@moonbus saidWith respect to Hell, what Jesus said in the Bible. Odd when the subject was the supernatural didn’t care why.
It is astonishing how you manage to miss the point of nearly every question put to you. It’s not about how bad hell is. It’s about how you came to believe in this particular image; how you came to believe in hell has nothing to do with truth or reality. You have not been to hell, so you do not know whether there really is such a place.
Stop avoiding the question. How did y ...[text shortened]... it? How did HE know? since he’s not been there either. Why would you trust someone who doesn’t know?
2 edits
@kellyjay saidSo that's OP option d), based on authority. Namely, on the author(s) of a book.
With respect to Hell, what Jesus said in the Bible. Odd when the subject was the supernatural didn’t care why.
Now, next questions: were you there when Jesus allegedly said that? Were you there when those bits of the Bible were written? Did you personally verify that those bits correctly reported Jesus's actual words? No.
So, actually, the authority you rely on is not Jesus, but someone else: the author or authors of some scroll or scrolls. But we don't have all the scrolls any more. What we have is a redacted selection, copies of copies of copies, of a once much larger collection of scrolls.
The authority you rely on is a cabal of Roman bishops who decided, for reasons you don't know, to canonize some scrolls, and not canonize others, in the year 325 AD.
Were those bishops there when Jesus allegedly said those things? Did those bishops personally verify that whatever scrolls they were looking at were eyewitness accounts, accurate, complete, without diminution or addition? No. So why did they believe (in miracle stories about virgin birth and resurrection all the rest of it)?
Do you trust Roman Catholic bishops?
Do you see where your 'authority' answer leads? It leads to regress of other 'authorities' and into quicksands of doubt.
@moonbus saidSorry -- I thought this was going to be about topics a step or two before those proposed answers.
Why are things believed?
Proposed answers: not because they are true, but because
a) they seem to someone to be true, or
b) they seem to someone to explain some complex or mysterious phenonemon better than an alternative hypothesis, or
c) they seem to someone to be consistent with or logically implied by something else which seems to be true, or
d) some putative authority figure says they are true.
<>Discuss.
@fmf saidNow you understand why I said you turned it into a class of people, a group, some apart from others.
Yes. There are people - like you - who believe in the Jesus' "-hell" is way worse thsn Auschwitz-Birkenau thing. So, why is it that some people believe this Auschwitz-Birkenau thing - like you do - when other people don't?
@moonbus saidYou must love Roman Bishops, who didn't write the Bible; they also didn't control
So that's OP option d), based on authority. Namely, on the author(s) of a book.
Now, next questions: were you there when Jesus allegedly said that? Were you there when those bits of the Bible were written? Did you personally verify that those bits correctly reported Jesus's actual words? No.
So, actually, the authority you rely on is not Jesus, but someone else: ...[text shortened]... r 'authority' answer leads? It leads to regress of other 'authorities' and into quicksands of doubt.
the text of the Bible; others wrote those, which were sent around the world and
put into several different languages, copied over and over. So there are copies
from different time frames, in different languages, by the thousands brought in to
make up the Bible. Anyone screwing with a translation couldn't do it without it
being noticed; unlike today's media, where history can be changed by what we see
on the web, allowing only what some want the masses to see, that level of control
wasn't there then.
Concerning scripture, it isn't even here now; the sheer number of historical
documents would clearly show it. There are too many documents from the time
that validate the text. Even the dead sea scrolls validated the OT as it was written;
your complaint isn't valid, in my opinion. The main issue today is translations
because some have indeed rewritten text to support their views, which makes their
translation stand apart from the rest. However, comparing the new translations to
older documents and their sheer number, it isn't difficult to find the proper
interpretation.
@fmf saidThe earliest ones are decades after the originals; you look at other historical
Really? Name ONE "from the time".
documents that are accepted as is, compared to the NT text, the NT in sear
numbers of copies and how close some of them are from the origins the NT
documentation by far exceeds all others. Do you see that differently?
@fmf saidSome people don't believe in the holocaust either, some don't believe man walked
Why do people like you believe this 'Jesus-Auschwitz-Birkenau' stuff when other people don't? Because "people are different" is a cop-out afraid-of-the-topic "answer".
on the moon, and some think dead dirt is the origin of all life by a long string of
good fortune. Some people, if you want to segregate people, then do so.