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

[Mountain Man]

It's funnier how you think that not giving even one specific example proves your point. If you'd like to add yourself to the pile of Christians who are looking for trite excuses to disown a perfectly good argument map, feel free. But you won't be justified until you suggest a correction and I turn you down in favor of some obvious misrepresentation of a Christian's views.

Seriously, dude, your precious little argument map tries to distill complex arguments and objections down to simple and easily refuted straw men. At best you might accurately present a premise and then object to the premise while apparently ignoring the fact that a premise is never intended to stand alone but is simply a statement indicating what the argument that follows will set out to prove. In other words, objecting to a premise doesn't disprove the underlying argument.

For example, William Lane Craig has written thousands of pages defending the philosophical and theological coherency of Christianity, yet your argument presents his objection as "At worst, wouldn't this only compromise Biblical inerrancy?" Do you genuinely believe that the whole of Craig's objection on this point can be accurately and comprehensively presented in a mere 8 words? Similarly, JP Holding has also written thousands of pages in defense of Christianity, but then I notice on your argument map that you attribute the following objection to him: "It's not a sin of infinite quantity, it's a sin of infinite quality." Again, do you genuinely believe that Holding's objection on this point can be accurately and comprehensively presented in a mere 13 words?

Concerning Holding's supposed argument, even if this is an accurate representation, your response is a bald assertion that doesn't even adequately address the argument as presented. You say, "Humans aren't capable of producing infinite quality anythings (whether good or evil) any more than they are capable of producing infinite quantity of anything. We're just not that talented. Feel free to show a counterexample." Your premise "Humans aren't capable of producing infinite quality anythings" is a huge statement that needs to be supported with an actual argument rather than expecting us to just take your word for it. As for a counter example, if I defend a man who is wrongly accused and in so doing secure his freedom, that is a just act. Is there ever a time, from here to eternity, when that act would cease to be just? Could we not say, then, that the quality of that act as just is infinite? Another example, if I commit a crime, then I will be guilty of having committed that crime from here to eternity. In other words, there will never a point in the future when I will not have committed that crime. Therefore, my quality as a guilty person will be infinite.

Another major flaw with your map to nowhere is that you start with the presumption that the doctrine of hell is inherently unjust and use that presumption as a defeater of the varying Christian positions, so it ends up being an elaborate begged question. For instance, you attribute the following to C.S. Lewis: "God doesn't send people to hell. They choose to reject God." You object, "Nobody should be allowed to choose this state in any event. It's an inhumane option," which, of course, assumes your conclusion and circles right back to the start of the map.

Frankly, the only people who will think your map is worth anything are slack-jawed skeptics looking for pat answers that don't require any thought. Of course this isn't a surprise considering that the map was created by an unthinking slack-jawed skeptic in the first place.

[jpholding]

Frankly, the only people who will think your map is worth anything are slack-jawed skeptics looking for pat answers that don't require any thought. Of course this isn't a surprise considering that the map was created by an unthinking slack-jawed skeptic in the first place.

Addendum:

An unthinking slack-jawed skeptic who was once an unthinking slack-jawed Christian.

Not to say that's the only route to "slack jawed Skeptic" of course, but the addiction to easy answers in a can is one of the harder ones to shake. He's used to having just flipped to a passage (decontextualized) in the Bible for an answer to complex problems; so, no surprise the technique floated over just as readily in his apostate days.

[WAR_ON_ERROR]

Sorry I've been away for so long. Been busy.

So anyway, back to business.

Your hate and spite towards your former faith is quite evident in practice, and in your aggressive evangelism for the new cause...

Commenting on blogs and posting on forums makes me an aggressive, hateful, and spiteful atheist evangelist? What does that make you? Maybe it just means your feelings are hurt and that's not my problem?

You weren't granting anything; you were caught in an extreme and embarrassing position, and as when you were a fundy, you backtracked when called down.

Any seasoned debater would have been able to tell that I'm catering my case specifically to this context, conceding the maximum number of points possible to the maximum degree possible, and making the most minimal necessary argument here to do the job, since this is an ideologically hostile audience who can't even deal with that much without contriving issues. That's just economical debate, which your conspiracy theory conveniently ignores.

Well, you see, you do this dumb thing called "RESEARCH" and you find out that they believe in this idiotic stuff called "HONOR" and this other stupid stuff called "SHAME" and you also find out that it was delivered in a way that is called "PROPORTIONAL" (you know, as you sow, so shall you reap?)

Um, yeah...which is why lots of prominent apologists argue that we commit infinite crimes on this earth in one way or another to make the eternal damnation proportional.

this asinine thing called "DRAMATIC ORIENTATION" which made them talk and write in extreme and dramatic ways,

If you could get over yourself for a moment, you'd note I've already responded to this by saying that you can be extreme and dramatic without outright lying...or even using capslock.

As you may know, the first critic of Christianity we have on record is Celsus and he freaks out about the eternal hell doctrine as too morally repugnant for any philosopher he knew to touch it. It also caught on as the official dogma of the mainstream churches for the vast majority of the last 2,000 years. Even if you are correct, it seems pretty obnoxious for anyone to peddle the "get urself edjimicated" line since you're talking about an awful lot of people your deity never bothered to educate even when he did give them a holy book. I've seen you argue elsewhere that supposedly most socieities are agonistic and that our current cultural presuppositions would be a minority in the miscommunication game, but clearly that's just not what happened here.

So, if you still haven't figured it out: Right after we get educated in the art of exaggeration we still have to figure out what is meant through context. Merely appealing to the *possibility* of exaggeration culturally is a woefully incomplete case. Lots of NT authors all seem to be consistently "exaggerating" in the same way without breaking character and the internal coherency of what is said in many contexts seems predicated on actual eternal suffering that has been inflicted upon them in some way and is inescapable. Otherwise, why would we be that afraid? There'd be some room to bargain and manuever in the afterlife, telling ourselves our sentence is only temporary, but as is, it is a complete and total blotting out of the sky so as to ensure that we human peons can't find a way to weasel out of Jesus' sense of absolute justice for our crimes here on earth he takes way too seriously.

It is simply easier to interpret all of the rhetoric, in the traditional eternal damnation paradigm. The exaggeration hypothesis simply isn't informative of anything other than what some Christian apologists would like to believe. Unless a more intimate case can actually be made (or has been made somewhere)? I'd like to see a straight up scholar whether conservative or liberal without an apologetic bend merely come to Holding's conclusion via the evidence and not via apologetic contrivance. Point me in that direction.

