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

[jpholding]

No different that Pat Robertson and John Hagaee. Always out to take another buck from the lemmings following you Jesus freaks right off the cliff

Yeh I'm really gettin' soakin' rich with that 70 cent royalty. Moron.

Anyway I doubt it was written especially for me.

No, just for everyone, dumbo. But here's what I'll do JUST 4 U.

If you write a 1500-word apology post, admitting to everyone your thorough and complete ignorance and error about gravity and the earth -- the one you so wonderfully opened with here on this forum -- I'll send you a FREE copy of the E-book!

BTW, Biblegod isn't sending people to your lame, not-scary hell because of what they did, but because of what they believed. AKA, Thoughtcrime.

BTW, Dumbo, action follows thought.

ETA: BTW, Holdummy, Arabia in the time of Muhammad was an agonistic society and they sure as hell (pun intended!) believed in hell as a place of physical torture and burning forever and ever and ever.

That's their problem, though, isn't it? Unfortunately for you, they also had their own fresh rafts of text to produce that have nothing to do with anything in the Bible. Keep trying.

[Xru]

Bertrand Russell was once asked what he would say if he died and found himself confronted by an angry God who demanded to know why he had not believed. Russell said his reply would be “Not enough evidence, God, not enough evidence”.

I've read some of Russell's stuff and I'm not at all impressed. One of the one's I remember most is the old "Christian's were bad in the Crusades," and some Christian's have done other bad stuff and so I'm not going to be associated with that mess.

Maybe he was a good philosopher, perhaps, yet he was an extremely poor psychologist and/or social critic. It seemed to fail to occur to him that some individuals of any segment of society do bad things, sometimes to a greater extent, sometimes to a lesser extent.

Apparently Bertrand Russell was insane (or wasn't serious). But atheists like Whiner-Failure are immoral fools who just prove the point that they deserve their own condemnation. Whiner-Failure is not exceptional among atheists in pontificating about reputed atrocities performed by God, so any alleged "change in heart" upon a confrontation such as described by him and Russell would be nothing more than a pandering falsehood -- the difference being that whereas Russell here was at least possibly honest, Whiner-Failure is not.

This view stubbornly held by "Whiner-Failure" despite many honest attempts to explain just illustrates his complete lack of understanding regarding the subtleties in interpreting (or perhaps not so subtle if one just pays honest attention) the Bible.

His continued refusal to take an intellectually honest approach to understanding completely undermines any credibility he has turning him into "Whiner-Loser."

[moreta]

Coffee Break is over!

I sense yet another tweb meme.

[Xru]

I've read some of Russell's stuff and I'm not at all impressed. One of the one's I remember most is the old "Christian's were bad in the Crusades," and some Christian's have done other bad stuff and so I'm not going to be associated with that mess.

Maybe he was a good philosopher, perhaps, yet he was an extremely poor psychologist and/or social critic. It seemed to fail to occur to him that some individuals of any segment of society do bad things, sometimes to a greater extent, sometimes to a lesser extent.


This view stubbornly held by "Whiner-Failure" despite many honest attempts to explain just illustrates his complete lack of understanding regarding the subtleties in interpreting (or perhaps not so subtle if one just pays honest attention) the Bible.

His continued refusal to take an intellectually honest approach to understanding completely undermines any credibility he has turning him into "Whiner-Loser."

Nobody responded to my incredibly intelligent post . . . well crap on ya all. Idiot loser lameo's.

[WAR_ON_ERROR]

Hmmmm...so I don't understand my audience or how to argue, eh? *chuckles*

Here's what I do understand about my audience of inerrant, heedful Christian readers here at TWeb (who are oh so spiritually deep). It's entrenched group-think like any other stinky nest on the internet with a long history of building up canned ways of dealing with similar replies that are used even when their objections have actually been taken into account. Someone mentioned Monty Python, and I distinctly recall The Meaning of Life when Death shows up to claim the entire dinner party for having eaten spoiled salmon. And even though one character exclaims, "But I didn't even eat the salmon!" she's dead anyway. That's what it's like here.

You think you are breaking me down with your contrived, cartoonish insults as though I didn't know exactly what I was getting into here when I initially posted. Funny story: Your conventions don't always work. Your "obvious" evidence of success on your part of me supposedly "whining" is that the atheist keeps up with the moral talk in a conversation about morality. Over-validate much? Eternal damnation is logically inconsistent with the concept of justice. Where's the argument from outrage? Where's the whining? Where's the failure? Where's the loser? Spoiler alert: It's your trope.

As I've already laid out, even the most minimal punishment from Yahweh where hell is actually hellish in some way for all eternity is a punishment that cannot fit the crime. I've explained how it doesn't even matter what units of sin and punishment you use, since there will always be an infinite disparity. I gave the list of Bible-snippets that indicate that despite possible hyperbole and metaphorical language, Yahweh must be doing *something* to the damned. Jesus isn't just exaggerating, he'd be *lying* if your view is correct. They had lying in agonistic societies, right? Like when Jesus says "few will be saved" and you magically turn that into "most will be saved." That's not exaggeration. It's lying.

