Should unbelievers be punished? Why?

[unknown soldier]

Why should unbelievers be punished for not believing what Christians claim? In what way is skepticism regarding the claims of Christ morally wrong?

[DavidLeon]

I would much prefer atheists be able to speak their mind and be heard with no discrimination. That's the way I live my life. In my circle of family and friends only me and my mother are theists and we are far more likely to be harassed by the atheists than we are to harass them. Militant atheists have a victim mentality very much different than the majority of atheists. It's pathetic. But get a bunch of them on a forum like AD and they are blindingly vengeful and spiteful little children. The way they deceive themselves is remarkable. I see some of that in you, but you are somewhat more civil about it.

I do like to have fun with them, though. One of my most recent and enjoyable excursions - you'll love this and report back to them, most likely - was, you may remember Ima Believer.

[DavidLeon]

I've read The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions by David Berlinski. I'm skeptical that he's really an atheist, though. I think it's more likely that Berlinski is a paid troll posing as an atheist.

I like Berlinski. I think he's agnostic but it isn't really about religion with him. He's a mischievous antagonist. He likes upsetting the cart and right now the cart is owned by scientific atheism. If it were still owned by apostate theism he, like me, would be upsetting that cart.

They were unable to have any meaningful or intelligent discussion.

Maybe that's because I wasn't there.

I like you, soldier. You remind me of the old school atheists.

It's not about convincing anyone of anything.

We all know that Christians aren't trying to convince anybody. Who cares about that "great commission" anyway?

Honestly, I think the militant atheist victim is living in the past. Specifically prior to the mid 1800's. Christians don't talk about their religion in real life. They don't proselytize, except for the JW's and Mormons. The "great commission" as a reward for spreading the gospel is a product of your overactive imagination.

The rapture of course is nonsense...

Why stop there? Conclude that it's all nonsense, and save yourself some time.

Because it isn't. The flat earth, young earth, immortal soul, trinity, hell, cross, rapture, good Christians go to heaven, Christmas and Easter are nonsense. The Bible doesn't teach any of that.

The Christians got bored.

They got bored with the great commission. Why waste time with all that dull evangelizing when you can be playing Call of Duty?

... better look that up ... interesting. A World War II themed first person shooter reference by an atheist who goes by the name unknown soldier criticizing Christians who play the game. Is this a thing with Christians these days or a commentary on the political meddling of Christendom?

The militant atheist war isn't on God, Christians, The Bible or anything like that. It's on society. The militant atheists are a very small but loud portion of atheism. They are socially and politically frustrated because they live in a religiosity. God, Christians and the Bible are just smokescreens.

Godless people tend to wage war on society. If we can get them to believe in Thor, then they'd be real sweeties!

Godless people don't wage war on society they are society. If you can get the Christians to believe in evolution then we would see, well, this ...

[unknown soldier]

I like Berlinski. I think he's agnostic but it isn't really about religion with him. He's a mischievous antagonist. He likes upsetting the cart...

I'm not a big fan of Berlinsi's. He tries to be funny but doesn't quite get there. All he does is insult people who disagree with him. For example, he referred to Victor Stenger as a "lunatic" just because Stenger explained that quantum tunneling is a via model of the universe that requires nothing else than the universe. Of course, Berlinski and his Christian compatriots cannot tolerate any science that "has no need for that (Christian God) hypothesis." Victor Stenger was a very good and qualified physicist, and he was no lunatic.

...and right now the cart is owned by scientific atheism.

Science and technology has grown in leaps and bounds ever since Darwin's Theory unceremoniously kicked theology out of science where theology never should have been in the first place. Now, I don't know if I can necessarily credit atheism for the amazing advancements in science, but it hasn't hurt science either.

If it were still owned by apostate theism he, like me, would be upsetting that cart.

How can you tell the difference between "apostate theism" and "true theism," and how do you explain that your theism falls into the latter category?

