I’m starting to think that too.
It doesn’t make any difference what the doctor can say. The doctor can say all she wants, but she might well lose the argument in the mind of her audience (the patient). And it would not be a legitimate loss. If I was that doctor, I would try to keep away from that type of discussion rather than relying on being able to answer as you propose.
Well if it was taken from Svt4Him’s website maybe you would have a point. Maybe. But as it is…
I disagree with Izzy’s analogy. If someone is talking about Hell, they are talking about eternal torture. There is no other way to think of it than in the worst way possible. “Hell” is essentially a euphemism for torture. That’s the only meaning that it has. It’s disingenuous to say that X goes to Hell and then refuse to deal with the emotional significance of that statement.
What if we were talking about Auschwitz but acted all offended if anyone brought up gas chambers and ovens? That’s what Auschwitz was. It’s disingenuous to shy away from the horrific details and just focus on sterile, unemotional word.
It’s the same with Hell. If a person says that X goes to Hell and Hell = eternal torture then it’s only fair to skip past the word “Hell” and make that person confront the notion of eternal torture. It’s fair to ask about. Ben didn’t invent the concept of Hell he’s just trying to get people to think about how absurdly evil such a concept really is. He’s using shock to get people to really examine it.
Does a woman who has already suffered unimaginably in life really deserve eternal torture after death? Fundies need to stand up and answer that question.
When I go to a Jewish forum and declare that the Holocaust never happened, then you can say I’m baiting people for the hell of it.
When I go to a religious forum and give a detailed description of what fundies believe, then I’m letting people see that oftentimes the fundies’ beliefs are so repulsive that even the fundies won’t stand up for them. If it weren’t for me, fundies would still yammer on about Jews being tormented in hell but it would all be an abstration, vaguely distressing at the most.
You don’t like my post? Fine. You shouldn’t have read it. You should have quit early, rather than reading it through. I even added a spoiler tag to cover the upsetting parts! And yet, you don’t thank me for taking efforts to avoid offending you.
Let me quote from my original post:
**
You complain about my graphic description of rape, but where’s the outrage at Svt4Him for believing in eternal rape? All I did was put Svt4Him’s beliefs into words.
Anyone else find this extremely funny?
“real implications”?? as in “some nice people will go to hell”?? frankly it doesn’t take a fundementalist take on life to get there. IIRC, Lutheran belief was that **only by ** being baptised and believing shall ye be saved. so, yes, in that scenario too, Miriam would go to hell.
the problem is, as Izzy points out, that nice people do not like to think of bad things happening to other nice people. Hence, the fundementalists strong desire to convert.
This is, not in and of itself, a bad thing. Of course, bad things are done in that vein.
Fuck that. Just because an argument provokes an emotional response in some people does not mean that it is without logical justification. It is by examining the most difficult, emotionally sensitive areas of a debate that we can find out how consistent people are willing to be when they try to make logical arguments. Ben’s post did exactly that.
I remember having my eyes opened in this way when i first read some of Peter Singer’s work on the ethics of treating animals differently from humans. Many of Singer’s arguments push emotional buttons, but they also force one to think more closely about things that are often taken for granted.
For example, some people argue that killing animals is OK because they don’t have consciousness of their own existence and their future life in the way that people do. Singer argues that, using this argument, it would be acceptable to kill babies and people in comas, because their sense of their own existence is no greater than that of most animals.*
As i’ve argued elsewhere, i think that Singer’s hyper-rational approach tends to place too little emphasis on the visceral, emotional issues that are so important here. Just because we can construct rational arguments about why we should treat animals and humans the same does not mean that we can easily ignore centuries of habit and custom. Singer, however, helps us separate the rational from the emotional.
Ben’s post did a similar thing, but in a different way. He injected excess emotionalism in an effort to test the limits of Svt4Him’s logical arguments. A reasonable debating tactic, IMO.
*Very simplified argument, in order to save space. I didn’t want this turning into a debate over animal rights.
It’s not a bad thing for a brainwashing cult to gain new converts?
you are of course, putting a value judgement on their religion with that view. I’m not saying it’s inaccurate, but it’s rather disingenuous of you to suggest that you’re ‘merely’ providing a logical argument in the case, when it’s clear that you also have an agenda.
FTR- I’m not now, nor ever have been a fundementalist Christian.
I don’t know that it’s sleazy. It is repetitive, though; that’s the third time I’ve seen Ben post that grim description.
Christians have a much longer history of describing Hell than atheists do, don’t they?
Actually, if anything, Ben’s description of Hell is probably much more pleasant than the real thing (if it exists). I have to assume Hell contains torments which couldn’t even be conceived by living humans. However bad we think it is, it’s worse.
I believe S4H’s point about the Ten Commandments is, apart from Christ, any violation results in hell. Even virtuous Miriam couldn’t have been perfectly virtuous, ergo, apart from Christ, it’s hell for her. Ben is trying to get S4H to admit this, in the face of a graphic description of the results of S4H’s philosophy. And S4H is indeed weaseling. Fred Phelps has a certain awful integrity when he doesn’t shy away from talking about Hell for all unbelievers. S4H, if he believes as Phelps does in the matter of Hell for unbelievers, might as well admit it; he’d lose points for compassion but gain points for honesty. That’s the bind Ben has him in.