Matt. 7:14 is one of the most frequently misread in this regard; it is not about salvation, but reflects a broader Jewish theme of "two ways" to walk in daily life.

All of these passages seem to dovetail into salvation messages. Here, Matthew 7:21 specifically mentions entering the kingdom of heaven." Luke 13:22-28 is basically a reiteration of the same section in Matthew and is specifically headed with the question, "Lord, are only a few people going to be saved?" So yeah, it is about salvation.

And how does that "theme" impact the verse to turn "few will be saved" into "most will be saved?" Obviously Jesus is simultaneously speaking of the difficulty of his moral program probably in terms of that Jewish theme you reference, but that doesn't magically negate that he also answers the question about the approximate hellish ratios. You just don't like his answer.

Your positions when contrasted with Jesus' statements make him out to be a liar. Jesus says few will be saved. You say most will be saved. Jesus says the fires of hell will not die and the worm won't quit eating. You say they will. It just looks like you disagree with him like any liberal Christian attempting to have a respectable conscience.

Your examples don't serve any relevant purpose as none have anything to do with salvation as such

Right, because there is no explicit comparison available to other creations where Yahweh may have other final shepherding stats. However, any other day of the Christian week, these stories are used as templates for the ultimate salvation story and you are just soft-pedaling the connection away. How do we know how to trust this god other than what he has supposedly done? Yahweh's resume is constantly harped on as the basis for everything else for like half the Bible after the Exodus (like those oh-so-unimportant 10 commandments) and you've just carelessly let that slide because you don't like the force of the argument: that Yahweh's resume sucks.

So? Another 2 million made it in.

Yeah, and the original population was stuck as slaves in Egypt for 400 years before Yahweh got up off his butt and actually answered the prayer of millions of people who didn't deserve to be there...only to demonstrate the people skills of a supervillian in the desert that needs to be reprimanded as too much of a huge jerk by his own prophet in his own holy book. This is the most interactive time in Biblical history and the accidental success of the religion subsequently seems to be just as much an accident as the body count of heaven and hell would be in the mythological Christian afterlife thanks to the obvious negligence.

Israel was called to perform a certain work in the salvation economy; this has nothing to do, pro or con, with the salvation status of everyone else. If anything, the calling of the 12 apostles (mirroring 12 tribes) indicates that Israel's role was intended to be that of a teacher to the rest of the world; a light to the Gentiles -- not the "exclusive saved".

How can they be a real light to the rest of the world without something like the internet? It's just one nation with some surrounding nations and a bunch of nations that may never have even heard of Israel like the people who migrated to the Americas. Currently the only way the United States can have any status as some kind of world symbol whether good or bad is because people all over the world have information about it through mass media. And Christianity is *still* unknown in parts of the world as far as I know. Maybe after Yahweh takes a jealousy management class and a PR class, he can take an advertising 101 class. Or maybe his apologists can quit hiding him behind the accidents of history that happened to favor one particular dysfunctional religion in an uncompelling way.

Like they can't repent as is? Please.

Wow, way to avoid the issue. I'd said, "Either a person can actually stop sinning or they can't. If they can't stop, then how are they responsible? If they can stop, then why can't they repent and get into heaven?" So...you *do* think they suddenly will lose the ability to repent later? And somehow magically losing this option has absolutely no impact on morally relevant free will here? You can't avoid the conclusion that they aren't responsible for continuing to sin if the option to repent has been taken away from them to keep them from repenting. But, this wouldn't be the first time Yahweh has prevented someone's repentance, now would it?

I didn't say they were insane....YOU did.

I'm aware of that. I *argued* that they must be insane based on the implications of your worldview and you haven't responded to that argument. *Additionally* apologists like Peter Kreeft have no problem calling these people spiritually insane.

What the hell does that post have to do with me? I'm not "Wintry Knight".

You claimed I was unprincipled about how I would respond to Yahweh showing up. I told you that I was arguing in terms of common Christian presuppositions about atheists that you claim to not hold. You then claimed that I just made that up to not look bad. I then pointed out an old post of mine where I say the same kinds of things that Bertrand Russell said. You then conveniently forget the history of this conversation on TWeb and claim irrelevance. Whether you are just being dishonest or mentally lazy, I don't know. Either way, it's pretty stupid.

It was so meaningless you've tried and failed to overcome it for three rounds now. Ask KNM your question -- he's the one who plotted the metaphor, not me.

So at first you played dumb as though any modest internet search or even simplistic background knowledge like long car trips wouldn't be enough to prove the point (while sacrificing your moral integrity since that would mean you'd have no clue you are torturing your children when they are in time out for 4 days straight, as I pointed out), you then moved on to describing the obviousness of why it *is* torment when you believed it would suit your perspective (as any unprincipled debater would), then you moved on to hairsplitting about an irrelevant aspect when called out on it (as though the technicality of having to secure the person to the chair means anything), and now when called out yet again, you misdirect to someone else and declare my arguments a failure. Priceless nonsense. It's amazing how trolls can get their jollies by making themselves look like morally incompetent imbeciles in the process. Or maybe you *are* just a morally incompetent imbecile.

So now you've backpedalled from calling agonistic people mentally off to calling then mentally "inefficient".

Just about everyone, I imagine, experiences shame at some point in their lives unless they have something wrong with their brains. And all I said was that this was a possible negative modifier in their mental life by evolutionary "design" as a constraining social emotion. And you're trying to contrive some kind of bizarre racism out of that description that even though it applies to me as well and isn't meant to be a slam against anyone. It's just human psychology that of course you won't grant, because that would entail being held to reality.

It seems you want to misdirect the conversation away from the idea that you think the damned will be specifically unable to not experience that negative modifier for all eternity even after the brunt of their official punishment. Maybe that's why you keep defending arguments you supposedly don't hold and maybe that's why you contrive out of thin air racism in my rhetoric as a distraction.

Are you embarrassed by your views? Maybe you should think about why that is.

The difference between myself and Loftus in this regard is a history replete with much more than offers to buy books; you should have simply kept your mouth shut from the start.

Or what? You'll accidentally make a sound and valid argument? Oh no! Please. Stop. No. Don't. Think of the children.

