of embitterment from all those skeptical swords he's been poked in the noggin with. He's human. It happens. In my world, Holding has had decades to get his views on hell correct and has no excuse for mangling the concepts so badly. I don't let that stop the conversation or use it as an excuse to not state my claims clearly and take on the burden of justifying them. But then again, I'm an atheist.

[Raphael]

Moderated By: Raphael

Moved to Tektonics

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

[jpholding]

The failure-whiner has arrived I see!

Billions of Muslims have no problem with Allah simply forgiving from the hip,

Actually, dumbass, that merely shows how ignorant you are of the agonistic and collectivist background both faiths share. The Muslim is in deep covenant obligation to Allah, so it's hardly a case of a free ride as you seem to think it is. The price comes elsewhere.

but we can be sure Yahweh wants to resurrect and incarnation of himself from the dead to correct a smidgen of the human honor deficit in the universe? Yeah, whatever. It's like trying to decide whether Jesus parts his hair on the right or the left.

As simple-minded as you are, you'd be better off trying to solve the latter problem. Especially since all you are able to do is relate prejudicial terminology (eg, "smidgen") as though that constitutes an argument.

Moving on to those bigger more discernable issues, when theists lose the argument from evil they tend to instinctively declare that atheists are in no position to judge their god.

"Lose the argument from evil" = "when atheists abandon the rational pretense and thinking whining, crying, and spitting up is an argument."

Fortunately I'd already reviewed his material on the subject and incorporated it into my comprehensive argument map on the injustice of the doctrine of hell with 40 some other apologetic excuses (http://war-on-error.xanga.com/747716...ell-is-unjust/).

Translation: "I've created this graphic containing summary gripes without rational basis to impress the media-soaked generation into thinking I've done some rational thinking and serious research on these subjects,:

A.Dishonor your god, by insinuating direct rejection by him is akin to missing an episode of a children's television program.

Wrong as usual. The day you get someone's position correctly rather than caricaturing it is the day Fred Phelps joins the Hell's Angels. I told you once:

No, of course, only in your prejudicial reading did I EQUATE the experience of the shame-hell with missing Sesame Street; your emotional appeal is inevitable given that you are unable to actually validate your description with argument. Rather, the point is that the modern generation has an all too simple resort of designating as "suffering" whatever they don't wish to experience. KnownNoMore, for example -- the YT atheist I posted on here some weeks back -- insisted that it would be "torture" to make someone sit in an uncomfortable chair too long. How droll. And how like the current generation to magnify their discomforts and inconveniences into something to be terminologically equated with eternal fiery torture, simply for the sake of rhetorical flourishing.

B. Pretend like his pseudo-benign version of hell (where apparently Richard Dawkins shrugs it off and goes along his merry way to have a drink with Hitchens and Harris) even remotely does the scriptural imagery any justice.

Your response: Pretend that it doesn't, because you're still caught in that pseudo-fundy literalism rather than serious contextual study.

C. Pretend like physical harm (literal flames and pitchforks) forever is morally different than unavoidable unending psychological harm. Is psychological abuse not on Holding's moral radar? Yikes...

Your tactic: Call things you simply don't like "harm" or "abuse" per the point about Sesame Street above, knowing that this appeals to the emotional outrage your kind of irrational know-nothing prefers. How odd that Kyle Gerkin didn't share your manufactured outrage when he read the article.

D. Pretend like focusing on honor and shame somehow negates the eternal torment aspect. Using rhetoric like "it's more about x than y" (as he does in his article) would be no comfort to the actual people suffering y for all eternity. Why didn't Abraham give the rich man a lecture on his own honor culture?

Golly, dumbass, could it be because the rich man lived in the same kind of culture? Yo, homey, try reading a few more articles: The rich man's "speech" is typical of the overstated rhetorical flourishes people back then did when they were doing their speech as performance art. Think of it as YOU rapping on about "harm" and "abuse" for effect. Only with a lot better edjamacation than you'll ever have.

E. Not recognize the incoherence of A and C since Holding both seems to pretend like it isn't a big deal while also condoning the psychological harm aspect talked about in Glenn Miller quotes, while also blowing off the psychological harm aspect, while also disowning the picture painted by scripture in favor of the Gospel of C. S. Lewis and claiming it still matches.

Like I said, sorry you're still stuck in fundy-universe when it comes to serious contextual exegesis, but Lewis was far closer to the truth here than he knew.

Also, according to Holding, it seems that there is "no excuse" for getting a position wrong in the first place as I was told by him on his blog (http://tektonticker.blogspot.com/201...37720173252323) even when you have every opportunity to correct it and simply choose not to engage.