The "great commission" as a reward for spreading the gospel is a product of your overactive imagination.

The "great commission" appears in Matthew 28 (NRSV):

16 Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. 17 When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.

The Christian church has traditionally interpreted this passage as a commandment to all Christians to spread the gospel.

So you are wrong that Christians "don't talk about their religion in real life."

Because it isn't. The flat earth, young earth, immortal soul, trinity, hell, cross, rapture, good Christians go to heaven, Christmas and Easter are nonsense. The Bible doesn't teach any of that.

A case can be made for most of the items on your list appearing in the Bible. The Trinity, for example, is in the passage from Matthew 28 that I quoted above: "...the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit..."

... better look that up ... interesting. A World War II themed first person shooter reference by an atheist who goes by the name unknown soldier criticizing Christians who play the game.

Dave, your reading comprehension is amazing creating words I never posted. I never criticized Christians for playing Call of Duty. I teased you joking that if Christians don't bother to evangelize because it's boring, then they might have more fun playing video games.

Is this a thing with Christians these days or a commentary on the political meddling of Christendom?

I don't understand this question. What does playing Call of Duty have to do with "political meddling"?

Godless people don't wage war on society they are society.

We're part of society.

If you can get the Christians to believe in evolution then we would see, well, this ...

Very funny. We know that new atheism is having an impact on society when it's mocked on South Park.

Just for the record, though, I don't know of any new atheist who espouses scientism, but their critics keep accusing them of espousing scientism.

[Willum]

Sorry, that is your opinion about your myth.
People like the Pope and many other people who preach obviously closer to God in time or education, disagree with you.
I can see no reason to take your word about the myth, over their word about the myth.

Really? Well, here's a free thought for such a remarkably astute critical thinker. Look it up. Do a little research for yourself. Start with, uh . . . Wadi er-Rababi (Ge Ben Hinnom)

Sadly,I have researched most religions, religious variations, and most myths and folktales. What part of your mythology do you think I am mything?

[koko]

Why should unbelievers be punished for not believing what Christians claim? In what way is skepticism regarding the claims of Christ morally wrong?

There wouldn't be unbelievers if Christians actually practiced the promises made in the New Testament. After all, it is the doers, not the hearers who are blessed: Romans 2:13 & James 1:23. Therefore, let us see the promised miracles taking place right now out in the open in full view of the universe. If professing Christians fail to do so, then let them be punished instead of the unbelievers.

[DavidLeon]

Science and technology has grown in leaps and bounds ever since Darwin's Theory unceremoniously kicked theology out of science where theology never should have been in the first place. Now, I don't know if I can necessarily credit atheism for the amazing advancements in science, but it hasn't hurt science either.

It seems to me, just offhand, that theology should never have been a part of science, but perhaps the influence is only to have been expected. Theology, as destructive and poorly maintained as it was, developed higher education and science as well as laying the foundation for Western Culture. I'm not so sure that it's removal had an overall effect over advancements though, because such a thing is difficult to say. It could have been that the opposite were true. Unless you have a time machine it's difficult to say, especially considering the possible future.

How can you tell the difference between "apostate theism" and "true theism," and how do you explain that your theism falls into the latter category?

The church adopted pagan (outside) influences which distorted the meaning of the Bible. Apostate theism is theism that abandoned the true teachings. For example, the immortal soul was a product of Alexander the Great's influence on Jewish thinking after his conquest in 332 BCE. The same for Constantine the Great's influence on Christianity beginning in 325 CE. If the Christians noted that most pagan religions around them incorporated some version of the trinity or the mother-goddess in order to entice to conversion with familiarity the reluctant pagan devotee.

Veneration of the mother of God received its impetus when the Christian Church became the imperial church under Constantine and the pagan masses streamed into the church. . . . Their piety and religious consciousness had been formed for millennia through the cult of the 'great mother' goddess and the 'divine virgin,' a development that led all the way from the old popular religions of Babylonia and Assyria.