In case you can't follow the relevant chain of events (as you seem to have a habit of failing to do here), you conveniently claimed my argument map was worthless. I pointed out systematically how even this debate is properly represented on it. As a result of meeting your goal post, you then claimed I was speaking as some snake oil salesperson who is always trying to sell his book. I pointed out in fact, it's just a free jpeg (as any average idiot would be able to tell, but you are are that *special* kind of idiot set apart from the rest). You then defend yourself and your right to make money as though I care or as though that absolves you of your hair triggers that you flippantly apply to debate opponents because they disagree with you about something. Congratulations on offering to make your ebook free to someone. Let me know when that matters to the points I've made.

The day your motives are pure is the day the sun turns into a basketball.

You just said in a previous comment that you never assume motives unless presented (which probably isn't true, but w/e). I've told you what my motives are here: Building a solid argument map on this issue, and giving you a *deserved* hard time in the process. In other words, you are *only* earning it *here* and I'm only making accusations that can actually be *shown* here in this little TWeb world. You on the other hand feel free to make stuff up as your main line of evidence against me as though I need to prove endless negatives against your non-evidence and trolling. That's a dishonest way to make accusations on your part, but I'm not accusing you of anything honorable here. You obviously just don't think you deserve the hard time and you are entitled to your opinion.

Ben

[WAR_ON_ERROR]

BeyondTW,

"punishment over infinite duration" is not always "infinite punishment"

You are playing with semantics and your original evaluation of my argument is inappropriate when you said:

"If you say that any single moment in hell has already an amount of punishment to it that is greater than zero, then even a single second will already contain infinite punishment."

I certainly didn't say that. Perhaps I'm misreading you and you've made some argument of your own. I would not agree that a finite being could experience an infinite punishment in a moment any more than they could imagine distinctly each serial number of one million dollar bills. If you want to give us an infinite punishment, you'll have to do it on an infinite time line as the traditional interpretation of hell stipulates.

Again, I return you to Holding's view that nothing we do as finite beings has either infinite quantity or quality. If you'd like to set your view apart from his, so be it. As is, it just looks like you are twisting the issue.

Why think you can put numbers to crime/punishment in the first place?

If you can't put numbers to crime/punishment *in principle* then there's no way for actual justice to exist since there's no way for one thing to be "proportional" to another and the concept of justice is refuted. So if you believe in a "just" god, your god is refuted. Note this is completely independent of actually being able to peg down those numbers *in practice* in anything but approximations. And that's why the argument is made in such a way as to accommodate that inherent ambiguity (from any hypothetical "punishment unit" greater than zero to anything short of actual infinity over an actual infinite period of time).

An example would be that mathematical set theory...

If you're leaning on a refutation of an actual infinite, there goes your eternal life. Otherwise, it doesn't look like any of your examples actually apply to anything being argued here. I'm surprised you didn't mention Godel's incompleteness theorem while you were at it. I would have been so impressed then. [/sarcasm]

just because someone makes a decision that is very, very stupid does not mean that the person is not accountable for this decision.

I'm assuming this decision is "very, very stupid" because it results in some kind of actual eternal torment? If not, then how is it really that stupid? It's just another arbitrary choice if you are really trying to weasel out of my argument and flat-line all the NT rhetoric. But it is amazing that you think the people who will maintain that decision for all eternity are not insane in a literal sense (if Yahweh is as awesome as you are supposed to think he is) or that a good god would allow these circumstances to come together. If they are grossly uniformed about the ramifications of their very very stupid decision...is that their fault? Christian philosophers love gushing over the value of free will, but the metaphorical crickets chirp loudly in their camp when it comes to the competing value of making a truly informed spiritual decision about anything relevant to the Christian worldview.

Ben

[WAR_ON_ERROR]

For example, William Lane Craig has written thousands of pages defending the philosophical and theological coherency of Christianity, yet your argument presents his objection as "At worst, wouldn't this only compromise Biblical inerrancy?" Do you genuinely believe that the whole of Craig's objection on this point can be accurately and comprehensively presented in a mere 8 words?

Oh, this is priceless! Mt. Man, that's such an emotionally laden, prideful, Christian privilegie response. Here's how the form of a *real* response would go: "I'm familiar with all of WLC's writings *on topic* and I happen to know that you missed some key concepts that are not represented anywhere on your map under the several nodes listed as WLC or anyone else in that apologetic family of arguments. Here's examples x, y, z." And even if that were the case, I would simply *thank you* for the heads up and *add them* as I've noted many times before to inappropriately incredulous ears. Instead, compare to how your actual response basically went: "OMG, my hero WLC's entire series of wonderful books on every Christian topic evur isn't printed in gold on this atheist's bedsheets! I'm so offended and intellectually oppressed!" I'd enjoy cracking a joke about the apparent oxygen deficiency to your brain in the apologetic mountains, but I suspect I'm not the first there, so we'll move on.

Craig's views are spread out over the argument map where appropriate and others make many of his points for him (or he is making some of theirs for them). That particular example is in the "last ditch" section and the idea that a failed argument on hell wouldn't compromise all of the worldview is entirely relevant and fully captured in those 8 words. Perhaps you just don't understand English? Eight words can accomplish a lot. If you can find anything from any of his writings that honestly adds something to that particular point, so be it, but that was the only new nugget I found in one of his Q and A's on hell that wasn't already on the map. Be as incredulous as you want, but again, *show me.* Don't tell me. And don't bother asking me if I agree with my own opinion. You seem to be expecting his book Reasonable Faith and his entire website (or Hard Questions Real Answers, that I also surveyed) to be represented on every single node here as though it is all relevant to the central argument about the injustice of hell being made. It's not like I'm claiming that's the only thing WLC has argued on behalf of the entire Christian worldview and it's incredibly silly that I have to say this stuff. But...you went there.

Similarly, JP Holding has also written thousands of pages in defense of Christianity, but then I notice on your argument map that you attribute the following objection to him: "It's not a sin of infinite quantity, it's a sin of infinite quality." Again, do you genuinely believe that Holding's objection on this point can be accurately and comprehensively presented in a mere 13 words?

I think it (and other nodes with his arguments, and the arguments of others that he agrees with) represents what is available online for free. obviously he has an ebook on the topic that I'm not going to pay for. Whether it has more actual content and conceptual nuggets worth adding remains to be seen.

It's not a conspiracy. If you'd like to present an alternative summary that better captures his intent or anyone else's you happen to be aware of...have at it. I can only do what I can do based on my own measure just like anyone else.