Someday Holding will figure out that the supposed "lack of something" or "eternal shame" is just as bad as any "static" torture metaphor (as should have been perfectly clear from the response to objections 19-22 on the argument map all along). And that if you are *stuck* in that mental state forever, you can't be responsible for your continued sinning. [Note: Where's all that Alvin Plantinga free will talk nonsense when your views on hell are being scrutinized? Oh, that's right. Christian apologetics is only about inventing unprincipled excuses to patch a sunken ship.]

That's why other denominations ditch the scripture picture further with an open door policy on hell that can actually be plausibly used. The Eastern Orthodox, for example, allow for the saints to pray some people out of hell and Yahweh adjusts the calibration of his soul scorching love beams accordingly (see objection 29). That's at least more plausible than they all just so happen to not seek out any spiritual renewal or progress whatsoever forever (The EO are agnostics about universalism, I think, but no one ever accused them of caring what the Bible says too much.).

Btw, on the *first* google search page of "stress positions uncomfortable chair" it brings up this (http://prospect.org/cs/articles?arti..._experienced): "In addition, the ICRC report suggests some of the methods approved by the Bybee memo were used beyond the described parameters. The memo says that Zubayda could not be sleep deprived for more than 11 days at a time, while Zubayda claims that he was shackled to a chair for “two to three weeks” during which he developed blisters on his legs from lack of movement." In the immortal words of Richard Carrier: "It is as if [Holding] insists the grass on my lawn is not green, so that I actually have to take the absurd step of bringing in witnesses to testify that my grass is in fact green." Indeed.

Preschoolers know that shame is a stressful mental state (by evolutionary design). There's nothing bigoted about calling it an infringement on mental health (apparently I'm a member of the KKK for understanding the rudimentary concept of mental health, or do I have to hold your hand and google that ultra mundane tidbit for you, too?). Often it is a justified negative modifier (when you've actually done something wrong and need to be compelled to right the situation) and often it is not (since our brains and our understanding of our moral place in the world are imperfect). If hell is logically inconsistent with the concept of justice, then shame is an unjustified negative modifier on someone's eternal mental health. Duh.

I see you've finally admitted why sitting in uncomfortable chairs for extended periods of time is torture. Good for you. That's what happens when you allow the evil atheist in the conversation to actually summon your own moral background knowledge rather than pretending like we live in completely different moral universes and making it sound like you wouldn't know it is child abuse to leave your kid in timeout for a week ("Agonistic-ignorant wussies!"). Or is that kind of moral negligence still morally neutral to you and your Mr. Magoo like deity?

You've sequestered me out from the Bertrand Russell's of the world (which wouldn't be a problem when it comes to his take on abstract entities, sheesh), but you didn't understand the sense I made my comments in. I was making them from *your perspective* since that's the mythical view we're talking about. In your view, atheists don't really mean anything with their moral condemnation (and Yahweh is the best thing since sliced bread), it's just a smokescreen for one sinful reason or another to contrive spiritual distance from Yahwheh, right? Feel free to clarify your views there, but if that's the case, then meeting Yahweh would likely very easily break through that facade like a criminal that surrenders when caught red-handed by the cops (We've established that you are at least somewhat familiar with reality, right? I keep forgetting who my audience is here, as you said. Sorry.). And if it didn't, why wouldn't these people be insane? C. S. Lewis believed that if more opportunities to be helped would have worked (even though the character Jesus admits to damning Sodom and Gomorrah by his negligence), it would have happened. So in this view these people are totally beyond help. And why would these insane people (as Peter Kreeft specifically claims they are) need to be kept around in Clive's zombie farm for all eternity? Is that justice? Or is that just sick? People who supposedly *choose* to torture themselves for all eternity are sick in the head. This is not an account of justice.

[Note: Obviously a very powerful being showing up claiming Yahweh's resume in the actual world (where people think through their moral worldview rather than swallowing it wholesale from a fake authority) is an act of war against humanity and would not be worshipped by me. I didn't think telling you that was relevant since you just aren't that into reality.]

Predictably, you've opened your denialistic mouth (that's a metaphor for denialistic typing, btw) and stumbled into the same logical bind that you only accept when you aren't losing the argument. You are saying that I was acting inconsistently with my professed worldview. I believe the character of Yahweh is evil and if he showed up it wouldn't make sense if I were to worship an evil god, right? Well, a good guy Yahweh who allows for the injustice of hell is just as inconsistent. The standard of inconsistency is so banally rudimentary and stupid to point out, but I have to keep driving this point home because your retaliatory tropes are just on *that level* of denialism. Of course, I'm just a mere human and my own supposed inconsistency doesn't mean anything. However, a morally inconsistent Yahweh is a dealbreaker with the metaphysics of your worldview (unless you are Vox Day, see objection...w/e, you don't care) as should have been crystal clear from the beginning (and maybe your own thoughts if you have those?). And pretty much every run-of-the-mill atheist/skeptic here can figure that out which is why your "argument from outrage" gimmick is so weak and doesn't convince anyone.

