Pagans in the UK

[Brad]

BlessedBe13:

For all anyone knows, Jesus didn’t talk about hell and that was just added into the Bible afterwards.

Sure - for all ANYONE knows. But how about people that DO know? The earliest Church fathers - 1st and 2nd century preached about hell from their Bibles. When was it added in?

Do you have 1 piece of evidence anywhere that shows that hell was added in to what Jesus said. We have Church council all throughout the last 2000 years and not a hint in any of them implies that hell was added in. Further, there is no historical claim anywhere prior to the 20th century by anyone that hell was added in. This would have had to have been an elaborate cover-up process as well because He mentioded it many times. Does this seem reasonable?

Are you justifying your firm belief in no hell on people’s assumptions that it was added in, even though they have zero evidence that this is the case? Does that seem reasonable?

 

[Brad]

BlessedBe13:

The same amount of evidence that you do - faith.

Nope - I’m giving you solid historical documented evidence. You have given me none.

 

[Brad]

Tlaloc:

Then do that rather than making sweeping statements to no purpose.

I’m working on it there partner.

Let me ask you this - why would you be so offended by a “no purpose” statement? If it has no purpose - who cares? If it does have a purpose, why say it doesn’t?

Tlaloc:

Yeah actually it is. 86% of americans claimed to be christian a decade ago, the number is now down to about 77%. Based on this study:
gc.cuny.edu/studies/key_findings.htm

(see what i mean about backing up a statement?)

Gotcha. Good work.

I have several interesting notes regarding the survey however.

1. How many people were surveyed? I know I wasn’t.
2. Signifcant increase in non-repsondents
3. Survey taken in 2001.
4. Truth is not determined by popular vote.

 

[oat_soda]

I’m sure Jesus was a real person. I don’t believe he was/is God. I believe hell was created to scare people into following a particular religion.

most people in hell are surprised to be there because they didn’t believe in it. if you don’t believe in the devil or demons, then i chalenge you to use a ouija board and ask for satan to possess you. make sure you do this alone and a night multiple times. if there is no devil, then you have nothing to fear. but i bet you won’t do it.

satan is very real, he and demons have attacked many saints. if you reject satan and hell you reject the gospels, then you reject Jesus and heaven. you will go to hell if you remain outside of the church. this is the truth. read this: ignatiusinsight.com/features/framorth_excerpt1_aug04.asp

 

[AnAtheist]

oat soda:

if you don’t believe in the devil or demons, then i chalenge you to use a ouija board and ask for satan to possess you. make sure you do this alone and a night multiple times. if there is no devil, then you have nothing to fear. but i bet you won’t do it.
I just screamed “Please, Satan, posses me!” three times and nothing happened. I wonder why.

You will go to hell if you remain outside of the church.

Thank you for the lovely prospect, I’d rather be in hell, than spend an eternity with people like you.

 

[Tlaloc]

Brad:

I’m working on it there partner.

Let me ask you this - why would you be so offended by a “no purpose” statement? If it has no purpose - who cares? If it does have a purpose, why say it doesn’t?

Because what you did was just say “nyuh uh!” It adds nothing to the discussion and is frustrating for anyone actually trying to communicate. Insisting you are correct without offering any reasoning isn’t a debate tactic, its not debate at all.

I have several interesting notes regarding the survey however.

1. How many people were surveyed? I know I wasn’t.
2. Signifcant increase in non-repsondents
3. Survey taken in 2001.
4. Truth is not determined by popular vote.

The 1st is a good question to ask about any survey data. Additional questions to ask include if the phrasing of the question included an inherent bias. I read through the report when I first saw it and it seemed like a pretty well put together survey. You have the link if you want to examine their methods.

 

[Tlaloc]

Brad:

Nope - I’m giving you solid historical documented evidence. You have given me none.

Thats highly debatable. What you are providing is church approved history which is far from untouchable. There’s significant enough proof to suggest Jesus was indeed a historical person. But a great deal of myth has gotten mixed in as well. For example: Jesus wasn’t born on Dec. 25th even according to the Bible and yet that has become a common belief.

Anytime you are talking about a cause that people passionately believe in you have to take into account that some will lie, cheat, steal, and kill to support it. Its unfortunate but true.

 

[Tlaloc]

oat soda:

most people in hell are surprised to be there because they didn’t believe in it.

How many of them did you survey?

you will go to hell if you remain outside of the church. this is the truth. read this:

Again we get back to what I told Brad: Tautologies don’t make good proof. Using the Catholic Church saying it is the one true church to prove it is the one true church isn’t going to hold water. No matter how many times you say it.

 

[Brad]

Tlaloc:

Because what you did was just say “nyuh uh!” It adds nothing to the discussion and is frustrating for anyone actually trying to communicate. Insisting you are correct without offering any reasoning isn’t a debate tactic, its not debate at all.