If you'd been following along, which I guess you haven't, you'd know I graciously allowed [/sarcasm, as though this is even an issue] Holding to make a correction on the point you mention. Also that point has been elaborated upon thanks to this very TWeb conversation (not by much though, since most of this is bogged down in frivolous complaints and lame accusations) and if you guys would stop being so huffy about the mere existence of the map, you'd note it's a tautology that all specific objections will be invalid because they will be unable to fail to end up being *corrections* to the map. In which case, you'll no longer have a complaint by definition. You just don't believe me. And your only evidence is your own non-participation which has nothing to do with me. You've closed your own loop there of false validation.

In the war on error business one expect errors. One celebrates correction. You are apparently only humiliated by it. And that would be your personal weakness and the dysfunctional online Christian culture here. It's not the ideal I think is worth striving for. I don't think any of you can afford to lose this argument on the injustice of hell. I can though. I still have plenty of reasons to disbelieve in the Christian god apart from one bit of the mythology not making any sense. Turns out, there's plenty more that doesn't make any sense in addition to the completely unintimidating lack of any deity or magic of any kind that I've ever seen in this world. There's just a bunch of people that believe in it anyway and cling to desperate arguments.

As for a counter example, if I defend a man who is wrongly accused and in so doing secure his freedom, that is a just act. Is there ever a time, from here to eternity, when that act would cease to be just? Could we not say, then, that the quality of that act as just is infinite?

It will always *have been* a just *finite* act. A finite person never actually possesses those infinite qualities at any one time even if they go on for all eternity with their finite qualities.

you start with the presumption that the doctrine of hell is inherently unjust

No, I start with an *argument* that hell is unjust and then show how the common apologetic excuses have no impact on it. If C. S. Lewis never happened to address the argument, that's not my problem. Incidentally *others* have given it a shot, so even on that count I don't have a reason to think I've been unfair to anyone.

For instance, you attribute the following to C.S. Lewis: "God doesn't send people to hell. They choose to reject God." You object, "Nobody should be allowed to choose this state in any event. It's an inhumane option," which, of course, assumes your conclusion and circles right back to the start of the map.

No, that just means that you have to actually win the argument at the beginning of the map rather than listen to Clive's excuses. What you are actually accusing me of is arguing *consistently* as though that's not what you are supposed to do.

Thanks for actually trying to move the ball forward. As far as I know though it seems none of the new content here is from Craig, Holding, or Lewis which seems to only reinforce the point that you need to stop whining like a baby about the existence of an argument map that is well designed to take down your worldview and actually deal with it as it is intended if you are serious about the debate.

Ben

[jpholding]

Sorry I've been away for so long.

No, you're just sorry, that's all.

Commenting on blogs and posting on forums makes me an aggressive, hateful, and spiteful atheist evangelist?

No, spitwad. Your content in such postings makes you that, as obviously as a burning hotel.

Any seasoned debater would have been able to tell that I'm catering my case specifically to this context, conceding the maximum number of points possible to the maximum degree possible

Ah yes. The old tactic of winning by losing. And Farrell Till was using the Socratic Method. Riiight. It takes you that many days to come up with these skilled rationalizations? Surely you've improved at that since your fundy days. Or not.

Um, yeah...which is why lots of prominent apologists argue that we commit infinite crimes on this earth in one way or another to make the eternal damnation proportional.

Um, yeah...because NOT ONE (aside from me) has ever looked into this honor and shame stuff in any depth. That's why James White so immediately recognized it when I used it to respond to him...duh ah....

If you could get over yourself for a moment, you'd note I've already responded to this by saying that you can be extreme and dramatic without outright lying...or even using capslock.

"Responded to this" = offered a whine, then moved on.

As you may know, the first critic of Christianity we have on record is Celsus and he freaks out about the eternal hell doctrine as too morally repugnant for any philosopher he knew to touch it.

Well, sorry, but you see, he was real stupid; raised a lot of dumbass objections a child could have answered, but that's no surprise; like you, he had a ready-made audience of snot nosed suckers who were willing to accept what he said just because of prejudice against Jews and Christians alike, so he saw no need to be responsible with information. I read Celsus ages ago (Hoffman's rendition) -- he was he subject of my first ever article in CRJ. Duh ah.

Even if you are correct, it seems pretty obnoxious for anyone to peddle the "get urself edjimicated" line since you're talking about an awful lot of people your deity never bothered to educate even when he did give them a holy book.

Well isn't that just too bad for your self-esteem and your laziness and ignorance. How about you answer the arguments instead of retreating into fundy persecution complexes? You sound like a frinkin' Bob Jones U graduate.

I've seen you argue elsewhere that supposedly most socieities are agonistic and that our current cultural presuppositions would be a minority in the miscommunication game, but clearly that's just not what happened here.

And atheists are a minority. This proves...? Try arguing points for a change.

So, if you still haven't figured it out: Right after we get educated in the art of exaggeration we still have to figure out what is meant through context.

Basically this translates, "I'm an ignorant fundy atheist with my head up my • Edited by a Moderator • and I can't answer any of this, so I'll wheedle about some hypothetic and imagined possibility of difficulty in understanding reflecting my own vast ignorance." When you say: "It is simply easier to interpret all of the rhetoric, in the traditional eternal damnation paradigm. " -- you prove that you cannot move beyond the mindset of the immature fundy you always were, seeking always the "easiest" rote, the "plain language", the excuse that, "I assume the Bible means what it says."

I'd like to see a straight up scholar whether conservative or liberal without an apologetic bend merely come to Holding's conclusion via the evidence and not via apologetic contrivance. Point me in that direction.

You have MY points. Answer them with something other than head up your • Edited by a Moderator • whining.

All of these passages seem to dovetail into salvation messages. Here, Matthew 7:21 specifically mentions entering the kingdom of heaven."

Gosh stupid - you have to strain forward 7 verses to a new line of thought for that one. Connection by osmosis, remnant of fundy thinking. No: 7:20 concludes the "two ways" teaching, and 7:21 starts a new teaching on a new topic, only relate3d by tangent; the "fruit" theme ends at 7:20, and cannot be dragged further. Spare me this fundy stupidity.

You have a slightly better case with Luke -- if you start with your assumption that it is teaching about proportions of population saved. It is not. All that is said is that "many" will seek to enter and will not -- no proportions, no percentage; and using a word without specificity of number. Even by my reckoning "many" are not saved.