Like I said, no excuse for that level of carelessness, little man. Of course a pissant site like yours, maybe you think you can get away with it to please the 25 or so people a month who stop by.

Holding didn't like that I went ahead and pointed out that if hell isn't about an infinite *quantity* of sinning, it must be about infinite *quality* of sinning to warrant the infinite punishment. "That's not what I said!" Cry me a river.

Here's your industrial-sized hanky. Come up with your own lines. As I just said:

There is no hasty generalization; as usual, when you get your head stuck in a vise, you strain to redefine and stretch terms to make it fit what you want it to say and make it sound like you were actually not careless. The dishonor itself has NO "infinite quality" -- that you think so only indicates your sorrowful ignorance of the anthropological facet of the subject. The time spent in this state, which is indeed eternal, is merely a coincidental factor and has no bearing on the nature of the condemnation. It is not like prison, where one is stuck in one place, one frozen state, at all times during the sentence.

The invitation to correct anything on my argument map is open to any and all Christians who are not given to premature value judgments and hasty generalizations about ideological opponents you don't even know.

Yeah like anyone anywhere gives a rat's backside about something some disaffected little squirt with anger management problems says on his pissant little website.

I imagine that Holding's problem is thanks to his many years of embitterment from all those skeptical swords he's been poked in the noggin with.

No, I just like tormenting small minded ignoramuses is all. Be they atheists or cult members.

But then again, I'm an atheist.

And, as is typical of the genre, not at all a competent one.

[jpholding]

THE WAR ON ERROR WHINER-FAILURE DICTIONARY


Abuse (n.)
1. The act of serving warm beer to someone who expected it cold.
2. Not inviting someone to a party because they refuse to abide by the party's rules.
3. Not providing endless entertainment to people to be sure they will never ever and for not one second be bored.
4. Making someone sit only in chairs without cushions forever.

[Xru]

I like this ones writing style . . . but as pointed out above . . . he's still a Dumb-Ass.

[WAR_ON_ERROR]

How odd that Kyle Gerkin didn't share your manufactured outrage when he read the article.

Do you keep Gerkin in a cage somewhere as your very own pet atheist? hehe

. The Muslim is in deep covenant obligation to Allah, so it's hardly a case of a free ride as you seem to think it is. The price comes elsewhere.

That's not what I was getting at. I was pointing out that other religions have much more straight forward relationships that do not involve Christian gimmicks and they each seem to work as well. How easy it isn't to get into the Christian heaven is covered in objection 17.

Especially since all you are able to do is relate prejudicial terminology (eg, "smidgen") as though that constitutes an argument.

The "smidgen" was a stab at how few people are supposed to be saved in relation to the majority who will be damned. This is covered in objection 33.

KnownNoMore, for example -- the YT atheist I posted on here some weeks back -- insisted that it would be "torture" to make someone sit in an uncomfortable chair too long. How droll.

Yeah, I don't think calling something "droll" really overturns the arguments calling all the grades of stress positions torture. See stress positions: http://www.slate.com/features/whatis.../Taxonomy.html, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress_positions If you really think that sitting in an uncomfortable chair for all eternity isn't torture, that's just your problem. Try it for a week. There's a reason it is used on suspects.

could it be because the rich man lived in the same kind of culture?

Yeah, and that doesn't help your point. My point was that you were using the honor/shame thing as misdirection that somehow erases the suffering part. That the two characters take for granted the honor shame thing and focus on the suffering undoes your undo.

while also condoning the psychological harm aspect talked about in Glenn Miller quotes

Just in case folks don't know which quotes I was referring to:

"Miller cites sources indicating that the torment of hell is relational in nature and involves banishment from heaven. A source says, though again apparently without knowledge of the Biblical world as agonistic: Mental and physical anguish result from the sorrow and shame of the judgment of being forever relationally excluded from God, heaven, and so forth."

See that whole "mental and physical anguish" part? My supposed "argument from outrage" didn't invent it in this conversation.

as usual, when you get your head stuck in a vise, you strain to redefine and stretch terms to make it fit what you want it to say and make it sound like you were actually not careless. The dishonor itself has NO "infinite quality" -- that you think so only indicates your sorrowful ignorance of the anthropological facet of the subject. The time spent in this state, which is indeed eternal, is merely a coincidental factor and has no bearing on the nature of the condemnation. It is not like prison, where one is stuck in one place, one frozen state, at all times during the sentence.

