Brainwashing of Theists - 2 - What about our LIVING loved ones?

[southernhybrid]

 

[Elixir]

View attachment 49991

You know you’re risking eternal torture, right?

 

[southernhybrid]

View attachment 49991

You know you’re risking eternal torture, right?

Hell for the company. Heaven for the climate, as Mark Twain once said.

 

[Learner]

That you lead with a weak source, and take pains to paint that source as far stronger than it actually is, undermines your position. Your choice therefore either shows you to be awful at debating, or wrong, or both.

Sure, ignore his credentials.

What were the particular points of Ramsay's findings did you disagree with again?

This was the last line of the post you were responding too, but the question was omitted without a response to it, as we see below.

Here we have it, the 101 Ad Hominem special, how to avoid a question. Post no less than 10 paragraphs purely about the poster. Such effort but very poor argument.

I notice these things.. just to give you a heads up for your next responding posts.

Perhaps like the above, it all depends on the biases of either side.

It really doesn't.

Non-Christian historians have no reason or motive to ignore Luke, if he is in fact a first class historian.

So if he is, we should see lots of non-Christians saying so.

He became an apologist a little later when everyone was a fan of his works.

Unless you have a persecution complex, and believe that all non-Christians are anti-Christians, who would ignore Luke regardless of how "first class" he is as an historian.

His works are used for historical and archeological reference but obviously we won't expect them to take Luke 'whole' since Luke also writes about Jesus as believer.

So what issues do you have with his findings?

You seem to be making that mistaken assumption - that historians are in one of two camps, one of Christians, and one opposed to anything that might support a Christian position.

In some cases yes. We see today historian/scholars debating all the time!

...and Ramsays findings?

But the reality is that most historians are in a third camp - they couldn't care less about Christianity; Their sole focus is determining what events actually occurred in history, and what events are make-believe, tall-tales, inaccurate recountings, or just generally muddled and incomplete.

Who says it has to be 100% an interest in Christianity for scholars. Not sure who's making the argument or why you think there is one there. It certainly not me. Looks like it's just a filler part for your post for Xtra added deflection effect.

You claimed (or worse, passed on unquestioningly someone else's claim) that an atheist had lauded Like as a first class historian. That would be more impressive if it had been more than one historian; And if it had actually been an atheist, it would also have been more persuasive. As it turns out, it's a manipulative untruth.

It would be more impressive if you could pinpoint your issues with Ramsay's claim about Luke.

So much effort in your more important line regarding Atheist or non-atheist.

So you have been demonstrated to have been disseminating at best inaccurate, and at worst outright false, claims. But rather than admit your error, you instead engaged in a false dichotomy fallacy - or perhaps just a persecution complex.

Your case was FAR stronger before you posted it, and gets weaker with every response you post.

You are coming across as someone who was so absolutely convinced by a terrible argument made by someone else, that you posted it here, expecting it to be a slam-dunk; And when called on it, you had insufficient understanding of the subject to defend the claim in any way.

What was it that you disagree with in Ramsay's archeological and historical findings?

Why, given this, would you expect anyone to take you seriously? Why do you continue to take your (demonstrably unreliable) sources seriously? They keep dropping you in it - telling you stuff that only the gullible would believe, and thereby setting you up to once again look a fool when you parrot their nonsense.

You seriously need to reconsider your choices of who to trust

I wouldn't trust just anyone's opinions.

Getting advice about 'who to reconsider in my choices' when the adviser avoids a simple question by creating a post structured with a '12 paragraph deflection' ... wouldn't be among those choices.

Still no opinion on Ramsays findings, so there was no real worthwhile argument in the first place then?

Unless, of course, you are in fact an anti-Christian agent-provocateur, who is here trying to make Christians look foolish. In which case, well done, you are an absolute master of your craft.

Me me me... it's all about....um ok, I do feel a little bit special being the focus, so I highlighted the 'you' and 'your' words in bold.

(No argument refuting Ramsays findings here in the last section either.
No worries)

 

[southernhybrid]

 

[Ramaraksha]

There could be invisible aliens looking down on us or invisible dragons the size of earth looking down on us
One can make up anything - how about the tooth fairy, leprechauns, big foot etc?

...or reincarnation?