So sorry -- try again. You just don't like my answer.

Your positions when contrasted with Jesus' statements make him out to be a liar.

A vertitable quote from Bob Jones there. Do you know what I think of backwards mentalities who make statements like that? If not, go look at the thread where I challenge Norman Geisler here.

However, any other day of the Christian week, these stories are used as templates for the ultimate salvation story and you are just soft-pedaling the connection away.

Bob Jones speaks again. Is this what you have been reduced to? A gibbering insane like Billy Sunday?

Yeah, and the original population was stuck as slaves in Egypt for 400 years before Yahweh got up off his butt and actually answered the prayer of millions of people who didn't deserve to be there...

Yeah whatever. Change in topic to cover your inadequacy; pass.

How can they be a real light to the rest of the world without something like the internet?

Good night what a sorrowfully provincialist and racist attitude. News flash: Human failure is more real than ever -- and you're using that as an excuse to (again) avoid the real argument.

Wow, way to avoid the issue.

Wow, what a way to shrug off personal responsibility and an easy way out you just don't like to admit to.

I'm aware of that. I *argued* that they must be insane based on the implications of your worldview and you haven't responded to that argument. *Additionally* apologists like Peter Kreeft have no problem calling these people spiritually insane.

Kreeft is no more an anthropologist than you are, suckah...and even so he's not talking about the same thing you are, and your designation of such persons as "insane" is merely gratuitious bigotry that requires no more responses than a KKK hate speech does.

I then pointed out an old post of mine where I say the same kinds of things that Bertrand Russell said. You then conveniently forget the history of this conversation on TWeb and claim irrelevance.

No, I just don't feel like riffing through your boring old diatribes. Not that it matters: It just means your ethic of convenience has a longer history. Big deal.

So at first you played dumb as though any modest internet search or even simplistic background knowledge like long car trips wouldn't be enough to prove the point (while sacrificing your moral integrity since that would mean you'd have no clue you are torturing your children when they are in time out for 4 days straight, as I pointed out),

All of this just to evade the point that you didn't take KNM's metaphor for what it was, and that you irresponsibly added to it for rhetorical/victimization effect. Here's a better idea: Next time get your facts straight before yowling, and improve on that so that your riposte actually has some basis rather than being "all you got".

And you're trying to contrive some kind of bizarre racism out of that description that even though it applies to me as well and isn't meant to be a slam against anyone. It's just human psychology that of course you won't grant, because that would entail being held to reality.

That you think this in itself is a marker of a debased understanding of human psychology rooted in Western imperialism.

Are you embarrassed by your views?

No. I'm amused by your idiocy and latent fundamentalism. It's like debating Norman Geisler.

In case you can't follow the relevant chain of events (as you seem to have a habit of failing to do here), you conveniently claimed my argument map was worthless.

Basically, more or you trying to distract from the issues by making substandard lists that fail to encompass the whole of the situation and parse only the points you want to exist.

You just said in a previous comment that you never assume motives unless presented (which probably isn't true, but w/e). I've told you what my motives are here:

Actions speak louder than words here, and your latent fundamentalism speaks much louder than the words you spill out literally. Kind of ironic, really.

You obviously just don't think you deserve the hard time and you are entitled to your opinion.

Giving me a hard time isn't possible. However, if you don't improve seen, it's just possible you might bore me to death.

[jpholding]

Let's have a more depth analysis of Fundy Boy's mental derangement now, shall we?

Um, yeah...which is why lots of prominent apologists argue that we commit infinite crimes on this earth in one way or another to make the eternal damnation proportional.

Aside from what I noted about no other apologist making use of anthropological templates, note that Fundy Boy has raised here a view he knows very well I don't adhere to. In essence the effect is to try to validate the "infinite crimes" argument (and thereby evoke atheistic sympathy and also cause the viewer to disengage their rationality) by isolating the stated premise from the broader argument I use in which quality, not quantity, is the proper measure, and all heretofore about the nature of hell is simply ignored in order to establish a cheap rhetorical and emotional point. In the same way, Fundy Boy used to just throw the fires of hell around to scare people and make them feel guilty, when he knew his rational arguments had failed.

If you could get over yourself for a moment, you'd note I've already responded to this by saying that you can be extreme and dramatic without outright lying...or even using capslock.

Again apart from what was noted before: This reflects a stultified fundamentalist dichotomy in which the words of the Bible are always assumed to be best read plainly; it also fails to grasp that dramatic orientation does not involve "lying" in any sense (which is again, applying the backwards fundy-literalist heremeneutic to the expression of language in another culture and time). So in other words, no, he has not "answered" anything -- merely, as predicted, replied that they must have spoken and written Just Like Him (TM) and this should be the basis for interpretation. Otherwise, the authors must be "lying" because eg, they use broad and colorful images that do not in some way reflect a literal reality. This is the sort of backwards, imperialist thinking scholars like Barr and Caird warn against.

As you may know, the first critic of Christianity we have on record is Celsus and he freaks out

As noted, Celsus was a frightening dumbass in the first place, but its quite significant that Fundy Boy fails to bring specific quotes to the fore when he makes these claims. So go ahead, Fundy Boy...give us those quotes from Celsus; then explain how and why he got it right. I know why you won't.

So, if you still haven't figured it out: Right after we get educated in the art of exaggeration we still have to figure out what is meant through context.

And I already did that, Fundy Boy. In the meantime, YOUR burden now is to do one of two things:

1) Admit that I am right that dramatic orientation was part of their culture.
2) Prove that it wasn't.

Fundy Boy is utterly lost with this kind of thing, which is why he resorts to sniping that I have presented some sort of "woefully incomplete case" (hardly; I've done all the work already, and am waiting for him to catch up past kindergarten; my case for this is well known to anyone who bothers do check these things).

Lots of NT authors all seem to be consistently "exaggerating" in the same way without breaking character and the internal coherency of what is said in many contexts seems predicated on actual eternal suffering that has been inflicted upon them in some way and is inescapable.

"Lots of NT all seem to be".... What a typical statement of fundy ignorance. Let's test Fundy Boy a bit, shall we?

1) Do you have any evidence against dramatic orientation? Yes or no? If yes, spell it out.
2) Explain the relevance of Gehenna to the doctrine of hell.
3) Is the fire and darkness literal? Yes or no? if yes, why?

Tormenting the stupid is FUN!

[Mountain Man]

If you'd like to present an alternative summary that better captures his intent or anyone else's you happen to be aware of...have at it.