Whether I am careless or not is a non-issue. The "infinite quality" bit had nothing to do with how it is or isn't supposed to work in ANE cultures, but rather it was about how *your argument* had to work to make any sense. If our honor offense isn't of an infinite quality or quantity, one cannot justify the infinite punishment or pretend like those everlasting circumstances are just "coincidental." "Incidentally I just left you locked in a cage for 20 extra years" is a huge non-defense in moral terms in any system I know. Whether you embrace the infinite quality bit or disown it still results in your justification failing. Either it's not enough to warrant the infinite punishment, or humans are accused of committing some infinite quality crime as though that's even possible for us. Again, pick your failure.

So in other words, it's still eternal torment for most of humanity that manages to screw up their tiny lives on earth in spiritual terms and they get to reap the benefits of that mentally for all eternity with no hope of fixing themselves. How is this conception of hell any different in moral terms than what the bottom of the barrel Westboro Baptists believe about it? "My god doesn't beat you with a crow bar, he beats you with a baseball bat!"

[Sparko]

Argument by outrage. So what's new?

[Xru]

Argument by outrage. So what's new?

Right . . . I'm angry at God because I don't think He is being fair . . . . . hmmmmm . . . . what should I do?

Be a Dumb-Ass!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1!!1

[jpholding]

Do you keep Gerkin in a cage somewhere as your very own pet atheist? hehe

He's the best behaved of the lot, so no, he runs loose. It's animals like you I cage up.

That's not what I was getting at. I was pointing out that other religions have much more straight forward relationships that do not involve Christian gimmicks and they each seem to work as well.

Then that only further demonstrates your stupidity. There's no "gimmick" in Christian salvation; it's a standard client-patron relationship of the sort every person in a collectivist society (in other words, 99% of all who have ever lived) would easily recognize, as would anyone with ever a moderate education (clue: not you) among the other 1%. So likewise Islam.

How easy it isn't to get into the Christian heaven is covered in objection 17.

Then bring it here, little man. No one here wants to waste time page-downing and across to manage that cumbersome graphic you made with your crayons to buffalo the ignorant into thinking you said something worthwhile.

The "smidgen" was a stab at how few people are supposed to be saved in relation to the majority who will be damned.

Oh dear. Forgot to factor in infant mortality did you? How about free passes for the earnestly seeking who never hear the Gospel? Sorry chump....the majority will NOT be damned. In fact, free passes will account for the saving of roughly 85% of all human who have ever lived.

Yeah, I don't think calling something "droll" really overturns the arguments calling all the grades of stress positions torture. See stress positions:

WIKIPEDIA! Please. Yet more modernity defining "torture" according to their sorrowful weaknesses. An uncomfortable chair is not a "stress position," pacifier boy, and not even your links say that. (Not until you add it to Wiki, I'm sure!)

Yeah, and that doesn't help your point. My point was that you were using the honor/shame thing as misdirection that somehow erases the suffering part.

It does. You're just a whiner who turns everything into "torture" and "suffering" because you can't stand losing one of your favorite crybaby arguments.

See that whole "mental and physical anguish" part? My supposed "argument from outrage" didn't invent it in this conversation.

Yes, it did. Miller doesn't consider it outrageous and nor does anyone else with a spine.

Whether I am careless or not is a non-issue.

Yes, it is an issue, and you can't dodge your irresponsibility by disclaiming it.

The "infinite quality" bit had nothing to do with how it is or isn't supposed to work in ANE cultures, but rather it was about how *your argument* had to work to make any sense.

Make sense to you, as someone who tries to ignore the honor component and has no idea how an agonistic society works? Correct. You had better factor in the culture, because if you don't, it's not my argument, it's your scarecrow.

If our honor offense isn't of an infinite quality or quantity, one cannot justify the infinite punishment or pretend like those everlasting circumstances are just "coincidental."

It is coincidental, and disclaiming it as such is not an argument but a whine on your part. I already told you as well it wasn't like being locked in a cage. Drop the whiny victim complex.

Again, pick your failure.

You're the most miserable one I know.

"My god doesn't beat you with a crow bar, he beats you with a baseball bat!"

My god doesn't do either. He just doesn't let you into the party. Here's a news flash for you, moron:

Define hell not by what it HAS, but what it LACKS.

So bottom line, you're too stupid when it comes to the critical concepts here: Honor and shame, patronage, etc. Go get a complete education and report back in 2026.

[BeyondTW]

Oh dear. Forgot to factor in infant mortality did you? How about free passes for the earnestly seeking who never hear the Gospel? Sorry chump....the majority will NOT be damned. In fact, free passes will account for the saving of roughly 85% of all human who have ever lived.