On the theme of inconsistency, remember when I was blamed for the "buy my book" meme for having a *free* jpeg available on the internet? And remember when Holding *actually* said "buy my book" as a substitute for clarifying his views on hell in this very thread? Do you even *try* to be consistent, Holding? Or do you just fart things out at random wildly assuming that the atheist is always wrong? It *really* seems like the part of your brain that does the self-check on hypocrisy has long since been burned out by too many years of entrenched apologetics. I also note that shades of gray are readily there to defend your honor (since you don't make much money on your book), but suspiciously fall off the grid when evaluating what I say (btw, I don't make much money on "free"). If you give me a free copy of your hell series, I will gladly update my argument map with any novel thing I find. Otherwise, the results are not promising from anything I've seen here and the further iterations of fail are not even worth the $1.59.

I didn't eat the salmon. If there were to be actual "outrage" here, it's just that you're going to keep moving the cups on your audience and making issues out of nothing, not taking the blame for being wrong, blaming me for it instead, and continue with your canned narrative of "prejudice" and "outrage" that is really just a silly projection of your own. And it's difficult to be actually outraged at even that, since it is so expected and tediously off the mark. "J. P. Holding is wrong on the internet!" [/fakesurprise]

Welcome to hell Christian folk. You've been mentally forced to defend indefensible beliefs and you are going to be logic-boarded by atheists and skeptics till the end of your apologetic time. Maybe you should try like not believing evil fake stuff or something.

[BeyondTW]

As I've already laid out, even the most minimal punishment from Yahweh where hell is actually hellish in some way for all eternity is a punishment that cannot fit the crime.

You have already received the response "Even in hell, sinners will continue to rebel against God".

Here's another issue:
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, but then you can say that even a single moment of sinning has already an amount of crime to it and thus a single second of sinning will "add up" to infinite crime. If you want to continue arguing about measuring crime/punishment, you need to introduce a crime-measure and come up with a punishment-distribution that adequately models hell and a punishment-measure that christians would agree with. The problem you face here is that it will eventually all boil down to question-begging how much the punishment in hell is worth.

[Mountain Man]

I also don't think the time it takes to commit an offense has any bearing on what length of punishment is just. A murder can be committed in literally seconds, but it is just to put the murderer in prison for the rest of his life. Even lesser crimes such as robberies can be committed in a matter of minutes, yet it is just to punish the robber for months or years, depending on the nature of his crime.

[jpholding]

Hmmmm...so I don't understand my audience or how to argue, eh? *chuckles*

Heck, I'd be surprised if you could blow your own nose without written instructions.

Here's what I do understand about my audience of inerrant, heedful Christian readers here at TWeb (who are oh so spiritually deep). It's entrenched group-think like any other stinky nest on the internet with a long history of building up canned ways of dealing with similar replies that are used even when their objections have actually been taken into account.

No, they're taken into account. They just all know that your "answers" are merely rehashings of what has already been refuted.

You think you are breaking me down with your contrived, cartoonish insults as though I didn't know exactly what I was getting into here when I initially posted. Funny story: Your conventions don't always work.

That depends on what you assume I'm trying to do with them. But it's not hard when you keep fouling up, as in:

Eternal damnation is logically inconsistent with the concept of justice.

Except you have already been told 100 times that damnation is defined by what it lacks -- not what it has. So there's nothing "unjust" being "done" to anyone. And so, there's your outrage, whining, failure -- all wrapped into one epic package. You're stuck in YOUR trope of hell as inflicted punishment, and while I do think there will be some infliction (eg, in the form for example, perhaps, of having to relive the horrors of what you did to others, from their perspective), none of that is supposed to be eternal along with the time of necessity. Simple fact is you can't drop the trope because it's too "good" and cherished an argument that suits your sense of outrage and avoidance of rationally dealing with the issue.

I gave the list of Bible-snippets that indicate that despite possible hyperbole and metaphorical language, Yahweh must be doing *something* to the damned.

Eg, you presented them as decontextualized quotes which you raped in order to force your own fundy-literalist interpretation on them.

Jesus isn't just exaggerating, he'd be *lying* if your view is correct. They had lying in agonistic societies, right? Like when Jesus says "few will be saved" and you magically turn that into "most will be saved." That's not exaggeration. It's lying.

And as I told you, your reading of such passages is skewed. Most people don't get the "narrow road" metaphor because they don't know its Jewish parallels. As it is...you're still the fundy you always were when it comes to exegesis.

And that if you are *stuck* in that mental state forever, you can't be responsible for your continued sinning.

Spoken like a true spoiled child. It's mommy's fault, she left the cookie jar where I could easily reach it with a ladder.

Note: Where's all that Alvin Plantinga free will talk nonsense when your views on hell are being scrutinized?

I have no conflict with that whatsoever save in your diseased imagination.

Btw, on the *first* google search page of "stress positions uncomfortable chair"

Aw, Google, how sweet. Sadly, as I already noted, KNM's metaphor was not of someone "shackled" to a chair unable to move at all, so once again, you're addressing something not said because what is said can't be addressed.