That's exactly the problem, you insufferable dumbass. A summary is not an argument and quite often isn't even an accurate representation, especially when you're trying to squeeze the summary into the fewest words possible. Refuting an overly simplified summary of an argument is not the same as refuting the actual argument. That's just you burning straw and getting addled by the fumes.

It will always *have been* a just *finite* act.

The act itself might be finite, but its quality as a just act is infinite. From here to eternity, no one can ever look back and say, "That act no longer has the quality of being just."

I start with an *argument* that hell is unjust...

No, you assert it. An assertion is not an argument. Otherwise you have to allow that Christians can start with the presumption that hell is inherently just, and suddenly we're at an impasse. What now, genius?

[BeyondTW]

You are playing with semantics

What I said was: An unbounded set can have a finite measure.

I would not agree that a finite being could experience an infinite punishment in a moment

I said "How do you measure punishment? Iif a single moment already 'contains' finite punishment ...".

If you want to give us an infinite punishment, you'll have to do it on an infinite time line

Not that this matters to what I said, but you are wrong. A bounded set can have an infinite measure

Again, I return you to Holding's view that nothing we do as finite beings has either infinite quantity or quality.

Then we can't experience infinite punishment either.
And I explained Holddings view as 1 or 0, "yes" or "no" - the measure is discrete.

If you can't put numbers to crime/punishment *in principle* then there's no way for actual justice to exist since there's no way for one thing to be "proportional" to another

You can define a partial order without using numbers and then you don't need proportionality in the sense of being compatible with scalar multiplication.

If you're leaning on a refutation of an actual infinite

Either your reading comprehension is really bad or by this point you are just making up stuff to annoy me.

I'm surprised you didn't mention Godel's incompleteness theorem while you were at it

Yeah, it sure was stupid of me not to mention something that has nothing to do with measure theory while talking about measure theory.

I'm assuming this decision is "very, very stupid" because it results in some kind of actual eternal torment?

It's "very, very stupid" because they are directly aware of the greatest being ever offering them an amazing relationship to use your own words.

But it is amazing that you think the people who will maintain that decision for all eternity are not insane in a literal sense

Yeah, I sure am amazing.

Edit: It looks like the tone of this thread hasn't changed, despite the time that passed.

[jpholding]

Subject 2:

All of these passages seem to dovetail into salvation messages. Here, Matthew 7:21 specifically mentions entering the kingdom of heaven." Luke 13:22-28 is basically a reiteration of the same section in Matthew and is specifically headed with the question, "Lord, are only a few people going to be saved?" So yeah, it is about salvation.

Apart from what is stated previously:

Matthew's version of the Sermon on the Mount is clearly an anthology, in which disconnected teachings are assembled in an artificial, didactic package. Therefore it is misplaced from the start to establish a deeper thematic connection between Matt. 7:14-20 and 21-23. Beyond this:

And how does that "theme" impact the verse to turn "few will be saved" into "most will be saved?"

The specific admonition of "striving" to enter implies someone capable of making some sort of decision. By this reckoning, the saved majority -- those who die in infancy or very young, as I have said -- are automatically a non-category in this teaching; the implicit and obvious context of the original question likewise implies only those with decision-making powers. Not only so, the question is also specifically directed to the "saved" among corporate Israel who have heard Jesus preach; to extend the message beyond this to some universal salvation message is a case of illegitimate totality transfer.

[jpholding]

Continuing with further analysis of the idiocy:

Right, because there is no explicit comparison available to other creations where Yahweh may have other final shepherding stats.

As if this matters in any event; as if indeed anyone were unfairly left out. Whining is not an answer and it never will be.

However, any other day of the Christian week, these stories are used as templates for the ultimate salvation story and you are just soft-pedaling the connection away.

It is amazing how Fundy Boy here thinks that some kind of exegetical authority proceeds from the homiletic abuses of these passages by unimaginative pastors and teachers trying to strain out some message of relevancy for their weekly sermons. Serious scholars see no such connections; it will not be found in academic commentaries, but only in pastoral fantasies by the likes of Max Lucado and Joyce Meyer. Yet Fundy Boy is so deluded as to think this counts as some sort of authority I ought to bow down to, and that I am "soft pedaling" by denying what he assumes is anything but a marginal, decontextualized reading of such passages.

Tell us, Fundy Boy, what scholarly commentaries on Exodus see within its pages some analogy to number ultimately saved? Name three reputable scholarly commentaries that hold this view.

How do we know how to trust this god other than what he has supposedly done? Yahweh's resume is constantly harped on as the basis for everything else for like half the Bible after the Exodus (like those oh-so-unimportant 10 commandments)

Oh dear, what sorrowful bigotry. Never mind that they are, indeed, a summary version of the larger legal code, which in turn is a standard suzerainty contract. You know, like that oh-so-unimportant Bill of Rights (all 10 of them) and Constitution. Maybe we should issue an edition with flying cartoon monkeys so that Fundy Boy can find himself entertained by them.

and you've just carelessly let that slide because you don't like the force of the argument: that Yahweh's resume sucks.

There's no argument to be had when the premise of Fundy Boy's argument sucks to begin with: That there's some picture of salvation history, especially in numeric terms, in the Exodus. Beyond that the typical denial of personal responsibility, which is mandatory to sustain the mommy-blamed-me-for-stealing-from-the-cookie-jar defense, the sort of thing that any law code in history would find absolutely laughable as a defense. Maybe when he grows up past the homily-fantasies he imagines were scholarship in his pure-fundy days, there can be some intelligent discourse here.

Yeah, and the original population was stuck as slaves in Egypt for 400 years before Yahweh got up off his butt and actually answered the prayer of millions of people who didn't deserve to be there...

Snort. By the account there was no "prayer" until late in the game; in that regard, there was no prayer to answer, nor even an obligation by a patron to step in among a people who refused to remember Him until then. Fundy Boy plays the victim and crybaby card well enough; the real solution is for him to get over himself and recognize what he calls "negligence" for what it actually was: A patron (suzerain) properly dispensing favor according to covenantal obligations.

How can they be a real light to the rest of the world without something like the internet?

