Like to watch Christians tie themselves in knots trying to explain/justify sending infants to burn forever? Yah..me too.
Your opinions…
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
- Epstein files: The 1st tranche of documents have been released. Here's what we've learned
- Military espionage case started with claims that Postmedia journalist is linked to Russia: sources
- U.S. launches 'vengeance' strikes against ISIS targets in Syria, Hegseth says
- CBC photojournalists reveal their most compelling images of 2025
- Officer shot as police respond to fence dispute in Welland, Ont., people urged to shelter in place
- CBC News: The National | Toronto man facing terrorism charges
- Alberta Next panel recommends referendums on immigration, leaving Canada Pension Plan
- Toronto man charged with terrorism, funding ISIS and attempted kidnappings
- Akwesasne parents outraged after photos circulate of 'time out box' in school
- How bad could this flu season get? Here are answers to your influenza questions
Posts I Like
Blogs I Follow
bleatmop
Mystro
The Arbourist
Dead Wild Roses 
40 comments
May 24, 2012 at 1:45 pm
Samuel
It’s not a public relations problem for Christianity at all, actually. In fact, the Bible and Christians say no such thing. Just vile propaganda in your war against people who dare observe the evidence for intelligence in complex order.
I don’t know what’s more pathetic, your outright refusal to acknowledge the obvious, or your berating of those who wisely refuse to join you in such madness.
It is akin to arguing Mt. Rushmore is the product of wind and water erosion, and then complaining that people are fools for believing otherwise.
I do, however, find entertainment in watching you try.
LikeLike
May 24, 2012 at 4:51 pm
Eugene Adkins
I am a Christian and I do not believe or teach that babies “will burn in hell.”
LikeLike
May 24, 2012 at 11:01 pm
Mystro
Samuel – “the Bible and Christians say no such thing”
Right about the bible (the video actually goes into that), wrong about the christians. What does the bible say? As noted in the beginning of the vid, the Bible says that the only way to heaven is through Christ, and as babies lack the cognitive power to accept JC, it stands that it is impossible for them to be saved. The Bible also mentions some rather gruesome things that happens to those who are not saved.
The vid then highlights some very prominent and influential christians that have said such things. You did actually watch the vid, right? Once a detailed point has been made, just going ‘nu-uh!’ isn’t sufficient to refute it.
The rest of your comment is meaningless drivel, filled with ad hominem and strawmen arguments, all the while lacking any connection to the subject matter.
A good response might include, say, citation to some historical documents showing that Augustine of Hippo did not actually think babies went to hell. But I doubt you have any such evidence as it probably doesn’t exist.
A great response would also include the way that christians have collectively agreed upon how to get babies around the not being able to be saved thing. Again, I doubt you can do this because, as mentioned in the vid, the vast array of christian sects out there have come to many different and conflicting ideas.
A barely passable response should at least include how your particular brand of christianity gets around the ‘babies can’t accept jebus’ thing – and you couldn’t even provide that. Not that it would address the main point anyway, namely that there are branches that do think babies go to hell, and it is a loving and just god that sends them there.
Yeah, that is some kind of messed up.
LikeLike
May 24, 2012 at 11:04 pm
Mystro
So you think jesus is lying when he says that the only way to god (heaven) is through him?
LikeLike
May 25, 2012 at 5:19 am
Eugene Adkins
Hell is for those who sin. Babies have not sinned and babies are not born sinners. I think you’re confusing what the Bible really teaches about sin with what Calvinists and Catholics teach about it.
But as far as your questions goes, no, Jesus was not lying. He said this to adults responsible for their sin.
See the difference? I hope you do.
Thanks for the reply.
LikeLike
May 26, 2012 at 12:31 am
Mystro
” babies are not born sinners”
Really? How very un-christian of you to say so. I am fairly certain that the bible says people are born with original sin. That’s the whole point of the “sacrafice” of jesus. If there is no original sin, then there’s no reason to need saving at all. We would all just be born innocent, like Adam originally was in Eden and Christ would be completely useless.
So yes, according to the main crux of christianity, babies are full of original sin. Sin they can’t possibly be forgiven for as they can’t accept jebus as their savior. If babies weren’t full of original sin, then we would be living in paradise and there would be no need for christ or christianity.