Have you previously written on this topic?

[jpholding]

Have you previously written on this topic?

In bits here and there. The point about infants is one I have used at least 5-6 times that I can recall though not necessarily in articles.

[jpholding]

Request to Whiner-Failure, who said on his pissant site:

Even if humans really are totally depraved equally across the board in the most Calvinistic sense possible, the punishment still would not fit that crime (not to mention that is entrapment)

REALLY! Would you mind explaining (guffaw) how that is entrapment, using legal definitions and citing court cases that support your view? Thanks!

Also, make sure next time to defend your silly ideas re "scriptural imagery" (Fred Phelps style) so I can kick you into next week with that.

[WAR_ON_ERROR]

For those of you who buy into the "argument from outrage" caricture and trope, it should be noted (as the first 5 objections on the argument map get into in various ways) that presumably Christianity is supposed to bring with it the concept of justice and fairness. If you believe that means the punishment should fit the crime, as I can only assume you would, then an infinite punishment for finite crimes in this life is an obvious breach of that principle on Christianity's own terms. If you apply *any* units at all to the punishment and to the crime, no matter what (remember, Holding said our dishonor has *no* infinite quantities or qualities) the finite quantity will never come close the infinite quantity. So even sitting in an uncomfortable chair for all eternity is a "time out" that obviously way over does it.

I guess it would be helpful to know what your own definition of torture is and what you consider torture. Because pretty much any "spineless" liberal is already going to be won over just by quoting you on the "sitting in an uncomfortable chair for eternity" bit. I couldn't find a direct link to it, so you had to search around a bit (like in the Slate article), but stress positions include the full range of anything like that from merely uncomfortable positions to really contrived bad stuff. That in and of itself shouldn't be very controversial. As I told jayman777 (in objection 27 on the argument map) if the torment of whatever sort actually registers for all eternity, then that is unjust. If it isn't noticable for whatever reason then that's just plain false advertising that no amount of appeal to ANE hyperboyle can erase (remember, you'd have to boil it all away to *zero* to win the argument).

And I'm pretty much at the end of the road with the "eternity as incidental" aspect. If you can't figure out that leaving someone in a cage for 20 extra years (or sitting in an uncomfortable chair, if the "cage" metaphor offends thee) isn't morally neutral, then I don't know what to tell you. What do you say to a person who refuses to acknowledge something as obvious as 2+2=4? I understand the sport of attempting to deride atheist opponents here (no matter how cartoonish it comes across), but insults and denial simply aren't going to soothe the anxieties of your questioning/struggling Christian audience that isn't going to so easily accept your Dudley Do-Right god's sense of negligent justice.

Note, if there are degrees of punishment greater than the "uncomfortable chair" measure, we are then moving further along on the "stress positions" spectrum. One would have to assume that someone in your 15% proposed damned population would actually be tortured forever even by Dick Cheney's standards. Maybe you are fine with that, but I doubt everyone here is. Even the worst person ever if they suffered even the minimum torment for all eternity couldn't possibly deserve it (remember my opening paragraph), so the arguments would still apply. Yes, that's right. I'm a "whiney-failure" for Hitler. lol

I'm interested to know how you justify your claims about infant salvation and how you get around that Jesus directly says that few will be saved. Did Yahweh make you the go-to-heaven ticket distributor? It sounds like it. But those are different topics (along with the difficulty of being saved aspect).

[jpholding]

For those of you who buy into the "argument from outrage" caricture and trope, it should be noted (as the first 5 objections on the argument map get into in various ways)

Your map is mainly useful as something you fill, roll, and smoke from the looks of it. How about answering my questions about things like entrapment? Too hard for you? Or do you just know you'll get canned if you try?

that presumably Christianity is supposed to bring with it the concept of justice and fairness.

No, stupid. I created that trope to show that idiots like you utterly fail to argue rationally when something is actually wrong, thinking that all you have to do is point to some "atrocity" and smugly fold your hands as if you've proved anything.

as I can only assume you would, then an infinite punishment for finite crimes in this life is an obvious breach of that principle on Christianity's own terms. If you apply *any* units at all to the punishment and to the crime,

How many times does it have to be pounded into that watermelon you call a head, Failure Boy? Hell is 1) defined by what it lacks, not what it has; 2) it is not a state of frozenness in condition. Thus it isn't even like sitting in an uncomfortable chair for all eternity. That said:

So even sitting in an uncomfortable chair for all eternity is a "time out" that obviously way over does it.

