Freto, as a bro in Christ, please tell me how these things dont apply to Christianity because its fairly obvious I have it wrong.

Is Christianity not too broad to be considered a religion because I don't know that those criteria above don't better correspond to Christian churches than to Christianity?

That would indeed be a further point. It depends a bit on what exactly you associate with hell. However, since deciding whether something is a big deal to biblical authors or not depends on having some inkling on what biblical authors actually do worry about, it seemed easier to go after the obvious flaw.
I've had a discussion on this with OrP some while back. To me, Christianity exemplifies/practices the christian religion. Meaning, I take christianity to be, roughly, a group of people, buildings, institutions etc., over a period of ~2 millenia. The christian religion is the set of beliefs, rules and practices that unites them under a religious identity (though that unity is obv. fairly loose and non-specific).
One can, of course, argue for a different understanding of the two notions. I was more objecting to the interchangeable usage of both therms in a way that didn't give any indictation that he was/is aware of the implications of such a usage.
Why - I seems like a reasonable set of requirements. Obv. one would have to take them with a grain of salt, but in general, one can probably make a case for them.

What I don't get about this bizarre argument is -- shouldn't believers want to believe that christianity invented hell as apposed to just stealing it from another religion? The fact that christianity stole one of its base concepts should further remove any credibility it could have.

Legit lold at this for a solid minute for some reason.

Si tacuisses... (though, I guess that ship had sailed some time ago)

What the **** is this? Then why source them? I said Christianity invented hell for nefarious purposes, you said "nuh uh! look at these examples!", I say those aren't the same as hell, and you say you "never claimed they were?"

WTF is wrong with you? What is the point of mentioning them then? Pure dishonesty; typical.


Here's a revised statement for the nitteries: "Christianity inventented the place "hell" (though christianity stole certain characteristics from hell from other conceptions of the afterlife, it is completely distinct from sheoul and hades), in order to sell rubes on it's cure for a completely fictitious malady."

You offer nothing of value. You only prove your lack of moral character with your lies.

It just offers more evidence of the evil of Christianity and religion's pollution of the souls of religious people in general.

Why would this be true? Do you expect religion to be formed in a complete vacuum, completely devoid of any culturally relevant concepts or ideas?

.

Are you going to supply *ANY* evidence at all to back up your claim, or are you being a "typical" atheist and just make up explanations out of nowhere?

WTF sort of "evidence" do I need? What kind of evidence would you like? How exactly would one prove that J.M. Barrie invented Peter Pan, other than his name is on the book?

The christian depiction of hell is completely unique, no? There are other similar afterlifes, but only one christian conception of hell, right? So, being that Judiasm doesn't have the same concept of hell, what reason would a person have for thinking christianity didn't invent it's own conception of hell?

****ing asinine.

I also asked for evidence to the contrary from the dissenters, and you, Aaron, cowardly declined to offer any; and when I explained to other weirdo that his example didn't work, he said "so what?"

But, sure, I'm the one making **** up.

There was no evidence of anything resembling Peter Pan before J.M. Barrie, and then there was a book that was widely understood to be a work of fiction in the immediate culture that can be pointed to as the first reference to Peter Pan. Hence, Peter Pan can be understood as a fictional character and we can attribute the creation of this character to J.M. Barrie, whose name is on the book.

But regarding your claim, you've made a historical, claim, so I would expect to see historical commentary. You've also made a theological claim regarding the "uniqueness" of "hell" which will require some explanation to bring clarity to your usage of the terms, as well as a level of cultural commentary to show how such an idea came about.

Also, you've made a claim about the intent of such a creation, so even if you manage to show that "hell" is "unique" (according to however you mean those terms), you would still have more work to do to show that the intent of this creation is what you say it is. That is, you'll have to establish a historically grounded argument that there was a specific motive for the creation of this doctrine.

You really don't know how knowledge works, do you?

You've pegged yourself quite well.

...


Until you can demonstrate otherwise, yes.

I don't understand what you mean by "typical". Could you be more precise?

I mean it as a response to Hector's usage:

So what I'm hearing you say, Aaron, is you're a coward and a liar. You are a coward because you are afraid and unwilling to answer even any basic questions, provide any information, or even any basic logic to back up your claims regarding the actual topic.

You are a liar because you know the answers, but refuse to open your mouth.

You have brought nothing to this conversation, Aaron, only demanded further proof than the historical evidence I've already presented (that Hell is distinctly different from Hades or Sheah), and offered no counter to my logical question: if Christianity didn't invent the christian conception of hell, then who did?

You simply offer more evidence of the evil brought upon the world by religious people.

I'm sorry, Aaron, but I'm going to call you, and everyone like you, out every time.

Of course this would be impossible to prove, but simply probable to infer. If a snake oil salesman invented some imaginary disease of the body, and then said that buying his snake oil would cure you of that imaginary disease, one can only logically infer that he invented the disease in order to sell more snake oil.

No, I don't need to establish any historical evidence from the snake oil salesman's diary to establish his intent, or any other such drivel.

That's fine with me. I'll happily be called out for noting that you have failed to meet any standard of burden of proof, and that your position is not grounded in any particular historical, cultural, theological, or logical position. The fact that you are choosing to persist in your errors is more than sufficient for me to take pleasure in the continued downward spiral of your posting.

If you decided that you don't need historical evidence to support a historical argument, that's fine with me. But since you've chosen to be explicit in your refusal to present proof for your positions, it is a reasonable response for me to be amused by the stubbornness of your errors.

lol, you've GOT to be kidding me. For one, the thing is called Sheol (your intimate knowledge of these matters certainly shows), and for two, I was the one who brought that up (for three, though compared to the magnitude of your other trainwrecks, this is just a footnote, you didn't "present" anything - you just asserted. Presenting includes, you know, presenting something. Showing in which way Hell is "distinctly different" from Hades and/or Sheol. You'll get an additional cookie if you can bring yourself, in the name of objectivity, to note their similarities too.)

Meh. I don't think the problem is imaginary. Even before I became a Christian I struggled to understand my own lack of self-control concerning moral conduct. I did not want to lie, but I lied. I did not want to dwell on sexually immoral thoughts, but I did. I did not want to steal, but I stole.

Guilt and repentance are nothing new. Even without a Bible and a church, these questions and difficulties remain.

Lies.

So now did J.M. Barrie invent Peter Pan, or did he just steal the idea from his brother? Not to mention there are plenty of examples of fairies and children who don't age before Peter Pan.

Again you cowardly refuse to offer any evidence.

More lies. More evil. It's sad because I'm sure there is a good person inside you, somewhere. Just goes to show the evil of Christianity.