Or was there some part in the bible that says original sin doesn’t enter into a person until they are an adult and can be responsible for it? I missed that part. Apparently, so did all those other people who dedicated their lives to chistianity and still thought babies go to hell.
LikeLike
May 26, 2012 at 6:29 am
Eugene Adkins
“I am fairly certain that the bible says people are born with original sin.”
Apparently you have swallowed false doctrine hook, line and sinker and are relying upon Catholics or Calvinists as your “Christian” standard.
Show me where the Bible says people are born with “original sin.”
Obviously you need to study your topic more before you attempt to rail against it because you’re railing against nothing as far as the truth goes. You’re actually doing the truth a good service because the Bible doesn’t teach what you’re going on about in your original post.
I suppose if you want talk to/accuse Catholics and Calvinists of teaching that error that’s up to you, but if you think the Bible teaches that we’re born in sin or that babies go to hell then you’re the one in error along with the others.
You see how a belief in false doctrine (total hereditary depravity) leads to another belief in false doctrine (babies receiving condemnation) all because a person doesn’t understand what the Bible really teaches; but rather relies upon what some false teaches proclaims.
“If there is no original sin, then there’s no reason to need saving at all. We would all just be born innocent, like Adam originally was in Eden and Christ would be completely useless.”
“Original sin” has nothing to with nothing to do with Jesus dying upon the cross. You obviously do not understand what the Bible teaches about sin, so I can understand how you would be confused about what the Bible teaches when it comes to being born, the sacrifice of Jesus and the judgment.
LikeLike
May 26, 2012 at 9:51 am
The Arbourist
“I suppose if you want talk to/accuse Catholics and Calvinists of teaching that error that’s up to you, but if you think the Bible teaches that we’re born in sin or that babies go to hell then you’re the one in error along with the others.”
“The first mention of the concept of Original Sin is found, not in Genesis, where the fatal event was supposed to happen, but in the fifth chapter of Romans, written by Paul. According to Paul, humanity was cursed because Adam sinned when he ate of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. As Paul puts it:
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned
(Rom. 5:12).
…or as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive
(1 Cor. 15:22).”
Okay, that out of the way. Let’s address what you say, or more to the point what you are NOT saying.
Apparently you have swallowed false doctrine hook, line and sinker…
Oh, because your particular take religion is obviously the correct one. Refuting arguments with the “No True Scotsman” dodge does not score you any points, it just illustrates your commitment to obfuscate and avoid actual argumentation.
You obviously do not understand what the Bible teaches about sin,
You obviously don’t understand how to argue. You back up your assertions with zero evidence (not out of the ordinary for the religiously deluded) but rather, mere proclamation that somehow we are supposed to accept at face value. So really, when not bringing the Scotsman fallacy, you are arguing from authority, which again in the real world tends correlate strongly with being full of nonsense.
So, rather than going around in your well worn circles, please take the time to refute the points made by the video and other posters by:
1) Answering the actual argument.
2) Be charitable and argue against the strongest version of what you disagree with.
3) Defend your assertions with reasoning and evidence.
4) Realize that if your particular brand of crazy doesn’t endorse what the video postulates; good for you! Be happy and glad that the mythology you subscribe to is slightly less insipidly irrational than others.
LikeLike
May 26, 2012 at 1:30 pm
Eugene Adkins
I’ll tell you what; I just had a discussion/conversation/debate (which ever you choose to call it) with someone about this topic not too long ago.
Here’s the link – http://fellowshiproom.org/2012/04/16/natural-born-sinner/
You can read the short article I wrote and then read the conversation that followed if you’re really interested in learning the truth about the topic. And don’t worry, the conversation covers your facetious sounding qualifiers/points that you listed.
As to your little comment about my religion being the “correct one” do you not know that Jesus taught there was such a thing as obejctive truth that sets people from…wait for it…their sins! (John 8:32). So you can be sarcastic with your subjective truth if you want, but at least learn what the Bible really teaches whether or not you choose to believe in it.
