Only psychopaths need threats of hell to consider doing good. Ordinary, normal people would be horrified at such an idea.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Your objection is noted (by me anyway). I was just curious what you found insulting about the idea of hell, or about talking about hell or whatever.
Noah's ark is a children's story. Tell me, how did the wildlife native to Australia travel all the way to the Negev, then back again?
Only psychopaths need threats of hell to consider doing good. Ordinary, normal people would be horrified at such an idea.
Since you're repeating yourself, I'll repeat myself: hell is not primarily a threat to make people be good. I think this has run its course. You're supposed to ask questions in this forum, but from the OP you're just sort of standing on your soapbox doing your own preaching to us.
Aside from this very rational fear, is there any reason for anyone to actually want to become or remain a "christian?"
Fear of eternal torment at the hands of an angry deity is quite rational, even if there remains no evidence for such a place. Pascal said it best when he promoted his fire insurance evangelistic tactic. The trouble is, he didn't know there were actually other belief systems and faiths out there that contradicted his own, so his wager isn't as easy to take as one may think. It also lacks evidence. But self-preservation is a stronger need than morality, honor or dignity, so it is easier (and possibly saner) to take the blue pill and worship a being solely out of fear of eternal torture than it is to stand by your principles and risk offending the said capricious deity.
All of the animals existing in the entire world obviously did not go in the ark. But the animals around the geographical area of Noah did. They needed animals in the ark to prevent the extinction of all the animals, for Noah and his family to have an immediate source during and after that event and also to be a sign to the people outside that God was really using Noah.
Now if you believe the bible is just filled with children's stories then I can't help you. But scientific evidence confirms that the only plausible reason for having all of these fossils on so many mountains and flood plains, in various continents in sedimentary rock is a worldwide flood.
Stand by what principles?
Do you consider yourself to be a good person?
Can you read, dear sir? I specifically asked a question. It s not my fault if you choose not to answer it.
No sir, it does not. The fossil records support an earth billions of years old, with simpler life forms on the lower levels and more complex ones near the top. There was no flood and there is no evidence for it either.
I am amazed that seemingly grown, and reasonably intelligent adults believe in a story like that.
Really, how do you know how old the fossils are?
And why do the fossil record show a much wider variety of organisms that what we have presently. Because of the fossil record they came up with what is known as Punctuated Equilibrium as opposed to gradualism to explain why there was so much more variety before and not just more variety but fully complex organisms just as we have now.
I gave my answer in my first post. Good day, sir!
I SAID GOOD DAY!
I could ask you the same question.
Tell me, what university did you graduate from and is your formal training in science?
Define the term good.
The 10 commandments are God's standard of righteousness.
Can you say you have never lied, stolen or lusted?
I have no formal training but information cannot only be gained by going to university. We are living in the information age so what I know, I learned from listening to the people who had the formal training.
Let me tell you how they age the fossils. They age the fossils based on the age of the rocks the fossils are found in which is very logical. Problem is the dating methods for those rocks are very unreliable and inaccurate.
A group of scientist took a rock from a volcano that erupted sometimes in the mid 20th century so the rock was around 60 years old. They sent the rock to a few different labs for testing and the age that they got using those methods ranged from 250,000 to 2 million yrs old. And they knew the age of the rick beforehand but did not tell the scientist they were doing the testing. It goes to show how inaccurate those dating methods are.
You didn't answer my question.
Have you ever told the truth, given anything away or loved anyone?
So you have no training, no education and you claim to know more than every scientist in the field? Seems legit.
So you have no training, no education and you claim to know more than every scientist in the field? Seems legit.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?