There is no evidence for God, Heaven & Hell or Reincarnation
These are IDEAS - people trying to make sense of the world around them
Heaven is the idea that we can run away from REAL LIFE & leave all our problems behind
That is what George Bailey of the "It's a Wonderful life" fame was going to do
God forgives him, he gets to live the easy good life in Heaven! yay!
Forget that his family is homeless, his children going to bed hungry, their futures destroyed, his towns peoples' futures destroyed!
Care no more about others, only care about your own happiness - self-gratification!
.
Reincarnation is the idea that running away from our problems is not a good idea
God is not a Sugar Daddy harboring cowards, freeloaders who see him as their ticket to an eternal life of ease & comfort
Reincarnation is saying THIS IS IT! THERE IS ONLY ONE WORLD! THIS ONE!
Reincarnation is saying God needs you down here - much to do - fight for a better world!
Think beyond your own self - stop being greedy about pleasures of the flesh - self-gratification
Think of your family and so many families in need!
Walk in God's Footsteps! wow!

Life is here & only here and by here I mean this Universe - all these galaxies, planets
And nowhere in this huge universe will you find a Sugar Daddy being taking care of his freeloaders
Unless that freeloader is a pet -a Dog, a Cat - or a sheep, Pig
That is what Reincarnation is saying - that those who chase after Heaven will end up as our Pets
You will get your Heaven but at a horrible cost!

Jesus of the NT (and all the comes connected with it) is my validator.

Now . who's yours for reincarnation?

Will you answer?

??? Typo? I do not understand the question

You are here to have people in agreement with you as allies, the idea to rally against the Christian faith whilst trying to portray your own faith very different, in that you think atheists would see a kinder perspective to Reincarnation as being the better faith.

It's not a question of which is better - it is a choice
With Heaven you get the easy good life provided for you - a Sugar Daddy who will keep you in cozy comfort
Reincarnation says Heaven does not last long - it is the life of a child - parents will feed, protect, shelter, care & make sure their children live in a safe, happy bubble - but such a bubble does not last long, we MUST grow up, move out of the nest, learn to stand on our own two feet, EARN a living, face the world on our own as the Adults that we are
Deal with nasty people, bosses, job losses, health issues, accidents, loss of loved ones etc etc
There WILL be pain & suffering!
.
So Heaven is the obvious choice, right?
But it's not that simple
God has taught you thru life that nothing in life is Free, Easy nor Given
Every choice in life that you make there is a cost, there is a benefit - you make a choice after weighing these costs & benefits
Whether you consider going to college, which college to go to - there are good and bad points
Which job you should take? Which city you should move to?
Which health option is better?
Choosing Heaven means you are choosing to be a helpless dependent, the same as when you were a child
Controlled by someone else, being told what to do, your entire life in the hands of others
And the ultimate price - the loss of human life - the life of a Dog might be pleasant but not always

Dividing people based on religion - throwing billions of innocent people - entire families, women, children, even babies - into gas chambers in hell!

That's not the Christian faith.

If you can be honest enough, will you show me where you read this?

Tell me, honestly what happens to Unbelievers?
Entire families, women, children, even babies?
Not your personal opinion - I know you will give me a PC reply - I want to know when you proselytize, what you guys promote
What does - "Good works won't get you Heaven" mean?
What does - "Heaven only if you are with Jesus" means - does that not mean a SEGREGATED Heaven? Segregated by Religion, belief?
What Jews faced in Nazi Germany?
.
An Atheist or Hindu family dies in a car crash, earthquake - whatever
Grandparents, mother, father, two children, the mother is pregnant
Tell me, what happens to them?

Can you prove to us..your Christian perspective is correct....and it's .not some extreme self-delusion fueled by some deep underlined passionate grudge/obsession/hate

Please!

Time and again I have asked what does one DO in Heaven?
Can you describe a DAY? ONE DAY? With DETAILS, please
And theists keep running away from such a question
From what I heard, you guys will be praying, singing praises of God
Is that it? That is the Grand Plan of God?
Tell me, what do you do in Heaven?

 

[Ramaraksha]

Pood, poo-pooing prematurely you have to give it a moment.

I said Jesus validates Heaven.

How’s that? Also, why didn’t he return to earth in “power and glory” in the lifetimes of his followers, as the gospels said he promised?

Sad, really that in the 21st century, damsels in distress hoping for a knight in Shining armor is going to come "any day now" to Save them!
A quick wave of his magic wand and all our problems will be solved!
When did we become these helpless damsels?

 

[Ramaraksha]

Possible evidences of some form of reincanation:

Nietzsche’s Eternal Recurrence, supported by the block world model of Minkowski and cyclic universe models hinted at by some cosmology.