Again, I encourage you to follow the link as you will find the conversation shows how your arguments (which are really weird for a non-believer to be giving because you’re actually defending false doctrine even though you’re not supposed to care) are very weak and untrue.
Thanks for the reply though.
LikeLike
May 27, 2012 at 1:59 am
bleatmop
Must suck to have a bible that when quoted directly it eventually contradicts itself. One wonders how you divine the true parts of the bible from the false.
LikeLike
May 27, 2012 at 12:15 pm
Mystro
Eugene – “Apparently you have swallowed false doctrine”
Me? No. I don’t buy it for a second. I think it’s monstrous. It that sense, it is definitely false. In the sense that it represents some core christian tenet, it most certainly is not false.
I read your post and the comments. It is yet another shining example of bleatmop’s and Arbourist’s point. It’s just more quote mining in an effort to back up one particular version of christianity over another. Your little “Jesus taught there was such a thing as obejctive truth” does not demonstrate in any way that you are privy to this “objective truth”.
All your bible quotes don’t interest me in the slightest as they demonstrate nothing. The “Catholics and Calvinists” you rail against can quote the bible ad nauseum as well.
To borrow an observation from Sam Harris, it is impossible to use the core of a religion like jainism to incite violence, but very easy to do so with islam. This empirically demonstrates that islam is a much more violent religion than jainism, regardless of some muslims professing that their religion is one of peace.
By the same token, there are billions of catholics and other types of christians who do feel people are born sinful. That indicates that there is quite a bit in christianity to support this. Proof is in the pudding, not in your subjective view of your religion. And right now, the pudding that is christianity is beyond rancid.
I don’t care what christianity is to you. I care what it is to the world and society as a whole. You doing all you can to show that there is a little bit of pudding that isn’t covered in mold does nothing to convince me that we should not throw it out.
LikeLike
May 27, 2012 at 1:47 pm
Eugene Adkins
“>In the sense that it represents some core christian tenet, it most certainly is not false.”
I never said it wasn’t a core belief to some people’s “tenet.” What I said is that the Bible doesn’t teach that babies go to hell. If you would like to correct me on this then by all means go ahead.
“All your bible quotes don’t interest me in the slightest as they demonstrate nothing. The “Catholics and Calvinists” you rail against can quote the bible ad nauseum as well.”
This is where you fail to understand the difference in quoting scripture and in understanding it (2 Timothy 2:15). It’s really that simple. The more you talk about the Bible the more you show how little you know.
“By the same token, there are billions of catholics and other types of christians who do feel people are born sinful.”
You reference feelings, but not scripture. I have already offered the link that shows how the Bible does not teach that people are born as sinners, but as of yet I do not believe anyone has used it.
“I don’t care what christianity is to you.”
You may not, but Arbourist sure seems like he/she does or else he/she wouldn’t have taken the time to post something about a false doctrine taught in a true religion while at the same supposedly not believing in either one.
He/she said, “Like to watch Christians tie themselves in knots trying to explain/justify sending infants to burn forever? Yah..me too.”
Well, I haven’t seen myself tying any thing in a knot yet. “Babies burning in hell” doesn’t have a crux to stand on. All I have to do is show you one baby in the scriptures that went to Heaven after he died and your so called “accusation” falls on its face. Trust me, I can give you this example but I don’t know if it would even change your mind.
Have another question? I don’t mind discussing what the Bible teaches. Up to you.
LikeLike
May 27, 2012 at 2:02 pm
Eugene Adkins
“I read your post and the comments.”
I don’t know how much you read, but I did see where you visited the site. Thanks.
LikeLike
May 28, 2012 at 12:40 am
Mystro
” you fail to understand the difference in quoting scripture and in understanding it…You reference feelings, but not scripture.”
sigh. You’re doing that “other so-called-christians don’t get it, but MY interpretation of the bible is right, because of my favourite bits of scripture”.
No. It isn’t right. It’s right for you. And other christians with different favourite bits will do the exact same as you but come up with different results.
I spent a good deal of time going over a major problem that christianity is full of people going “well, they’re wrong and I’m right” and you respond by saying “well, they’re wrong and I’m right”.