Preschoolers know that shame is a stressful mental state (by evolutionary design). There's nothing bigoted about calling it an infringement on mental health

Yes, there is, because you're saying 99% of people who have ever lived are mentally ill. As always, it's just a matter of you defining victimhood to suit your purposes.

I see you've finally admitted why sitting in uncomfortable chairs for extended periods of time is torture. Good for you.

Never mind that what I actually did was correct YOU in your slick-package modification of KNM's metaphor.

You've sequestered me out from the Bertrand Russell's of the world (which wouldn't be a problem when it comes to his take on abstract entities, sheesh), but you didn't understand the sense I made my comments in.

Eg, it took you this long to work up a skilled rationalization to explain your obvious mistake.

I was making them from *your perspective* since that's the mythical view we're talking about. In your view, atheists don't really mean anything with their moral condemnation (and Yahweh is the best thing since sliced bread), it's just a smokescreen for one sinful reason or another to contrive spiritual distance from Yahwheh, right?

Uh, no. That's the trope YOU used to adhere to, which is an example of why you suffered cognitive dissonance. I don't care what anyone's motives are, and unless they are explicitly stated, I don't assume them. For my part, I prefer to say that atheists as a whole are stupid -- which is proven time and time again in encounters with them. I can count on one hand the number of intelligent and well-informed atheists I have met -- and without exception, they would not be rattling sabres with the sort of crap you pull.

You are saying that I was acting inconsistently with my professed worldview. I believe the character of Yahweh is evil and if he showed up it wouldn't make sense if I were to worship an evil god, right? Well, a good guy Yahweh who allows for the injustice of hell is just as inconsistent.

Utterly beside the point. You'd still never bend the knee without compromise, and contrary to your shimmying, it means ALL with reference to YOUR professions on what YOU would do. For my part, I see no moral inconsistency in Yahweh -- because I don't buy into the fundy tropes you still cling to like a security blanket.

And pretty much every run-of-the-mill atheist/skeptic here can figure that out which is why your "argument from outrage" gimmick is so weak and doesn't convince anyone.

It's not meant to "convince" anyone of anything -- it's meant to show that expressed outrage is no shortcut for argument.

On the theme of inconsistency, remember when I was blamed for the "buy my book" meme for having a *free* jpeg available on the internet? And remember when Holding *actually* said "buy my book" as a substitute for clarifying his views on hell in this very thread? Do you even *try* to be consistent, Holding?

COUGH...um, did you happen to notice I gave the little fellow a chance to get it without paying? Funny how quiet he's been on that; I just led him that way to expose his silly claim that I kept my views hidden. Maybe I'll give it to you on some similar terms if I can think of a way. As for you, you ask people to "buy your book" for the price of the personal attention you so magnificently crave. Which is expected, since you sure don't have the quality to actually ask people for money for what you do. As for this:

If you give me a free copy of your hell series, I will gladly update my argument map with any novel thing I find.

Puh-leeze. You'll have to do better than that for a trade.

I didn't eat the salmon.

No, you're too full from eating your own foot.

Welcome to hell Christian folk. You've been mentally forced to defend indefensible beliefs and you are going to be logic-boarded by atheists and skeptics till the end of your apologetic time. Maybe you should try like not believing evil fake stuff or something.

Oh dear. I think that's an atheist trope that's been used before.

[Mountain Man]

It's funny how he thinks adding overly simplistic summaries of arguments to his little map somehow counts as a refutation.

[Sparko]

Hmmmm...so I don't understand my audience or how to argue, eh? *chuckles*

Here's what I do understand about my audience of inerrant, heedful Christian readers here at TWeb (who are oh so spiritually deep). It's entrenched group-think like any other stinky nest on the internet with a long history of building up canned ways of dealing with similar replies that are used even when their objections have actually been taken into account. Someone mentioned Monty Python, and I distinctly recall The Meaning of Life when Death shows up to claim the entire dinner party for having eaten spoiled salmon. And even though one character exclaims, "But I didn't even eat the salmon!" she's dead anyway. That's what it's like here.

You think you are breaking me down with your contrived, cartoonish insults as though I didn't know exactly what I was getting into here when I initially posted. Funny story: Your conventions don't always work. Your "obvious" evidence of success on your part of me supposedly "whining" is that the atheist keeps up with the moral talk in a conversation about morality. Over-validate much? Eternal damnation is logically inconsistent with the concept of justice. Where's the argument from outrage? Where's the whining? Where's the failure? Where's the loser? Spoiler alert: It's your trope.

As I've already laid out, even the most minimal punishment from Yahweh where hell is actually hellish in some way for all eternity is a punishment that cannot fit the crime. I've explained how it doesn't even matter what units of sin and punishment you use, since there will always be an infinite disparity. I gave the list of Bible-snippets that indicate that despite possible hyperbole and metaphorical language, Yahweh must be doing *something* to the damned. Jesus isn't just exaggerating, he'd be *lying* if your view is correct. They had lying in agonistic societies, right? Like when Jesus says "few will be saved" and you magically turn that into "most will be saved." That's not exaggeration. It's lying.