Perhaps you are right. Maybe I shouldn’t have jumped in the fray feet first with my conclusion. An introduction is the first thing in order. However, most debators do state their conclusion before getting into their premises etc. to how they arrive to that conclusion. My emotional response was driven by my belief in my convictions to which I spend a great deal of time providing supporting arguments. In any event - let’s move on to those very arguments.

 

[Brad]

Tlaloc:

Thats highly debatable. What you are providing is church approved history which is far from untouchable. There’s significant enough proof to suggest Jesus was indeed a historical person. But a great deal of myth has gotten mixed in as well. For example: Jesus wasn’t born on Dec. 25th even according to the Bible and yet that has become a common belief.

Anytime you are talking about a cause that people passionately believe in you have to take into account that some will lie, cheat, steal, and kill to support it. Its unfortunate but true.

Anything can be debatable. Anyone could debate that Hitler didn’t kill Jews or Alexander didn’t conquer anyone or that Shakespeare didn’t write Hamlet. They can argue against the overwhelming historical content.

In the case of the Church, simply because the Church approves the Bible or other documents does not make them non-historical. I have yet to see anyone produce any non-easily-refutable historical document in the last 2000 years that disproves a single thing that the 4 Gospel writers write down. The closest we have now is the Jesus Seminar which votes on what they think Jesus said or didn’t - real strong scholarship - not. If you can find something, let me know - but disagreeing with it simply because the Church approves it is not an argument against it. Further, people outside the Catholic Church believe the Bible is historical.
Additionally further, you can always use the argument that only people “in the church” attest to the historical truths but wouldn’t that make sense? Anyone that believes in the historical truths would be “in the church” by definition. I challenge you to do the research.

December 25th marks Jesus birthday - whether he was literally born on that day or not has not a thing to do with the faith. The Church doesn’t require anyone to believe He was literally born on that day.

If you are insinuating the Christian faith spread through lies, cheating, stealing or killing, again you cannot find any worthwile history that would support you and you could find heaps of history that show that people were killed for their beliefs in Christ and His claims. Now, why would anyone be willing to die for a lie? Were they all crazy - in the 1st and 2nd century - not at all far removed from the time of Christ and during periods where no Jews (that would have more than enough motivation to do so) produced Christ’s body or even made a single claim that Jesus did not perform miracles?

The faith was spread by the willing death of people that believed in it - without fight or struggle - but for the specific purpose of spreading the faith. This is historical fact - so much so I don’t know any historians that disagree with this.

 

[Booklover]

oat soda:

i think serious catholics and orthodox christians should form our own state or country and put into the constitution that there is absolute truth and right and wrong based on natural law and 10 commandments. abortion, contraception, fornication, homo-sex, pornography, homo-unions, and anything that glamorizes it should be illegal. this country is going down the tubes with europe, i say lets have a revolution and kick neo-pagan a@# back to france.

 

[Brad]

Tlaloc:

Again we get back to what I told Brad: Tautologies don’t make good proof. Using the Catholic Church saying it is the one true church to prove it is the one true church isn’t going to hold water. No matter how many times you say it.

Can you refute any of the claims I made in post #37 through historical writing?

Again, you cannot cast off anything the Church teaches as non-historical simply because the Church claims it is true. You have to prove the Church to be wrong on the basis of the evidence. The argument you are using doesn’t hold water. It would be akin to me saying that water is not H2O because it is the field of science that says so and they have a vested interest in the table of elements being what they say it is. I can’t do that. They would make me prove that water is something else.

 

[Brad]

Correction above - I meant post #36

 

[Tlaloc]

Brad:

Can you refute any of the claims I made in post #37 through historical writing?

Again, you cannot cast off anything the Church teaches as non-historical simply because the Church claims it is true. You have to prove the Church to be wrong on the basis of the evidence. The argument you are using doesn’t hold water. It would be akin to me saying that water is not H2O because it is the field of science that says so and they have a vested interest in the table of elements being what they say it is. I can’t do that. They would make me prove that water is something else.

Close brad, but not quite. We do have historical records of some biblical events but not anywhere near enough to support all of the Bible. Indeed we have historical and scientific evidence that complete countermands the early Bible if taken literally.

Put it this way can you prove Jesus ascended? Of course not. Its a matter of faith, there is no proof and there never will be whether it happened or not. Its not the kind of thing you can whip out a voltmeter to check.

You however claim that it must have happened without proof. I claim only that maybe it did maybe it didn’t. That means the burden of proof is on you, a burden as above you can never fulfill.

Given that it’s a lot better off for you to talk in a much less condescending voice toward those with other beliefs. You can’t prove yours anymore than they can prove theirs but everyone’s entitled to their own.