Clue into the fact that your “holy” book can and has be used to justify a massive range of beliefs and behaviours, many of them contradictory.
You also ignored the empirical evidence part. If the bible didn’t lend itself to the idea that babies go to hell, then there wouldn’t be a bunch of christians that do believe just that. Just like if the koran didn’t lend itself to the glorification of martyrdom and jihad, we wouldn’t have suicide bombers.
Other religions that actually don’t lend themselves to such notions don’t have suicide bombers or believers that think babies are sinful. Your claims just don’t match up with reality, however much you figure they match up with the bible.
Arbourist did mention that if your particular brand of christianity does not involve babies as sinful creatures, then hurrah, you’ve blocked out one little bit of crazy from christianity (this was even one of the categories of believers mentioned in the video). But you saying “I’m a part of this particular percentage of theists, and I’m sure I’m right” does not redeem the religion as a whole.
“All I have to do is show you one baby in the scriptures that went to Heaven after he died and your so called “accusation” falls on its face.”
One more contradiction in the bible only further shows it to be an unreliable source of any kind of guidance.
One last time, quoting your favourite bits as “proof” is exactly what other types of christians do, they just have different favourite bits.
I would have thought an intelligent god would have, I dunno, underlined the important bits or highlighted them or something. Centuries of war, division, feuding could have been avoided. Guess that’s just one more way I’m smarter than your god.
LikeLike
May 28, 2012 at 6:32 am
Eugene Adkins
You still haven’t given me one scripture that says babies will burn in hell. Only what people think and feel. I’m still waiting. Don’t go with what the “masses” say my friend. Simply give my scripture that says what you’re saying and the conversation will be over.
But it seems as if you’re more interested in making snide remarks, disingenuous comments and sticking your fingers in your ears and saying, “I’m not listening, I’m not listening – Other people say they have the answer but I really do and I’m not going to listen to other people.”
“Jesus answered and said to them, You do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.” (Matthew 22:29)
LikeLike
May 28, 2012 at 9:20 am
Alan Scott
It’s funny that nailing Jesus to a cross did not stamp out Christianity . Feeding his followers to lions did not .All over the world other religions are murdering Christians all the time . And you little group of Atheists believe with your attacks, that you can do what everyone else has failed to do for 2,000 years . Good luck with that .
LikeLike
May 28, 2012 at 10:45 pm
Mystro
““I’m not listening, I’m not listening”
Projection much? The vid states flat out that the bible says nothing on the fate of babies, I’ve said it too. A number of times actually. Way to pay attention. This lack of clarity on the part of your holy book has been a critical problem all along, and it has been pointed out to you many times, by three different people in this thread. Read the arguments we’re actually positing, not the ones you are imagining.
LikeLike
May 28, 2012 at 10:50 pm
Mystro
“It’s funny that nailing Jesus to a cross did not stamp out Christianity”
I don’t find anything funny about crucifying anyone. That is one messed up comment.
“Good luck with that”
Reason is our only hope against mass delusion. I grant you, it’s small, but then, I never thought bettering the world would be easy.
LikeLike
May 29, 2012 at 5:48 am
Eugene Adkins
The original post says, “Like to watch Christians tie themselves in knots trying to explain/justify sending infants to burn forever? Yah..me too.”
Would you please explain to me how I have tied my self in knots trying to explain this supposed claim? That’s my whole point!
YOU said, “I am fairly certain that the bible says people are born with original sin.” and I have said the Bible doesn’t teach this and the response I get is “You’re doing that “other so-called-christians don’t get it, but MY interpretation of the bible is right, because of my favourite bits of scripture”.”
There is no interpretation about it! The BIble simply does not say anything remotely close to it no matter how badly you may want it too so you can do ridiculous posts about supposed “Christians” who follow “ideas and feelings” instead of scripture.
I say that and then I get, “All your bible quotes don’t interest me in the slightest as they demonstrate nothing.”
But still yet “bleatmop” feels pride in saying, “Must suck to have a bible that when quoted directly it eventually contradicts itself. One wonders how you divine the true parts of the bible from the false.”
Where does the Bible say this bleatmop? <strongWhere are the direct quotes? I’m still waiting.