Someday Holding will figure out that the supposed "lack of something" or "eternal shame" is just as bad as any "static" torture metaphor (as should have been perfectly clear from the response to objections 19-22 on the argument map all along). And that if you are *stuck* in that mental state forever, you can't be responsible for your continued sinning. [Note: Where's all that Alvin Plantinga free will talk nonsense when your views on hell are being scrutinized? Oh, that's right. Christian apologetics is only about inventing unprincipled excuses to patch a sunken ship.]

That's why other denominations ditch the scripture picture further with an open door policy on hell that can actually be plausibly used. The Eastern Orthodox, for example, allow for the saints to pray some people out of hell and Yahweh adjusts the calibration of his soul scorching love beams accordingly (see objection 29). That's at least more plausible than they all just so happen to not seek out any spiritual renewal or progress whatsoever forever (The EO are agnostics about universalism, I think, but no one ever accused them of caring what the Bible says too much.).

Btw, on the *first* google search page of "stress positions uncomfortable chair" it brings up this (http://prospect.org/cs/articles?article=accounts_of_torture_abstract_and_experienced): "In addition, the ICRC report suggests some of the methods approved by the Bybee memo were used beyond the described parameters. The memo says that Zubayda could not be sleep deprived for more than 11 days at a time, while Zubayda claims that he was shackled to a chair for “two to three weeks” during which he developed blisters on his legs from lack of movement." In the immortal words of Richard Carrier: "It is as if [Holding] insists the grass on my lawn is not green, so that I actually have to take the absurd step of bringing in witnesses to testify that my grass is in fact green." Indeed.

Preschoolers know that shame is a stressful mental state (by evolutionary design). There's nothing bigoted about calling it an infringement on mental health (apparently I'm a member of the KKK for understanding the rudimentary concept of mental health, or do I have to hold your hand and google that ultra mundane tidbit for you, too?). Often it is a justified negative modifier (when you've actually done something wrong and need to be compelled to right the situation) and often it is not (since our brains and our understanding of our moral place in the world are imperfect). If hell is logically inconsistent with the concept of justice, then shame is an unjustified negative modifier on someone's eternal mental health. Duh.

I see you've finally admitted why sitting in uncomfortable chairs for extended periods of time is torture. Good for you. That's what happens when you allow the evil atheist in the conversation to actually summon your own moral background knowledge rather than pretending like we live in completely different moral universes and making it sound like you wouldn't know it is child abuse to leave your kid in timeout for a week ("Agonistic-ignorant wussies!"). Or is that kind of moral negligence still morally neutral to you and your Mr. Magoo like deity?

You've sequestered me out from the Bertrand Russell's of the world (which wouldn't be a problem when it comes to his take on abstract entities, sheesh), but you didn't understand the sense I made my comments in. I was making them from *your perspective* since that's the mythical view we're talking about. In your view, atheists don't really mean anything with their moral condemnation (and Yahweh is the best thing since sliced bread), it's just a smokescreen for one sinful reason or another to contrive spiritual distance from Yahwheh, right? Feel free to clarify your views there, but if that's the case, then meeting Yahweh would likely very easily break through that facade like a criminal that surrenders when caught red-handed by the cops (We've established that you are at least somewhat familiar with reality, right? I keep forgetting who my audience is here, as you said. Sorry.). And if it didn't, why wouldn't these people be insane? C. S. Lewis believed that if more opportunities to be helped would have worked (even though the character Jesus admits to damning Sodom and Gomorrah by his negligence), it would have happened. So in this view these people are totally beyond help. And why would these insane people (as Peter Kreeft specifically claims they are) need to be kept around in Clive's zombie farm for all eternity? Is that justice? Or is that just sick? People who supposedly *choose* to torture themselves for all eternity are sick in the head. This is not an account of justice.

[Note: Obviously a very powerful being showing up claiming Yahweh's resume in the actual world (where people think through their moral worldview rather than swallowing it wholesale from a fake authority) is an act of war against humanity and would not be worshipped by me. I didn't think telling you that was relevant since you just aren't that into reality.]

Predictably, you've opened your denialistic mouth (that's a metaphor for denialistic typing, btw) and stumbled into the same logical bind that you only accept when you aren't losing the argument. You are saying that I was acting inconsistently with my professed worldview. I believe the character of Yahweh is evil and if he showed up it wouldn't make sense if I were to worship an evil god, right? Well, a good guy Yahweh who allows for the injustice of hell is just as inconsistent. The standard of inconsistency is so banally rudimentary and stupid to point out, but I have to keep driving this point home because your retaliatory tropes are just on *that level* of denialism. Of course, I'm just a mere human and my own supposed inconsistency doesn't mean anything. However, a morally inconsistent Yahweh is a dealbreaker with the metaphysics of your worldview (unless you are Vox Day, see objection...w/e, you don't care) as should have been crystal clear from the beginning (and maybe your own thoughts if you have those?). And pretty much every run-of-the-mill atheist/skeptic here can figure that out which is why your "argument from outrage" gimmick is so weak and doesn't convince anyone.

