Nope. I submitted myself to Jesus Christ a long time ago.

Not to other people's attempts to authoritatively impose their versions of scripture on me.

Tradition can be a heavier yoke than grace intends.

If you don't recognize the authority of scripture then I don't know what we're discussing, nor by what objective standard you or anyone can draw truth. You have baseless claims if your beliefs aren't based on scripture. All you can offer is how you feel, and how others feel similarly.

Jesus Christ is scripture.

The question is who is understanding Him better.

Will you please explain what you mean by "Jesus Christ is scripture"?

Let's stop the one-liner word games and speak plainly.

Read John 1:1.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...:1&version=NIV

Do you think Jesus Christ would yoke his sheep with eternal hell doctrine?

You don't yoke sheep. They are free ranging animals with a shepherd.

One thing Splendour knows about is yoking sheep. I'm sure of it.

It is my understanding that in the more modern progressive versions of Christianity and Catholicism, hell is simply defined as the absence of God's love. The type of atheist that totally dismisses God in effect willingly chooses to separate from God. So the strong atheist (one who 100% disbelieves rather than is simply skeptical) chooses this type of "hell" himself. It would not be God's doing. For example:

"To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God's merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self- exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called "hell." "(Catechism of the Catholic Church)

Some other Christian sects believe that wicked souls are totally annhilated one time by fire rather than kept in eternal suffering. OTOH fundamentalist type Christian sects tend to belive in the literal "fire and brimstone" type of eternal hell.

Fundamentalists don't even interpret brimstone accurately. Brimstone is sulphur and was considered sacred and to be used to purify by the ancient Greeks.

So to an ancient Greek fire and brimstone would signify a lake of divine consecration to God. The early church mishandled this knowledge though because they thought they had the right to reserve certain knowledge.

Jones explains fire and brimstone here:
http://www.gods-kingdom-ministries.o...s/Chapter3.cfm

A lot of Christians basically either (1) think literal burning in hell is bull****, (2) have simplistic revenge fantasies involving torturing the "smarter" people who reject their religious beliefs, or (3) spend most of their time absolving God of Her responsibility for sending people to burn.

That's basically the entirety of it.

Lawdude constantly speaks on behalf of Christians, and usually lumps us all together and misrepresent us, or at least some.

That's basically the entirety of it.

Wizard, if Christians don't like secularists summarizing their dumb beliefs, a precondition for that would be not believing in dumb stuff like a "good" God who tortures nonbelievers.

I don't like you misrepresenting my beliefs. Or you painting me 'dumb believer' by association. I could come up with plenty of atheistic views that are 'dumb beliefs' and hold you accountable for them.

I don't mind you saying 'some Christians believe X and it's dumb' or 'most christians believe Y and it's dumb', but when you say 'Christians either believe dumb, dumber, or dumbest' then you're misrepresenting people.

no you couldnt, seeing as atheism only has 1 viewpoint, ie that they dont believe that god exists. You can say this is a dumb belief if you want, but thats only 1, not plenty.

I'll rephrase. I could find plenty of dumb beliefs that atheists have, and hold you accountable for them.

I didn't say that you were dumb. I said that Christianity contains some dumb beliefs and that Christians espouse that they believe some dumb things.

There are some smart people who have claimed to be Christians. Taking them at their word, that is just one more example of the truism that it's possible for smart people to believe some very dumb things.

Oh I've upgraded to a possibly smart person with one of three dumb beliefs. Because you've laid out all three of the possible beliefs on hell, which is 'basically the entirety of it', right? And in these three beliefs, which are basically the entirety of Christian theology on hell of course, I have to choose from "hell is bull****", "simplistic revenge fantasies involving tortue", and "holding God to wordly scrutiny". Well thanks so much for representing Christian theology on hell so fully and accurately.

Wiz, i think revenge fantasies were probably what made Christian hell so attractive in the first place. 2000 years ago life was nasty, brutish, and short, and there was no justice-- might made right and the privileged could have whatever they wanted.

Christianity promised believers that these people would eventually get their just deserts.

Nowadays, there definitely are people who fight the culture war with their religion and think that the intellectual elites will get it in the end.

As for the other two, there's a large percentage of Christians who either redefine hell as separation from God or something else not involving fire and brimstone, and the rest understand how immoral it is to torture nonbelievers but use free will or Satan or other arguments to absolve God of the responsibility for the torture.

There aren't any other alternatives, really.

Sorry, but you can't dictate other people's motives or beliefs. But that may not stop you from continuing to misrepresent me and others.

"I think I'm going to roll dice to decide from the three. C'mooooon revenge fantasies!"

All you have to do is when you get mad at a non believer for not accepting what you are saying is tell them they are going to hell.

Oh, I thought lawdude would tell me what to do when I get mad.

Also, betair, I wasn't even espousing a belief.

Wiz, I'm not DICTATING your belief-- I'm saying that since the Christian God is a douchebag who tortures people, you only have three alternatives available for avoiding the issue.

It's a dilemma of Christians' own making, because they choose to worship an *******.

I know. Im just showing what you would need to do to fit the part of someone who uses hell as revenge.

I prefer utilitarianism myself.

Most moral codes (of societies) act to improve efficiency and the quality of life of the agreeing parties in power (for example quality of life of slaves matters less, therefore it is not immoral to treat them as property in 2000 BC Egypt).

Arguing that present day society (I'm assuming western world country) sets morals with the goal of gene propagation is quite amusing. There may be correlation, but that is all it is.

Ah I see.

I first rolled option #1, but then I made the mistake of reading the Bible and found it inconsistent.

Then I rolled option #2, but I found I have been given compassion so that one didn't stick.

Then I rolled four or five more times until I hit option #3, and tried to stick God with a traffic violation, but found out his lawyer is Jesus and he won.

Then I got confused why there are only 3 options, and realized that the three options were not all the options available.

That's basically the entirety of it.

Today's story brought to you by the number three!

Go for the universalist die.