I was told, “You obviously don’t understand how to argue.” I think it’s a little obvious who needs to take a class or two in debate.
You made a claim but the claim has never one time been substantiated other than by saying, “Or was there some part in the bible that says original sin doesn’t enter into a person until they are an adult and can be responsible for it? I missed that part. Apparently, so did all those other people who dedicated their lives to chistianity and still thought babies go to hell.”
All you want to talk about is what people think so you can feel proud and intellectually superior when it comes to what you think the Bible teaches. For example, you said, “Guess that’s just one more way I’m smarter than your god.” so don’t even try to play the “you’re calling me names, projecting and judging me card.”
You have a funny way of “reasoning.” First you say the Bible teaches that babies are going to hell (see all of your quotes above…not every single one of the quotes are your’s, I know, but the one’s about babies going to hell are) and then you try and say, “The vid states flat out that the bible says nothing on the fate of babies, I’ve said it too. A number of times actually. Way to pay attention.”
My friend, I think it’s you who needs to pay attention and show a little humility and admit when you’ve made a mistake.
I can give you scripture that shows that babies are not judged/condemned for sins they have never committed, but remember Mystro – you have to defend what you’re proclaiming. This was a post on your site and the only thing you have offered is – well, people teach it, to which I have never said they don’t…I simply said they were wrong. Would you like me to make blanket statements about you based upon what other atheists teach and think?
LikeLike
May 29, 2012 at 1:10 pm
Mystro
“Would you please explain to me how I have tied my self in knots trying to explain this supposed claim? That’s my whole point!”
You were already congratulated for not buying into this one bit of horrid doctrine, but it was also pointed out that you don’t represent all christians. Your whole point has been dealt with.
“YOU said, “I am fairly certain that the bible says people are born with original sin.” and I have said the Bible doesn’t teach this”
Arbourist gave you some passages. Look up in the comments. They have indeed taught many many christians that people are born with original sin. Again, you are mixing up your personal, subjective experience with that of christianity’s effect as a whole.
“There is no interpretation about it!”
Of course there is. I earlier mentioned the bit about jebus saying the only way to heaven was through him. You responded “He said this to adults responsible for their sin”, which demonstrates your interpretation of the meaning. Jebus doesn’t start out by saying ‘Because you are adults who are responsible for your own sins…’. No, that was all you. Straight scripture offers no caveats, exemptions, ifs, ands, or buts. Not even for babies. Then, just like you, believers in hell-bound infants say “it’s that simple, no interpretation!” Then, as babies lack the mental capacity to accept christ and that’s the only way to avoid hell, their conclusion is inescapable.
I’ve mentioned time and time again that a huge interpretation is which parts of the bible take precedence over the others. You want to know what other christians posit as their most important bits? Ask them, not me. But the evidence shows there are a lot out there that think the important bits show that babies go to hell. Again reality trumps your personal take on things.
Bleatmop: “Must suck to have a bible that when quoted directly it eventually contradicts itself.”
You: “Where does the Bible say this bleatmop? Where are the direct quotes? I’m still waiting.”
Still waiting? You never responded to bleatmop. Quick tip: you get answers a lot faster if you actually ask questions.
Anyway, this entire discussion highlights a pretty big contraction (as pointed out in the vid and by commenters to you repeatedly) but hey, if you want an easy one here is an excerpt from a site full of biblical contradictions .
Judas died how?
“And he cast down the pieces of silver into the temple and departed, and went out and hanged himself.” (MAT 27:5)
“And falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all of his bowels gushed out.” (ACT 1:18)
“I think it’s a little obvious who needs to take a class or two in debate.”
It’s been shown many times that what you think is obvious doesn’t relate to reality all that well.
“don’t even try to play the “you’re calling me names, projecting and judging me card”…”
I didn’t mention name calling or judging. Once again, you add on whatever bits you like to draw your “interpretation free” conclusions. By the way, is there a bible verse that explicitly says ‘the biblical god is smarter than the blogger mystro’ or is that another interpretation by you? I’ve offered evidence on how I’m smarter. What evidence have you that I’m not? None? I figured as much.