It is amazing how much bigotry can proceed from one mouth so rapidly. No "internet" was needed for such a purpose; an obedient people would have had prophets on the go within 50 years or less, making use of the fastest transportation available (ships), and would have been able to reach the whole world in no more than 120 years -- or as little as 60. Fundy Boy is of that racist mindset that ancient people sat around with bones in their noses unable to so much as feed themselves and certainly not capable of such amazing modern feats as communicating over long distances, a prospect which in itself quailed them with fear for its impossibility without the blessings of "duh intuhnet" (hey, they could have used it to spread the word over that ever reliable source, Wikipedia).

Currently the only way the United States can have any status as some kind of world symbol whether good or bad is because people all over the world have information about it through mass media.

Oh dear. How ever did the French find out about us concerning 1776, I wonder. In fact they only just found out in 1994 when they got the Internet. They're sending ships to help us fight George III now.

Maybe after Yahweh takes a jealousy management class

That stupid canard? Poor thing.

The word for "jealousy" in Joshua 24:19....is used less than half a dozen times in the OT, and always is used to describe God. Nowhere is this word described as a sin. A related word is used to describe a husband who worries that his wife is walking out on him (Numbers 5). Sarna (Exodus commentary, 110) notes that the root of the word means "to become intensely red" and that it can refer to ardor, zeal, rage, or jealousy. Paul knows of a godly jealousy (2 Cor. 11:2), so is this a sin as we understand it? Jealousy is part of God's nature because it is demanded by who He is -- He is the only being who can indeed say He has a right to be jealous, since He is the only one who truly deserves utter respect and devotion. Malina in The New Testament World [126-7] adds that in the context of an honor-based world, jealousy was "a form of protectiveness that would ward off the envious and their machinations." It is a behavior that an honorable person is expected to "exhibit towards that which he or she is perceived to possess exclusive access." Thus for God to be jealous here is not a vice in context, but a supreme virtue and demonstration of His concern for Israel.

Fundy Boy just keeps piling on the errors. Next: Mithra.

Or maybe his apologists can quit hiding him behind the accidents of history that happened to favor one particular dysfunctional religion in an uncompelling way.

Or maybe Fundy Boy can stop being a racist bigot who thinks his spoiled-child demands are an argument.

Not likely.

[jpholding]

Further analysis of profound idiocy presented by:

Wow, way to avoid the issue. I'd said, "Either a person can actually stop sinning or they can't. If they can't stop, then how are they responsible? If they can stop, then why can't they repent and get into heaven?" So...you *do* think they suddenly will lose the ability to repent later?

Fundy Boy again typifies the mommy-didn't-hide-the-cookie-jar-good-enough blame game here; repentance, in any event, is open regardless of depth of sin, and isn't affected by it. Beyond that, his whine seems to be that God set a time limit; the proper response here also is "cry me a river." The convict who asks for one more chance after having had dozens deserves no sympathy and no chance for reversal once his "repentance" becomes for no other purpose than to get out of trouble. The calling of a disciple isn't that of someone who "repents" for the purposes of "fire insurance."

But, this wouldn't be the first time Yahweh has prevented someone's repentance, now would it?

As in, permanently? No such example exists. The few examples (eg, Pharaoh) are never indicated to be more than temporary and for a purpose. In any event this is mere crybabying from someone who ate the pottage for the sake of his own guilt trip.

So at first you played dumb as though any modest internet search or even simplistic background knowledge like long car trips wouldn't be enough

For weeks now Fundy Boy has been evading the simple point that the original KNM metaphor in no way involved highly restricted movements, forced positions, or any of the things he has gratuitiously and presumptuously added to the original metaphor; the further comparison to "time out" is even more ludicrous, inasmuch as by that reckoning, prison inmates in close management are today being "tortured". This is no mere "technical aspect" but a clear case of Fundy Boy being caught with his tighty whiteys showing after having been caught massaging the original word-picture into the objectionable format he required to sustain his childish outrage.

Just about everyone, I imagine, experiences shame at some point in their lives unless they have something wrong with their brains. And all I said was that this was a possible negative modifier in their mental life by evolutionary "design" as a constraining social emotion.

A grossly transparent effort to sanitize earlier bigoted commentary by Fundy Boy. His appeal to "human psychology" is vastly informed by the presuppositions of "human" behavior and psychology in non-agonistic, non-collectivist cultures, and as such is absolutely worthless in evaluating Biblical conceptions of, and reactions to, shame sanctions. The racism is of the same variety that compels what is frequently referred to as the "white man's burden" to civilize the ignorant.

It seems you want to misdirect the conversation away from the idea that you think the damned will be specifically unable to not experience that negative modifier for all eternity even after the brunt of their official punishment.

To wit: Further ignorance, which has already been answered with the point that hell is defined more by what it is not than what it is. In this light to speak of "experiencing the negative modifier" is misplaced nonsense. Does one "experience" NOT having the ability to attend a party? Does one "experience" the "negativity" of not having access to a given privilege, like a cell phone? Although some frame it that way, it is of course nonsense -- and once again, Fundy Boy merely refabricates the conception of hell he is presented with into something he has been told it is not, for no other purpose than to sustain his childish objections.

In case you can't follow the relevant chain of events (as you seem to have a habit of failing to do here), you conveniently claimed my argument map was worthless.

This is no convenience but a hard fact. As a graphic presentation, it is pitiably unsuitable to display or use as a study tool. As a representation of arguments, it is substandard summary that ignores the details for the sake of making cheap rhetorical points. It is the product of someone who prefers sound bites to substance because substance involves too much hard work to deal in. (As shown also by the constant refashioning of what he is presented about hell into a shape he knows better and is better able to complain about.)

I pointed out systematically how even this debate is properly represented on it.

"Properly" only suffices as a modifier here if it means "it represents a thoroughly inadequate summary, as useful as a single game batting average in evaluating a player's 10 year career."

As a result of meeting your goal post, you then claimed I was speaking as some snake oil salesperson who is always trying to sell his book. I pointed out in fact, it's just a free jpeg

Fundy Boy doesn't seem to quite grasp the point that free samples are part of the process of selling a larger product for all manner of purposes of return -- whether money or attention. In this case, he tries (and fails miserably) to sell himself as a broker of ideas in the blogosphere/Internet sphere. John Loftus blogs free to get others to buy his wares. Fundy Boy, however, doesn't have the sales advantage Loftus has of being an apostate who once served under a prominent apologist, so he has no other sales factor by which to advance his desired career in anti-apologetics.

Here it is clear that his "argument maps" are his best effort at providing a gimmick to attract credibility to himself. However, as noted, it fails; even if for no other reason than that it is clumsy to follow on a screen, entirely apart from the inadequate way in which it represents the whole of arguments.