Why? Got any better argument than outrage? Of course not. You're just a spoiled little brat who thinks any punishment is too much if you don't happen to like it. News flash: Nearly every inmate in prison right now thinks they're being overpunished -- even the rapists, murderers, and child molesters. As the whiner subject to the sentence, your opinion carries zero weight in terms of objectivity.

I guess it would be helpful to know what your own definition of torture is and what you consider torture.

Watching you attempt rational argument is a great example. No, you're the one with the whine, so you're the one that has to define.

so you had to search around a bit (like in the Slate article), but stress positions include the full range of anything like that from merely uncomfortable positions to really contrived bad stuff.

Then bring it here, Failure Boy. Cite your sources. Don't think you can get away with making up crap here; I can see though that this too reflects your miserable failure in Christian apologetics prior, as no doubt each time you were stumped, you did the same thing and felt guilty when called on it. And that's why everyone else is now having to put up with you -- because you're working out your guilt trip. Don't bother to deny it -- the Josh McDowell fanboi types do that sort of thing all the time.

As I told jayman777 (in objection 27 on the argument map)

There with the map again. Shades of "buy my book". Is the concept of "quote it here" too laborious for you?

if the torment of whatever sort actually registers for all eternity, then that is unjust.

In other words, more arbitrary and prejudicial declaration based solely on your whiny opinion.

If it isn't noticable for whatever reason then that's just plain false advertising that no amount of appeal to ANE hyperboyle can erase (remember, you'd have to boil it all away to *zero* to win the argument).

No, I wouldn't, because your whining and spitting and crying isn't an argument. There's no argument to speak of from your end. Beyond that, when do you plan to actually engage the argument about the nature of the hyperbole? Or is that too over your head?

And I'm pretty much at the end of the road with the "eternity as incidental" aspect.

Treanslation: Since you can't refute it, you're moving on.

If you can't figure out that leaving someone in a cage for 20 extra years (or sitting in an uncomfortable chair, if the "cage" metaphor offends thee)

And like I have said at least three times now, but which never seems to sink into your watermelon head: The analogy to frozen states such as being in a cage doesn't cohere.

What do you say to a person who refuses to acknowledge something as obvious as 2+2=4?

"Here's a membership form to join American Atheists."

I understand the sport of attempting to deride atheist opponents here (no matter how cartoonish it comes across), but insults and denial simply aren't going to soothe the anxieties of your questioning/struggling Christian audience

Oh do stop. We already know your biography. No one here finds you anything but laughable.

Note, if there are degrees of punishment greater than the "uncomfortable chair" measure, we are then moving further along on the "stress positions" spectrum.

You know, stupid, this would move a lot closer to being an intelligent conversation on your end if you had even the slightest understanding of agonistic social settings. Shame does exist in degrees -- in accordance with how much you have to be ashamed OF.

Now tell me having to be ashamed is a "stress position". The only "stress position" you're in right now involves having your head up your bum.

Yes, that's right. I'm a "whiney-failure" for Hitler. lol

Oh dear, he broke Godwin's Law. That's how bad off he is.

I'm interested to know how you justify your claims about infant salvation and how you get around that Jesus directly says that few will be saved.

Unfortunately that's just more of your fundy-past exegesis coming back to haunt you again, in all likelihood. Feel free to quote passages (like the good fundy you still are) and then I'll slap you some more.

And when you get back, be sure and answer all the points I made that you've been ignoring. The mess careless people like you make because of your guilt trips has to be cleaned up by someone, after all.

[jpholding]

Since the Whiner-Failure conspicuously ignored it, I will post this again:

That's not what I was getting at. I was pointing out that other religions have much more straight forward relationships that do not involve Christian gimmicks and they each seem to work as well.

Then that only further demonstrates your stupidity. There's no "gimmick" in Christian salvation; it's a standard client-patron relationship of the sort every person in a collectivist society (in other words, 99% of all who have ever lived) would easily recognize, as would anyone with ever a moderate education (clue: not you) among the other 1%. So likewise Islam.

Now no doubt, the Whiner-Failure is either 1) ignoring this because he can't answer it, and/or 2) is desperately riffing though sources like Wikipedia (guffaw) and slate.com ("Your leading source for information on the Greco-Roman world!") trying to bone up on patronage so he can come back here with some other contrived argument about it and pretend he knew what I was talking about all along. His type of apologist (ex-Christian apologist) commits this kind of failure all the time, being afraid constantly of admitting lack of knowledge when questioned, so you can bet he'll either continue to ignore it and/or strike up the whiny victim complex (which always worked well when he was called to account as a Christian).

Yep. The child never grows up in Apostasy House.