“First you say the Bible teaches that babies are going to hell..”
It has never been my position that it explicitly does. It is my position that it is unclear and further that it lends itself to the idea that babies go to hell. It also lends itself to the idea that they don’t (as per your quotes). How does the bible do both? Its full of contradictions. It’s very vague. How does one determine which of the two contradictory teachings the bible is leaning more towards? I look at what is learned by christians. As noted, your interpretation is in the minority.
“I can give you scripture…”
Please don’t. The stuff sickens me. I’ve mentioned to you already (numerous times) that the other versions of christianity are more than happy to give me scripture to back their claims too. I’d much rather you give me stuff that has some relevance to the real world.
“you have to defend what you’re proclaiming”
I have. You’ve just ignored most of what I’ve said. You take a little bit, add some bits of your own, create some new position, and argue against that. That is called a strawman argument. A big no-no in rational discussions.
LikeLike
May 29, 2012 at 3:59 pm
Alan Scott
Mystro ,
” I don’t find anything funny about crucifying anyone. That is one messed up comment. ”
I would think you’d be laughing hysterically . I mean just by the tenor of the anti religious themes here .
” Reason is our only hope against mass delusion. I grant you, it’s small, but then, I never thought bettering the world would be easy. ”
Human reason has it’s limitations . I argue that you and everyone else who tries to destroy Christianity only makes it stronger . The only real threat to religion is apathy .
LikeLike
May 29, 2012 at 5:21 pm
Eugene Adkins
““I can give you scripture…” to which you respond by saying, “Please don’t. The stuff sickens me. I’ve mentioned to you already (numerous times) that the other versions of christianity are more than happy to give me scripture to back their claims too. I’d much rather you give me stuff that has some relevance to the real world.”
Talk about strawman argument! You want to “talk/accuse” the Bible of saying something but you don’t want to look at it in a collective manner – you only want to pick and choose your “favorite parts” that back up what you want it to say.
Every time you accuse me of something you speak out of the other side of your mouth. And on top of that…
You said, “The vid states flat out that the bible says nothing on the fate of babies, I’ve said it too. A number of times actually. Way to pay attention.”
Then you said, “It has never been my position that it explicitly does. It is my position that it is unclear and further that it lends itself to the idea that babies go to hell.”
But first you said, “I am fairly certain that the bible says people are born with original sin. That’s the whole point of the “sacrafice” of jesus. If there is no original sin, then there’s no reason to need saving at all. We would all just be born innocent, like Adam originally was in Eden and Christ would be completely useless. So yes, according to the main crux of christianity, babies are full of original sin. Sin they can’t possibly be forgiven for as they can’t accept jebus as their savior. If babies weren’t full of original sin, then we would be living in paradise and there would be no need for christ or christianity. Or was there some part in the bible that says original sin doesn’t enter into a person until they are an adult and can be responsible for it? I missed that part.”
You can’t even make up your own mind on what you think, much less what the Bible teaches. The more you talk through your pride the more you entangle yourself in your words.
As far as your “majority trumps minority teachings so it must be true” I would encourage you to take some finagrin and read Matthew 7:13-14.
LikeLike
May 30, 2012 at 2:26 pm
Mystro
“you only want to pick and choose your “favorite parts” that back up what you want it to say…You can’t even make up your own mind on what you think”
You even quoted it in my response. The bible lends itself to the notion that babies go to hell, although it doesn’t say so explicitly. Just as elsewhere, it lends itself to the notion that they don’t, although it doesn’t say so explicitly. All you are doing is highlighting that what I actually think (which I’ve gone through great pains to explain to you) does not match up with positions you are making up and trying to pin on me.
Further, every time some believer flings scripture at me to support some position that is contrary to what some other scripture flinging believer thinks, it just supports my main position more: that the bible is unclear, contradictory, and a bad guide for anything. This goes on at a stupefyingly high rate, as evident by the 38000 or so different denominations, all claiming to be the true version of christianity. That’s why your 38001 isn’t interesting or important, and why I can disregard it without it being a strawman. Scripture only arguments is what everyone else is doing. If you want to stand out, you will have to incorporate some reality into your ideas. It’s a novel concept for christianity, I know, but give it a shot.