The "great commission" appears in Matthew 28 (NRSV):

16 Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. 17 When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.

The Christian church has traditionally interpreted this passage as a commandment to all Christians to spread the gospel.

Yes, but you implied a reward meaning, I assume, a ticket to heaven? That's what I was referring to.

So you are wrong that Christians "don't talk about their religion in real life."

Well, no I'm not. According to a Barna survey the reasons for it are:

Religious conversations always seem to create tension or arguments: 28%
I’m not religious and don’t care about these kinds of topics: 23%
I’m put off by how religion has been politicized: 17%
I don’t feel like I know enough to talk about religious or spiritual topics: 17%
I don’t want to be known as a religious person: 7%
I don’t know how to talk about religious or spiritual topics without sounding weird: 6%
I’m afraid people will see me as a fanatic or extremist: 5%
I’m embarrassed by the way religious language has been used in popular culture: 5%
I’ve been hurt by religious conversations in the past: 4%
Religious language and jargon feels cheesy or outdated: 4%

Because it isn't. The flat earth, young earth, immortal soul, trinity, hell, cross, rapture, good Christians go to heaven, Christmas and Easter are nonsense. The Bible doesn't teach any of that.

A case can be made for most of the items on your list appearing in the Bible. The Trinity, for example, is in the passage from Matthew 28 that I quoted above: "...the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit..."

A case can be made for anything. The Bible indicates quite clearly that the Father and son are not the same. The son was created. The Holy Spirit isn't a person it's an impersonal force.

... better look that up ... interesting. A World War II themed first person shooter reference by an atheist who goes by the name unknown soldier criticizing Christians who play the game.

Dave, your reading comprehension is amazing creating words I never posted. I never criticized Christians for playing Call of Duty. I teased you joking that if Christians don't bother to evangelize because it's boring, then they might have more fun playing video games.

You said: "Why waste time with all that dull evangelizing when you can be playing Call of Duty?" Since I was a kid I've always looked at every possible meaning of anything said to me for two reasons. 1. People often speak from an emotional rather than rational perspective and 2. Many people think in pictures rather than words. I remember when I was 7 or 8 my dad telling me that democrats are for the poor and republicans are for the rich. What a patently absurd remark and obviously untrue.

Interestingly, last night I deleted this forum from my favorites deciding not to do this ever again. I don't watch TV and I would rather play my old Play Station 2 games for entertainment. I don't think that evangelism is important in the culture and time in which I live. It may still be necessary in undeveloped parts of the world but not where everyone already knows and have made a choice in the matter.

Is this a thing with Christians these days or a commentary on the political meddling of Christendom?

I don't understand this question. What does playing Call of Duty have to do with "political meddling"?

Christendom has a bloody history. In World War I and II Christians were killing Christians for political reasons. Nationality has always had an important part in opposition to true Christianity.

[DavidLeon]

Sorry, that is your opinion about your myth.
People like the Pope and many other people who preach obviously closer to God in time or education, disagree with you.
I can see no reason to take your word about the myth, over their word about the myth.

Really? Well, here's a free thought for such a remarkably astute critical thinker. Look it up. Do a little research for yourself. Start with, uh . . . Wadi er-Rababi (Ge Ben Hinnom)

Sadly,I have researched most religions, religious variations, and most myths and folktales. What part of your mythology do you think I am mything?

It's not that you're missing (mything; cute) it, it's that you suggest an appeal to authority rather than truth. Hell is a pagan myth adopted by the apostate church. The church doesn't deny this. It's pretty well documented.

[Willum]

[Replying to DavidLeon in post #88]

Appeal to authority, that’s cute.

So you deny the Pope, the Bible, the Torah, when it disagrees with your authority?

I am seriously confused.
Except for, the Bible, the head of Catholicism, etc., what other superior reference is there, assuming I don’t recognize your opinion as being canon?

I also assume science is off limits according to you as well.

So? What else is there?