Tom Clark’s generic subjectivity model, possibly supported by analytic idealism

Evidence for Jesus as “validator” — zero.

I grew up Hindu but I am not sure if there is any evidence for Reincarnation
To me, it is but an idea
Ancient Hindus wondered why any being would keep billions of people in cozy comfort without any benefit to himself
And then they looked down at their pets, their Dogs and went Aha!
.
The problem with getting some proof of Reincarnation is that who is going to do it?
If Hindus provide the evidence it is going to be dismissed as biased
Of course, Christians and Muslims are not going to go about proving it
That leaves Atheists and I don't think they are interested in this
.
But unlike the concept of Heaven, there IS a way to prove Reincarnation
It seems as kids we may still remember our past lives - plenty of you tube videos with children saying strange things
talking about their families when they were adults
And if we can catalogue those, get the proper dates, numbers, stories written down
We now have life's histories of people - we can now check if those dates, numbers and stories add up

 

[bilby]

I wouldn't trust just anyone's opinions.

 

[bilby]

That you lead with a weak source, and take pains to paint that source as far stronger than it actually is, undermines your position. Your choice therefore either shows you to be awful at debating, or wrong, or both.

Sure, ignore his credentials.

What were the particular points of Ramsay's findings did you disagree with again?

You didn't present any "particular points", just the general conclusion - "Luke is a first class historian"; And I have refuted that conclusion.

Do you have some particular points you agree with, that you would like me to also address?

Or are you just blustering to conceal the fact that you have no idea what "particular points" Ramsay made? I mean, obviously I don't know either; But my position isn't dependent upon those points being true (or even on their existence).

Put up the evidence, and I will address it.

Put up no evidence, and then whinge that I didn't address the evidence that you didn't present, and people will think you are trying to be a lot cleverer than you actually are - and you risk being thought full of shit.

 

[NoHolyCows]

From time to time I have stumbled on a "Journalist" interviewing Religious heads, either on TV or in print
and ALL the time the questions are the same, recycled over and over
How happy will we be in Heaven?
How wonderful will Heaven be?
What is it like?
Will we see all our DEAD loved ones again?
Of course, such questions have NEVER been asked before
.
But NONE will ask about the fate of our LIVING loves ones
When a bread-winner dies, it is quite easy to realize that his/her family will suffer
There are plenty of stories of homeless families living in shelters, families living in cars etc
One that i personally experienced was when I was waiting for the bus in on a cold December night
A young lady approached me looking for a hand-out, I gave her some and we got to talking
I was curious how she ended up this way
She tells me that she had a very happy childhood
A Father who doted on her, mother a bit distant but still a happy, care-free childhood - full of dreams, aspirations fueled &
encouraged by her father
Then tragedy struck - her doting father died
Some time later, the mother starts dating again, but this new boyfriend was different
You can guess what happened - the mother did not intervene, looked the other way
This young innocent child now ended up in the streets
And the father? Is he enjoying Heaven? Living it up? Care no more for his loved ones on earth?
.
Sure there are plenty of sad stories like this
In the famous movie - "It's a Wonderful Life" what if George Bailey had committed suicide
Maybe God forgives him - why not? We are all sinners anyway, what is one more sin? And George ends up in Heaven
Meanwhile his family is rendered homeless, his childrens' futures destroyed, living in a shelter, going to bed hungry
His wife might turn to prostitution to make ends meet, put food on the table
And George is living it up in Heaven?
.
And so we ask, why do these "Journalists" not ask about the fate of our LIVING loved ones?
And you can easily see why
What exactly can a Religious head say? That we become heartless? We care no more?
Not a good look is it?
And so the "Journalist" does not ask!
Amazing that in the 21st century, the media covers up for religion
Shields them from legitimate criticism and doubt
Sometimes I pinch myself - am I really living in the 21st century?
.
And why ask the same questions over and over?
That IS how fantasies work - the more questions, the more asking for DETAILS, fantasies fall apart
And so questions must be limited to just a few, the ones religious heads are comfortable answering
And so this media complies
I keep saying this is a Christian/Islamic media

If the idea of Heaven requires us to accept that a person can be perfectly joyful while their child suffers unbearably on Earth—doesn’t that say something deeply troubling about the kind of consciousness that supposedly enters Heaven? And if that’s the case, is it really you that enters Heaven at all—or something hollow that no longer resembles you?

NHC

 

[Learner]

I wouldn't trust just anyone's opinions.

You do know I was on about you don't you?