“As far as your “majority trumps minority teachings so it must be true” I would encourage you to take some finagrin and read Matthew 7:13-14.”
I can’t tell if you just made up a quote (that would be especially dishonest) or if you just did your usual twisting of my comments and added quotation marks to indicate a summation, rather than a quote (which would only be moderately dishonest). Either way, you should know better.
Good job ignoring most of my points, again, by the way. Nothing says ‘devoted christian’ like a head solidly planted in the sand.
Lastly, I don’t know what ‘finagrin’ is but if it comes with scripture, you can keep it to yourself
LikeLike
May 30, 2012 at 2:34 pm
Mystro
“Human reason has it’s limitations ”
Are you saying that you reject reason as a primary guiding force to determine reality? If so, it would explain a lot about your comments thus far.
LikeLike
May 30, 2012 at 2:43 pm
bleatmop
Eugene: I see you mentioned my comment in your reply to Mystro.
1. If you had actually replied to me and asked a question, then maybe you wouldn’t have had to wait so long. I have no access to any supernatural powers that might let me read your mind and know that you were waiting for me to provide quotes.
2. I’m going to go ahead and assume that the part of your comment that I’ve quoted is actually asking me to provide proof of contradictions in the bible. If I am mistaken in my assumption, then my answer is that there are no direct quotes of my first comment because the bible does not directly quote me.
3. Don’t wait for me to provide you of proof of contradictions in the bible. Do your own research. Part of being a grown up is thinking for yourself and doing your own homework. However, since I am feeling generous, let me give you a hand. This link will help get you started.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=contradictions+in+the+bible
LikeLike
May 30, 2012 at 3:43 pm
Eugene Adkins
I figured you had enough sense to know what I was talking about in the context of the conversation of this page. I have stayed on topic, but the same can’t be said for others so maybe I can understand your confusion.
You made a comment about the topic at hand and the Bible being contradictory. Neither you, mystro or arbourist have given one verse that shows that the Bible contradicts itself when it comes to babies and burning and hell or going to heaven. As a matter of fact, not one verse has been given to support the original post’s title…only feelings and thoughts.
That’s exactly what I meant when I said, “I’m still waiting.” The “great and wise” mystro can only contradict himself with his statements about what the Bible teaches when it comes to babies and condemnation so maybe you can educate me.
LikeLike
May 30, 2012 at 8:10 pm
Alan Scott
Mystro,
” Are you saying that you reject reason as a primary guiding force to determine reality? If so, it would explain a lot about your comments thus far. ”
Not at all . My point is simply that time and the universe are infinite . Any human, even one as brilliant as yourself, is limited in his mental capacity and his time to learn and understand the reality he is born into . What little we do know, we take with us when we die, unless there is a greater reality to go to .
Hamlet :
” There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy “
LikeLike
May 31, 2012 at 12:30 am
bleatmop
In this dialogue that is a text only forum I no longer try to interpret what someone is saying without clarification. I may have been assuming wrong, therefore the qualifiers on my statement.
I’m not going to bother debating you on Mystro’s and Arb’s arguments. They have presented their cases clearly, although you beg to differ on that point. You contend that under your version of Christianity that babies do not go to hell. Good on you, one less disgusting belief in the world.
I’m also not going to spend any amount of time trying to educate you on the subject. That’s your job. The information is out there and you can choose to read it and evaluate its merits for yourself. My only question is what level of evidence would it take to change your mind on the whole god thing. If you have a reasonable standard, assuming that you would be willing to change you mind, then perhaps I could help direct you to said evidence, to the best of my ability. If not, then it would basically be wasting my time here, and that’s not something I’m willing to do.
LikeLike
May 31, 2012 at 12:33 am
bleatmop
Translation: We can’t know everything, therefore I’m going to say Goddidit and call it good. All that learning stuff is hard work.
LikeLike
May 31, 2012 at 10:36 am
Alan Scott
bleatmop ,
Back in the bad old days, the dark ages, you atheists were running around pillaging Europe . Learning and culture was kept alive by Christian Monks.