I don’t see the problem with forcing the Hell-for-all-unbelievers camp to own up to their own reality. And if God is just, they ought to rejoice in his justice, and in Miriam’s eternal torment.
True, S4H can’t know the state of the souls of the Jews in the Holocaust. But it’s a very safe bet that few of them were followers of Christ. If not following Christ = hell, and most Jews don’t follow Christ, then indeed most Holocaust victims (setting aside the non-Jews and the few Christian Jews) are in Hell. S4H is afraid to admit this, and I’d guess he’s compassionate enough to not really want this to happen. But there’s a conflict in his belief system. You can’t be more compassionate than your own God.
Perhaps S4H could use this as an opportunity to make us see that Hell is a just punishment for everyone there. But I doubt he actually believes this. He’s in a pickle.
This makes no sense whatsoever. People make logical arguments because they have agendas. Otherwise there would be no need to argue.
I disagree.
and the word ‘merely’ was in quotation marks for a reason.
Guinistasia, you gross out way too easily. Ben’s description is certainly graphic, but it’s no more so than Dante’s depiction of the torments suffered by the damned in the Inferno.
Frankly, I believe that fundamentalists need to have the tenets of their wicked faith exposed to the light instead of covered up in sterile language.
Fundamentalists like Svt4Him worship a being that delights in torturing people in hideous ways for all eternity for the most trivial offenses, like being born in a Muslim nation and never hearing the Gospel, or being a Catholic, or being gay. Fundies are as depraved as the most infernal of devil worshippers, IMO, because the Satanist and the fundie both look forward to their enemies writhing in eternal pain and suffering.
I don’t think this is true. I’m not Catholic, but it is my understanding that the current official Catholic take on hell is that it is not eternal torture, except insofar as eternal seperation from god can be considered “torture”. It would be pretty bad to spend eternity sad and lonely, but that’s nothing like the scenario in the OP. Now, Svt4Him is not Catholic and may have a very different idea of hell, but that’s just it – there are different ideas of hell. You can’t just make up a description of hell and expect Christians to defend it.
Actually, separation from God carries all sorts of shudder-inducing philosophical/theological implications…
If you believe God to be the source of all goodness, you’re talking about a place of no warmth, no light, no contact with others, absolutely nothing of any comfort, whatsoever, for eternity.
Then again, my pastor has taught me the concept of God dispensing BOTH infinite justice AND infinite mercy. Fundies, atheists and others point to that as a logical disconnect which bolsters their respective positions. But calling it a logical disconnect illustrates the futility of trying to fit God into the human construct of ‘logic’.
Personally, I’d go so far as to say that MOST of the wrongs perpetrated by Christians were committed due to a line of ‘logic’ being pursued, rather than truly being in full accord with God’s Word.
P’raps the best question to ask Svt4Him is whether he believes in a God of infinite justice, or infinite mercy. I, for one, am truly curious as to his answer.
It’s not true of Catholics or of a lot of mainstream Christians. I (and Ben) are addressing only the very narrow segment of Christian fundamentalists who do believe this way. Svt4Him is one of them.
Wrong, so very wrong. I know your intellect, Gobear. Quote me chapter and verse where God demonstrates “delight in torturing people in hideous ways for all eternity”. If Jesus, on 11 occasions in the Gospels, speaks of the dangers of hell, where do you presume that anyone should do other than take him at His word? Or pretend he was only joking, for pete’s sake? I find myself increasingly frustrated by the willful ignorance displayed here. God at no point in scripture declares those born in Muslim nations, having never heard the Gospel, as some sort of prime candidate for hellfire. We don’t know God’s provision for those never hearing the word. We know the provision as laid out by God Himself for those having heard the word, then turning away and rejecting Him. But that sounds more like self-inflicted judgment. As to your inclusion of gays as a “trivial ofense”, I am as always, thankful that judgment is not in my hands.
I take absolutely no delight in anyone suffering an eternal torment. I couldn’t even view Ben’s OP in its entirety because I am all too aware there are far too many horrors in this life which I find impossible to deal with calmly. Don’t cast aspersions because you find the Gospel unpleasant, Gobear. God Almighty has given us His word for instruction. Those who chose to ignore and defy God should, fairness in advertising and all that, be given some indication of the price to be paid, won’t you agree? For those so arrogant as to insist that any “true” God wouldn’t punish those who “can’t” believe in Him, well, consider the source of such reason. Man can hardly declare himself competent to argue with God, yet such he does.
Not for nothing, Tygr, but if Svt4him’s posts to date are anything to go by, here’s what you’ll get:
The problem with your argument, NaSultainne is that you presume there is a way to tell the difference between the word of God and the word of man.
If my personal conscience conflicts with the purported “word of God,” what should I follow?
My problem with NaSultainne’s point is that it reminds me of Mr. Blonde explaining all those shootings in the jewellry store. “If they hadn’t’ve done what I told them not to do, all those people’d still be alive”.
It makes sense in a limited way, but once you step back and look at a larger perspective the problems start to mount.