On the theme of inconsistency, remember when I was blamed for the "buy my book" meme for having a *free* jpeg available on the internet? And remember when Holding *actually* said "buy my book" as a substitute for clarifying his views on hell in this very thread? Do you even *try* to be consistent, Holding? Or do you just fart things out at random wildly assuming that the atheist is always wrong? It *really* seems like the part of your brain that does the self-check on hypocrisy has long since been burned out by too many years of entrenched apologetics. I also note that shades of gray are readily there to defend your honor (since you don't make much money on your book), but suspiciously fall off the grid when evaluating what I say (btw, I don't make much money on "free"). If you give me a free copy of your hell series, I will gladly update my argument map with any novel thing I find. Otherwise, the results are not promising from anything I've seen here and the further iterations of fail are not even worth the $1.59.

I didn't eat the salmon. If there were to be actual "outrage" here, it's just that you're going to keep moving the cups on your audience and making issues out of nothing, not taking the blame for being wrong, blaming me for it instead, and continue with your canned narrative of "prejudice" and "outrage" that is really just a silly projection of your own. And it's difficult to be actually outraged at even that, since it is so expected and tediously off the mark. "J. P. Holding is wrong on the internet!" [/fakesurprise]

Welcome to hell Christian folk. You've been mentally forced to defend indefensible beliefs and you are going to be logic-boarded by atheists and skeptics till the end of your apologetic time. Maybe you should try like not believing evil fake stuff or something.

Oh gee... was that the part of the campy movie where the cartoon villain laughs maniacally while telling of his "secret" plan to take over the world?

pinky---the-brain-childhood-memories-241485_100_100.jpg

[jpholding]

It seems Reality Upchuck is looking for another hurricane to allow him to explain why he hasn't taken me up on that offer for a free book.

[Sparko]

It seems Reality Upchuck is looking for another hurricane to allow him to explain why he hasn't taken me up on that offer for a free book.

He would have to be able to read to get any use from a book. He probably uses a voice program to read posts here on tweb.

[WAR_ON_ERROR]

You have already received the response "Even in hell, sinners will continue to rebel against God".

I'm aware of that. Are you aware that I've already responded to that response? It's the moral implications of the zombie farm stuff. See also the reiteration below with Holding.

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, but then you can say that even a single moment of sinning has already an amount of crime to it and thus a single second of sinning will "add up" to infinite crime.

I'm not really sure if what you are saying is coherent. Regardless, I was going with the premise that no sin could be infinite in quantity or quality per Holding's view. Hence, any non-infinite sinning in one life couldn't ever add up to any infinity of punishment. It doesn't matter how great or small the units are of the sinning or the rate of damnation. It won't add up. You *have* to go with the "they'll keep on sinning and earning it," bit which has already been addressed. And then the whole motif of this life being the trial period for eternity is just flattened by the excuse.

I also don't think the time it takes to commit an offense has any bearing on what length of punishment is just. A murder can be committed in literally seconds, but it is just to put the murderer in prison for the rest of his life. Even lesser crimes such as robberies can be committed in a matter of minutes, yet it is just to punish the robber for months or years, depending on the nature of his crime.

I agree. But again, per Holding's view no sin is infinite in quality or quantity. So none of the particulars matter to the argument.

It's funny how he thinks adding overly simplistic summaries of arguments to his little map somehow counts as a refutation.

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.

Except you have already been told 100 times that damnation is defined by what it lacks -- not what it has. So there's nothing "unjust" being "done" to anyone. And so, there's your outrage, whining, failure -- all wrapped into one epic package. You're stuck in YOUR trope of hell as inflicted punishment, and while I do think there will be some infliction (eg, in the form for example, perhaps, of having to relive the horrors of what you did to others, from their perspective), none of that is supposed to be eternal along with the time of necessity.

You seem quite tone deaf here in favor of your desperate attempts to make me look unreasonable, since I was obviously granting a measure of exaggeration as long as it didn't outright contradict even the kernel of truth that you apparently do agree with (that "there will be some infliction").

Please explain what you mean by "along with the time of necessity."

Are you saying that there is some kind of punishment period of time and then people are free to wander for all eternity? And how do you get that from anything said in the Bible, since it seems to go out of its way to make sure people won't think they can just get out of it or outlive the bad stuff?

You can tell me anything 100 times, but you just aren't making your case. I'm not going to side with some grossly implausible reading of the texts just because you say so. Interpretative charity is one thing and typical Christian apologetics is often quite another.

Most people don't get the "narrow road" metaphor because they don't know its Jewish parallels.

I'm curious about this and would read any article you have already written on the subject. If you have some intellectually honest way of interpreting this away, I'd be impressed.