You then defend yourself and your right to make money as though I care

Yes, it's obvious Fundy Boy doesn't care...enough to bring it up again, at any rate.

or as though that absolves you of your hair triggers that you flippantly apply to debate opponents because they disagree with you about something.

Designating a clearly accurate judgment as a "hair trigger" or "flippancy" is a standard retort of those who have been substantially pegged for their shortcomings.

Congratulations on offering to make your ebook free to someone. Let me know when that matters to the points I've made.

In the end, since Fundy Boy's open mind doesn't extend that far, we'll proceed in question mode to expose his ignorance on these subjects. The answer provided to the one about fire and darkness ought to be especially amusing.

[Mountain Man]

The few examples (eg, Pharaoh) are never indicated to be more than temporary and for a purpose.

There's also the matter of God saying that he would harden Pharaoh's heart was probably in the figurative sense (i.e. "My brother makes me angry!").

[jpholding]

Poor Moron_Error. I've been tormenting him via the Ticker lately, as he's been suffering badly watching his god and savior Richard Carrier get thrashed from both sides of the fence. Let's see some of his whines:

And I also appreciate you subtly pointing out that the Celsus quote about hell was erroneous. Steve Hays over at Triablogue in his ebook This Joyful Eastertide hadn't noticed R Joseph Hoffman apparently felt free to make crap up in his Celsus book. Still not sure why Hoffman came up with fictional quotes that contradict Celsus' actual views. Oh well.

Uh....is THAT what I said? That it was "erroneous" or "fictional"?

No. This is just yet another example of why the poor Fundy Boy was a failure as an apologist in faith, and fails as one for atheism now. Classically, when you can't refute the ACTUAL argument, you make up one!

Here is what Fundy Boy said to start:

As you may know, the first critic of Christianity we have on record is Celsus and he freaks out about the eternal hell doctrine as too morally repugnant for any philosopher he knew to touch it.

My replies were (in two posts):

Well, sorry, but you see, he was real stupid; raised a lot of dumbass objections a child could have answered, but that's no surprise; like you, he had a ready-made audience of snot nosed suckers who were willing to accept what he said just because of prejudice against Jews and Christians alike, so he saw no need to be responsible with information. I read Celsus ages ago (Hoffman's rendition) -- he was he subject of my first ever article in CRJ. Duh ah.

As noted, Celsus was a frightening dumbass in the first place, but its quite significant that Fundy Boy fails to bring specific quotes to the fore when he makes these claims. So go ahead, Fundy Boy...give us those quotes from Celsus; then explain how and why he got it right. I know why you won't.

So, uh, where do I say it was "erroneous" or "fictional"? I don't. What I DO say is 1) Celsus was irresponsible with information; 2) I challenged Fundy Boy to bring the quotes to the fore, knowing that was the LAST thing he wanted to do, because then it would become clear I was right -- Celsus was just blowing smoke.

Here's what that poor schlep Celsus had to say:

Now it will be wondered how men so desperate in their beliefs can persuade others to join their ranks. The Christians use sundry methods of persuasion, and invent a number of terrifying incentives. Above all, they have concocted an absolutely offensive doctrine of everlasting punishment and rewards, exceeding anything the philosophers (who have never denied the punishment of the unrighteous of the reward of the blessed) could have imagined.

As is quite clear, this is nothing but a rant without substance. Celsus doesn't even describe the conditions of hell. Nor does he explain himself to any extent. He just rants and raves and calls the doctrine names without any argument or justification.

This is the obvious reason why Fundy Boy didn't want to produce any quotes. There's more that could be brought up....but I'll leave it at that. The rest are of no more substance.

He also whineth:

I do thank you for helping me to complete the "Holding tangent" on my hell map. If you'd ever like to bother to defend the eternal shame that simultaneously isn't a bad mental state that you can't possibly get out of for all eternity, then I'd be happy to add to the map. I love how incoherent that is. Or if you could bother to give a specific reason we should assume Jesus is exaggerating about the direct everlasting punishment, that would be great. Or cite some scholarship backing up your hearsay interpretations. I'm sure you won't ever do that, since it's just a [censored] rationalization to make your fake god not look like a cosmic tyrant and all. I won't hold my breath.

Yeah, sure, Fundy Boy. Keep being stupid. All of this was explained in sufficient detail in this thread, and the echo of your DUH WHAT was heard throughout the land.

[Cojiro]

... the argument is made in such a way as to accommodate that inherent ambiguity (from any hypothetical "punishment unit" greater than zero to anything short of actual infinity over an actual infinite period of time).

If you're leaning on a refutation of an actual infinite, there goes your eternal life.

This hiney of a horse appears to have stopped kicking already, yet what an example this furnishes of the philistine fundiness that leavens every ostensible aspect of Misnomer Ben's mindset and style. I mean, he actually saw fit to reference kalam arguments in a discussion of the doctrine of hell and the afterlife. As if the concept of "eternal life" somehow translates into an ontological view of the future as a set of discrete, already-extent concrete members with a cardinality of aleph-null.

No doubt he was here drawing from his impoverished apologist days when he must have "surveyed" William Lane Craig so carelessly that the latter's distinction between potential and actual infinities went in-and-out of cognizance like crap through a queasy goose. Given War_of_Error’s propensity for summary statements (along with his distinct affinity for "maps" and accompanying aversion to even mildly complex lines of argument), the peculiar sort of eclectic incompetence he evinces can be seen as symptomatic of what has been the Western status-quo for some time now, and, in that regard, isn’t really shocking. (His argument map, e.g., conjures the image of a cow pissing on a flat rock - scattering droplets of piss over a wide area and “drenching” nothing.) The fact that he shows absolutely no awareness of his own shallowness and bigoted myopia is plenty dismaying, though. It is depressing to consider that what some can so readily and easily identify as inadequacy and superficiality in his approach, for him is so crepuscular that - when confronted on these grave flaws - they merely slip past perception completely (as if others are able to see in three dimensions while he can only interpret the world in two).

With the kind of vapid, inchoate, and impertinent "reasoning" that has characterized WOE's posts in this thread, he should just be thankful that JPH even gave him the time of day. Of course, he comes off too viscerally-based for such a perspective to occur to him - so wrapped up in emotions and emotionalism that he lacks any way to detach and develop an untainted train of thought.