[otseng]

Militant atheists have a victim mentality very much different than the majority of atheists. It's pathetic. But get a bunch of them on a forum like AD and they are blindingly vengeful and spiteful little children. The way they deceive themselves is remarkable. I see some of that in you, but you are somewhat more civil about it.

Moderator Warning


Please avoid making negative comments about groups and especially other posters.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[unknown soldier]

It seems to me, just offhand, that theology should never have been a part of science, but perhaps the influence is only to have been expected. Theology, as destructive and poorly maintained as it was, developed higher education and science as well as laying the foundation for Western Culture.

Actually, theology is completely unnecessary to develop science, education, and culture. In fact, it was culture that developed theology. We know from the history of civilization that all the world's religions are unique to and emerged from distinct cultures in various places and times. No God universally originated in all the cultures of the world. The God you believe in, for example, originated in Israel around 1,000 BCE. He was not known in any other place until missionaries exported him. These facts demonstrate that gods are the creation of people and not the other way around. I call this phenomenon "the geography of the gods."

I'm not so sure that it's removal had an overall effect over advancements though, because such a thing is difficult to say. It could have been that the opposite were true. Unless you have a time machine it's difficult to say, especially considering the possible future.

I think removing theology from science helped to advance science. To paraphrase physicist Victor Stenger, science discards beliefs when the evidence doesn't support those beliefs. Religion discards evidence when that evidence doesn't support the religion's beliefs. In other words, science--at least ideally--goes with the evidence. Religion, by contrast, clings to its beliefs no matter how wrong those beliefs prove to be. There's no place for such nonsense in science.

The church adopted pagan (outside) influences which distorted the meaning of the Bible. Apostate theism is theism that abandoned the true teachings. For example, the immortal soul was a product of Alexander the Great's influence on Jewish thinking after his conquest in 332 BCE. The same for Constantine the Great's influence on Christianity beginning in 325 CE. If the Christians noted that most pagan religions around them incorporated some version of the trinity or the mother-goddess in order to entice to conversion with familiarity the reluctant pagan devotee.

You're not demonstrating that anything here is false but only that Christians have been influenced by pagans. Pagans are not necessarily wrong. You also seem to be unaware that much of the Bible if not all of it was influenced by pagan religions.

Yes, but you implied a reward meaning, I assume, a ticket to heaven? That's what I was referring to.

Earlier you posted that Christians don't talk about their religion. That's clearly wrong.

Well, no I'm not. According to a Barna survey the reasons for it are:

Religious conversations always seem to create tension or arguments: 28%
I’m not religious and don’t care about these kinds of topics: 23%
I’m put off by how religion has been politicized: 17%
I don’t feel like I know enough to talk about religious or spiritual topics: 17%
I don’t want to be known as a religious person: 7%
I don’t know how to talk about religious or spiritual topics without sounding weird: 6%
I’m afraid people will see me as a fanatic or extremist: 5%
I’m embarrassed by the way religious language has been used in popular culture: 5%
I’ve been hurt by religious conversations in the past: 4%
Religious language and jargon feels cheesy or outdated: 4%

You've posted some interesting statistics here that only demonstrate that many Christians hesitate to talk about their religion especially with skeptics. Some Christians still evangelize, of course.

A case can be made for anything.

Yes, and I made a really good case that the Trinity has a Biblical basis.

The Bible indicates quite clearly that the Father and son are not the same. The son was created. The Holy Spirit isn't a person it's an impersonal force.

Created or not, Jesus could still be a member of the Trinity. Also, in John 14:26 Jesus says of the Holy Spirit:

But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything, and remind you of all that I have said to you.

How can an "impersonal force" teach?

Christendom has a bloody history. In World War I and II Christians were killing Christians for political reasons. Nationality has always had an important part in opposition to true Christianity.

You are very lucky that you've figured out what true Christianity is. No doubt you have succeeded in that effort reading the Bible the way you read my posts and equating pagan beliefs with falsehoods.