However, Yahweh seems to have a bad track record of only saving the actual "few." The whole world was evil before the Flood and apparently his prophet Noah at the time could only convince the 7 people he had control over to be saved (out of the 10 million creationist organizations like to assume). Only 2 of the Hebrew slaves out of the 2 million or so people who made it out of Egypt actually got to the Promised Land. Yahweh seems to focus on only one nation out of many for the time up until the NT era. During that time he seems quite content with the recurring motif of the faithful "remnant" of Israel and certainly doesn't convert all of even Jerusalem at the beginning of the NT era. He seems unconcerned that most of the modern world does not even identify as Christian (with an equal competitor that explicitly denies the divinity of Christ no less) and whatever the "true" denomination is a subset of the part that does identify with the beliefs. At face value, Yahweh seems just fine with overall net failure so I have no idea why you'd think that this was out of line for him (other than the idea that he's supposed to actually be good and good at what he does, but since when do Christians hold him to any standards?).

Spoken like a true spoiled child. It's mommy's fault, she left the cookie jar where I could easily reach it with a ladder.

I've already addressed this critical concept at length and your response doesn't even touch it.

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?

If we are talking about the select few who are so mentally deranged that they incidentally will never choose to stop despite being directly aware of the supposedly greatest person ever offering them an amazing relationship, then why are we supporting the punishment of the insane?

Feel free to actually respond to the next leg of the argument so that I actually have something to add to my map other than: "At this point, Holding goes in circles."

Eg, it took you this long to work up a skilled rationalization to explain your obvious mistake.

And you've come up with some tired conspiracy theory to re-justify your accusation and your prejudices. Do I have to dig up links to old blog posts of mine to prove my point or are you self aware enough of your own lame internet habits? (here it is anyway, like you actually care: http://war-on-error.xanga.com/701506...-for-atheists/)

as I already noted, KNM's metaphor was not of someone "shackled" to a chair unable to move at all

How else could you practically torture someone with an uncomfortable chair without securing them to it? You are quibbling to save face on a meaningless point.

Yes, there is, because you're saying 99% of people who have ever lived are mentally ill.

Yes, 99% of people who have ever lived have inefficient mental lives that fall short of perfect contentment. Maybe if you had any actual points to make here, you wouldn't have to contrive stuff like this.

Maybe I'll give it to you on some similar terms if I can think of a way.

Well, let me know.

I don't care about you making money on books as though that's a crime. I was only pointing out more obvious examples of your hypocrisy and the obvious hair trigger you have on your prejudices. If I told you I got a hair cut, it must have been a bad one. If I told you I went to visit my mother, it must be incest. Circumstantial accusations and habitually jaded interpretations of mundane things are the crutch of the weak-minded in debate. It's just stupid. But that is the stupid I signed up for by coming here. I'm sure TWeb turns every atheist into a big star, right? Or...I just want to make sure my argument map correlates with your actual views (if I can ever cajole you into presenting them coherently) so the refutations can be sitting there waiting indefinitely for Christians to wise up. And of course there is the opportunity to rub in how intellectually dishonest you are about just about everything doesn't hurt along the way. I don't think it's that hard for any casual reader to determine that you probably deserve a measure of it. Not an infinite one though. :D

Ben

[BeyondTW]

I'm aware of that. Are you aware that I've already responded to that response? It's the moral implications of the zombie farm stuff. See also the reiteration below with Holding.

And I repeated it because your response does not work. See below.

I'm not really sure if what you are saying is coherent.

Then maybe you should have paid more attention during math class.
The point of what I wrote is that "punishment over infinite duration" is not always "infinite punishment" and you can't argue otherwise without resorting to question begging because of the nature of mathematical measures.
But it also raises another issue: Why think you can put numbers to crime/punishment in the first place?
It is not always clear whether or not abstract concepts like measures can be applied to the real world. An example would be that mathematical set theory does not allow for a "set of all truths" due to Cantor's theorem, despite the intuition that reality would have to be described by precisely this set.
In the case of measures, you have the problem that they sometimes have seemingly absurd properties. Suppose you chose a number randomly between 0 and 1. Every individual number would have probability 0, but the entire interval would have probability 1.
Another issue is that sometimes, sets can not be measured at all, which has even stranger consequences: For example, take a sphere with a volume that you would measure as 1. You can slice this sphere up into 5 pieces (the volume of these pieces can not be measured), rearrange them and put them together to get two spheres of volume 1, thus you would double the sphere you started out with.
For these reasons, one might easily object to your attempts to measure hell.
Now, if you were actually reading what jp is telling you, you might have noticed that he thinks that there is no point in talking about this in terms of mathematical values other than 1 and 0 or "yes" and "no".

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? If we are talking about the select few who are so mentally deranged that they incidentally will never choose to stop despite being directly aware of the supposedly greatest person ever offering them an amazing relationship, then why are we supporting the punishment of the insane?

The vast majority of contemporary philosophers are compatibilists with respect to free will and thus the most common answer you would hear from them is "Yawn". But even libertarians have a way out by replying that the sinners continue their rebellion against God for reasons that are entirely internal to them.
And no, just because someone makes a decision that is very, very stupid does not mean that the person is not accountable for this decision.

[jpholding]

I knew I smelled rotten herring...

You seem quite tone deaf here in favor of your desperate attempts to make me look unreasonable, since I was obviously granting a measure of exaggeration as long as it didn't outright contradict even the kernel of truth that you apparently do agree with (that "there will be some infliction").