Or to try one last variation on the theme: I’m not claiming that your religion is wrong, you are claiming that all other religions are wrong. That puts the burden of proof on you, not me.

 

[oat_soda]

Thank you for the lovely prospect, I’d rather be in hell, than spend an eternity with people like you.

that’s the beauty of it. you will be too absorbed in the beatific vision, contemplating God, then worrying about who is there. that is why we are created, to see God face to face and be with him forever.

I just screamed “Please, Satan, posses me!” three times and nothing happened. I wonder why.

the fact that you find this funny and had to scream makes me think you are afraid to really take a serious open minded look into the occult. as an atheist, you must acknowledge the human endeavor to find out the truth. so, like i said, take a honest look into it. use the ouija board at night, alone, and try to get a demon or the devil to possess you, or at least manifest himself. we can learn about God based on evidence of the supernatural.

 

[oat_soda]

Or to try one last variation on

Or to try one last variation on the theme: I’m not claiming that your religion is wrong, you are claiming that all other religions are wrong. That puts the burden of proof on you, not me.

we can’t prove anything only that you exist (although some morons would dispute this). in the bible, the pharases didn’t believe in Jesus despite the miracles. this is because God let their heart harden. we can’t do anything without his grace. so really it comes down to reason and faith which is a gift from God.

it is reasonable to believe in the catholic church when all of the evidence is presented. you will always have to ask yourself, if Jesus didn’t rise from the dead, how could 12 guys put there life on the line for it peacefully, unlike islam, and have it spread to the four corners of the earth? christianity is by far the most important religion in the world because of its role in the development of western civilization.

besides, how could someone come up with a story like that? Jesus, who is God, died for us on a cross, and is one part of the trinity. also, the bible makes the apostles look like jack-a%$es. if they were trying to sell you a line, why would they make themselves look so incompetent. also, what did making up this stuff get them? beheadings, stoning, and crucifixions upside down. either they were crazy, or telling the truth. looking at all the supporting evidence and the benefit of being a Christian, what do you have to lose?

 

[genevieve.oz]

Tlaloc,

You are obviously a very wise person by the world’s standards and you enjoy an arguement, possibly because it is something you are good at, we tend to enjoy things we are good at. I hate argueing but just wanted to offer my view on your suggestion that God is an unloving tyrant who sends people to burn in hell.

God created us and was loving enough to give us free will, you have children, you know that sometimes allowing them the freedom to make mistakes is being more loving than controlling their every movement and thought. God allowed us to choose to follow him, when we reject Him, we are rejecting the prospect of living with Him in Heaven. I have read that the suffering in Hell could be the anguish felt at being separated from God, something that comes about by our choosing.

If you chose to cut your hand off, could you then stand there and blame God for the pain you felt?

 

[AnAtheist]

oat soda:

the fact that you find this funny and had to scream makes me think you are afraid to really take a serious open minded look into the occult. as an atheist, you must acknowledge the human endeavor to find out the truth. so, like i said, take a honest look into it. use the ouija board at night, alone, and try to get a demon or the devil to possess you, or at least manifest himself.

I’d really like to try that. I have no Ouija board, and I don’t intend to spend any money on **** like that, so do you know any other hellish device perhaps found in a normal household to start with?

The problem I see is, I will always be accused of having a closed mind, because when this occult thingy won’t work, I’d either not tried hard hard enough, had not the right attitude or lack of faith. Objectivity usually drives the occult away. And that is pretty good evidence that it does not exist.

 

[SamCA]

Brad:

Do you have 1 piece of evidence anywhere that shows that hell was added in to what Jesus said. We have Church council all throughout the last 2000 years and not a hint in any of them implies that hell was added in.

Out of curiosity, what was Hell called by the early Church fathers who hadn’t yet made contact with the Nordic viking tribes? As I understand it, the word “Hell” itself is derived from one of the nine worlds of Norse myth, the world of the dead (and the goddess who rules it).

The Chistians certainly had a Bad Afterlife Place, but I imagine that before they met the vikings they must have called it something else.

(I’m not arguing, I’m honestly curious. This is something I’ve wondered for a while, I figure someone on this forum could probably inform me.)

 

[SamCA]

oat soda:

most people in hell are surprised to be there because they didn’t believe in it. if you don’t believe in the devil or demons, then i chalenge you to use a ouija board and ask for satan to possess you. make sure you do this alone and a night multiple times. if there is no devil, then you have nothing to fear. but i bet you won’t do it.

Wait, hold on. You’re recommending that people summon the devil and ask to be possessed? Doesn’t that strike you as a tad… unchristian?

Also: I’m tempted to try this. After all, the main reason I’m not a believer is that I don’t have any evidence. I’d call getting possessed by Satan pretty rock hard, in terms of proof.