Right now you Atheists are all about science and learning . Well good for you . So are we . We just believe there is more . That everything does not die when we leave this earth . You on the other hand lose all you ever knew . The next Atheist born starts at square one .
LikeLike
June 2, 2012 at 11:57 am
Mystro
“you atheists were running around pillaging Europe”
Any citation that this behaviour was particular to atheists?Nope Nope.
Yet another baseless demonization? Yup yup!
“The next Atheist born starts at square one”
Yes. That’s why each and every child needs education. They need to be taught. By the way, all newborns are atheists.
LikeLike
June 2, 2012 at 12:17 pm
Eugene Adkins
“By the way, all newborns are atheists.”
You’re right. They both know nothing! But only one is innocent!
I jest. Couldn’t pass it up :)
LikeLike
June 2, 2012 at 12:39 pm
Eugene Adkins
Well, I jest with one comment, but I’m serious with the other.
LikeLike
June 2, 2012 at 9:22 pm
Alan Scott
Mystro ,
Since newborns cannot communicate their thoughts on religion, how do you know they deny the existance of God ? Maybe they are Mormons . Yes I believe all babies are born Mormons and then suffer amnesia and forget their religion unless taught it as they get older .
I want to see you prove me wrong .
LikeLike
June 3, 2012 at 11:24 am
Mystro
” I believe all babies are born Mormons and then suffer amnesia”
That is some crazy shit. Look into some basic developmental psychology. There is tons on what babies are capable of and religiosity is simply out of their mental scope.
“I want to see you prove me wrong”
Not my job. You are the one coming up with outrageous claims. Demonstrate anything to support them, then we’ll talk.
LikeLike
June 3, 2012 at 11:43 am
Mystro
“You’re right. They both know nothing! But only one is innocent!”
You’ve gone from ignoring / misrepresenting points against you to completely disregarding the conversation in favour of cheap insults. Congratulations, you’ve achieved a new level of a intellectual dishonesty.
LikeLike
June 3, 2012 at 1:30 pm
The Arbourist
Since dolphins cannot communicate their thoughts on religion, how do you know THEY deny the existence of God? Could you prove me wrong too? :)
LikeLike
June 3, 2012 at 1:42 pm
Eugene Adkins
Congratulations, you’ve achieved a new level of not understanding what “jest” means. Like the comment about “finagrin” that you didn’t understand, when it comes to “jest” why don’t you just Google the definition of the words.
Like I said, I was jesting with one of my comments, but I was serious with the other – and when you figure which is which then you’ll understand that I wasn’t ignoring or misrepresenting any points.
LikeLike
June 3, 2012 at 6:51 pm
Alan Scott
Mystro ,
” Not my job. You are the one coming up with outrageous claims. ”
Wrong . You said and I quote, , , , ” By the way, all newborns are atheists. ”
My claim that all babies are born Mormons has as much validity as your claim they are born Atheists . That was my point . I was ridiculous to illustrate that your statement was unprovable .
The Arbourist ,
You are absolutely right that I can’t prove you wrong . Since dolphins have never been observed praying I concede dolphins are most probably Atheists . Pretty clever of you to pick Flipper as your poster animal for Atheism . The fish was the symbol for early Christians. Dolphins eat fish .
,
LikeLike
June 4, 2012 at 12:05 am
Mystro
“My claim that all babies are born Mormons has as much validity as your claim they are born Atheists”
No, your claim would as valid as someone saying that, from birth, babies are smarter than Aristotle, Einstein, and Hawking rolled together, but have to battle a member of the mental assassination spirit squad, which impedes them from displaying their superior intellect. The battle goes on for about a year, the baby all the while with enough know how to fix all the world’s problems, but stifled by the MASS. The baby invariably defeats the MASS but is left mentally crippled by the ordeal. Hence our requirement to teach them all over again. The fact that none of this is observable proves the awesome power of MASS, and the fact that they are eventually beaten every time shows just how brilliant babies are before they do battle with MASS.
That is, your claim is as valid as anything else someone decides to pull out of their arse.
Whereas the claim that newborns don’t know who or what they are yet (much less the dogmas of any particular religion) is a fairly well studied subject.
LikeLike