There's no effort needed to make you look unreasonable. Your hate and spite towards your former faith is quite evident in practice, and in your aggressive evangelism for the new cause as a way of assuaging your guilt and shame. 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.

Please explain what you mean by "along with the time of necessity."

In other words, no need to assume eternality in the actual infliction of punishment.

Are you saying that there is some kind of punishment period of time and then people are free to wander for all eternity? And how do you get that from anything said in the Bible, since it seems to go out of its way to make sure people won't think they can just get out of it or outlive the bad stuff?

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?) and you also find out that they adhered (along with 99.9999% of people who have ever lived) to this backwards, primitive, Bronze Age notion called "COLLECTIVE IDENTITY" which means that non-participation is the price of not being part of this stupid thing called an "INGROUP". Once you understand that, you also find out that the Bible is worded the way it is because they had this asinine thing called "DRAMATIC ORIENTATION" which made them talk and write in extreme and dramatic ways, which is really stupid, if they had any sense at all they'd have talked just like an intelligent and brilliant guy such as you uh, us.

You can tell me anything 100 times, but you just aren't making your case. I'm not going to side with some grossly implausible reading of the texts just because you say so.

"Grossly implausible". " As wedded to fundamentalist readings as you still are to this day, you don't even have the remotest clue how backwards you sound.

Interpretative charity is one thing and typical Christian apologetics is often quite another.

As is stultified fundamentalism dressed up as freethinking skepticism.

I'm curious about this and would read any article you have already written on the subject. If you have some intellectually honest way of interpreting this away, I'd be impressed.

My findings are scattered here and there on this forum based on queries. Give me a set of passages and I'll compose a topical article. The one thing I will offer here is that 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.

Your examples don't serve any relevant purpose as none have anything to do with salvation as such; this is the type of fundy/midrashic hermeneutic that poisoned your mind from the start. Not only so, but some examples refute the premise:

Only 2 of the Hebrew slaves out of the 2 million or so people who made it out of Egypt actually got to the Promised Land.

So? Another 2 million made it in. And then there were millions more all over the world upon whom this had no bearing at all. What's your point? Seeing in this a "type" of salvation in terms of numbers is simply midrashic nonsense and is the type of fundy contrivance that should die a painful death.

Yahweh seems to focus on only one nation out of many for the time up until the NT era. During that time he seems quite content with the recurring motif of the faithful "remnant" of Israel and certainly doesn't convert all of even Jerusalem at the beginning of the NT era

Again, your point is what, apart from useless? 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". May I ask what the hell kind of Bob Jones theology you get this crap from?

He seems unconcerned that most of the modern world does not even identify as Christian (with an equal competitor that explicitly denies the divinity of Christ no less) and whatever the "true" denomination is a subset of the part that does identify with the beliefs.

And I suppose you use the old "30K denominations" canard too? Buck up; this time is not the center of all eternity.

I've already addressed this critical concept at length and your response doesn't even touch it.

Translation: You've cried "unfair" and deludedly think that's an answer.

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?

Like they can't repent as is? Please.

If we are talking about the select few who are so mentally deranged that they incidentally will never choose to stop despite being directly aware of the supposedly greatest person ever offering them an amazing relationship, then why are we supporting the punishment of the insane?

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

Feel free to actually respond to the next leg of the argument so that I actually have something to add to my map other than: "At this point, Holding goes in circles."

The circle is your cage and you're trapped. There's no need to add to it.

And you've come up with some tired conspiracy theory to re-justify your accusation and your prejudices. Do I have to dig up links to old blog posts of mine to prove my point or are you self aware enough of your own lame internet habits? (here it is anyway, like you actually care: http://war-on-error.xanga.com/701506...-for-atheists/)

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

How else could you practically torture someone with an uncomfortable chair without securing them to it? You are quibbling to save face on a meaningless point.

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.

Yes, 99% of people who have ever lived have inefficient mental lives that fall short of perfect contentment. Maybe if you had any actual points to make here, you wouldn't have to contrive stuff like this.

So now you've backpedalled from calling agonistic people mentally off to calling then mentally "inefficient". Your bedsheet is getting stains on it but you're still wearing it.

I don't care about you making money on books as though that's a crime. I was only pointing out more obvious examples of your hypocrisy and the obvious hair trigger you have on your prejudices.

No, an example of what you assumed, in your hate and bigotry, would be a hypocrisy. 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.

If I told you I got a hair cut, it must have been a bad one.

Only if you did it yourself.

I'm sure TWeb turns every atheist into a big star, right? Or...I just want to make sure my argument map correlates with your actual views (if I can ever cajole you into presenting them coherently) so the refutations can be sitting there waiting indefinitely for Christians to wise up.

The day your motives are pure is the day the sun turns into a basketball. While you are apt at dialing up the prejudicial tropes and the pathetic victim complexes, your grasp of fact and knowledge is so subpar that it simply won't ring true to anyone who fails to share the same victim complex. You should have continued tithing mint while also producing righteousness at the same time.