Faith

[raw_thought]

So you are saying that Hawking, Einstein (that rejected a personal God) most academic philosophers.... know the truth but are lying to themselves.

[raw_thought]

This is so obvious. Unfortunately, you are confused and so I must explain. I am not talking for every TBI client. I am saying that if a TBI client does not believe in God because of his injury,* according to you he will be condemned to hell because he has no faith that Jesus exists.
* He is incapable of understanding the (your position) plentiful evidence that God exists.

[raw_thought]

Anyway, my wife and I are going out. As the terminator said,"I'll be back."

[Immanuel Can]

Of course IQ should not determine salvation. I am glad you agee! That was called a rhetorical question. In other words if you say that my inability to see the slim evidence will condemn me, then in the analogy Dad is sick to condemn me. Similarly, God is sick to condemn someone that cannot see the slim evidence that he exists.
It is slim evidence that God exists. However, lets say that there is plenty of evidence that God exists. I must be truly stupid to not see it. Therefore, once again I am condemned for my TBI.
Which makes God unjust and even sick.

Try telling Him that when you see Him.

And you will.
"...it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment...(Hebrews 9:27)

As Jesus said, "...I tell you that every careless word that people speak, they shall give an accounting for it in the day of judgment." (Matt. 12:36).

You can believe me or not. It won't make one lick of difference if you don't. You don't get to refuse that invitation.

But it might make a difference if you did believe me.

"...unless you repent, you shall all likewise perish." (John 13:3)

Your choice. Nothing's at stake for me if you don't. I'm telling you for your sake, not mine. Do with that information whatever you will.

Now, on the TBI folks, I have no doubt that God can make His presence known to anyone. That's the great thing about being the Supreme Being; you can get done what needs to be done to be fair to everyone. In any case, as you insist you are not afflicted with TBI, if they have any special circumstances, you most certainly do not.

So for now, my advice is that you should stop worrying about how God may or may not deal with others. It's you He's dealing with now. Right now.

[raw_thought]

“Try telling Him that when you see Him.”
Immanuel Can
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_baculum

[ReliStuPhD]

“Try telling Him that when you see Him.”
Immanuel Can
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_baculum

I think that's rather uncharitable. Unless I missed something, I.C.'s not advocating some sort of punishment. I take it to be something like this:
raw_thoughts: ReliStuPhD is pretending to be a male.
I.C.:Try telling him that when you see him.
The implication, of course, being that if we met up you would see that you were mistaken. I'm not seeing where the stick is in all this. (Of course, I may just have missed it.)

As an aside, the AaB states that the premise is untrue because of the punishment. A Christian arguing that you'll spend eternity in Hell if you don't accept Jesus isn't making an AaB. He or she is either wrong or right, but not engaged in a fallacy. If they said "Your argument doesn't follow because you'll burn in hell"... THAT would be AaB, but I don't see that I.C.'s done that.

[Immanuel Can]

Actually, ReliStuPhD, I'm just sincerely concerned for raw_thought's personal well-being.

You're right, though: I'm not even trying to make an argument here; I'm trying to let him know he's in range of the ultimate in bad decisions. I'm hoping he has the wisdom to do otherwise.

[raw_thought]

Immanuel can is saying that if I do not agree that God exists I will suffer the consequences. That eventually God will punish me. I was not saying that immanuel was personally threatening me. I was saying that he was committing the fallacy of force (you will suffer if you disagree with me).
Similarly, if someone says," I will not personally hurt you,but my big brother will." I take that as the fallacy of appeal to force. Immanuel is not saying that he will hurt me. He told me that his God will hurt me if I continue to disagree with him.

[Immanuel Can]

He told me that his God will hurt me if I continue to disagree with him.

Not at all. You may disagree with me freely. God has no penalty for disagreeing with IC: that is entirely without hazard, and it's entirely possible I merit your contempt. But to be contemptuous of God, I sincerely believe that is not without hazard.

So I'm not threatening anything. For that matter, you apparently do not even believe the God I'm speaking of exists, so how could any such "threat" carry any weight? Even I can see that. Rather, I'm telling you only what I genuinely think will be the result of having contempt for God.

But now, if I'm wrong, you're not hurt. If I'm right, I'm saving you a bad decision. And either way, I'm looking out for the welfare of a person who isn't even sympathetic to my view.

For I've been told, "Love your enemies, and do good to those who spitefully treat you." I don't expect to win any arguments by doing that, but I care far less about the argument then I do about your welfare -- believe it or not.

[raw_thought]

First of all I am not contempuous of God. I am contempuous of a theory of God that makes him petty and amoral.
Suppose I said, I know what God really wants (and you do not). God told me that "A" is true and anyone that disagrees with "A" will rot in hell. You disagree with God and me! Therefore if you continue to disagree with me (because God and I are in agreement) you will rot in hell. Wouldn't you say that that was the fallacy of the appeal of force?

[raw_thought]

Basically Immanuel is saying," believe in my version of God or he will torture you for eternity." That has been the propaganda technique used by conventional Christians for centuries to sell their brand of faith.

[ReliStuPhD]

Basically Immanuel is saying," believe in my version of God or he will torture you for eternity." That has been the propaganda technique used by conventional Christians for centuries to sell their brand of faith.

Well yes, that would be AaB, but I don't see that that's what I.C. is doing here. It seems to me he's simply stating the sonsequences of disbelief (as he understands them), much like I would state the consequences of misbelief in a stoplight camera (e.g. if you don't believe its there and then run the light, look to your mail for a ticket in a few weeks). As I understand it, he's not saying "believe or you will be punished" but "one of the consequences of your disblief will be x." That seems like a fine distinction, but I feel it's an important one.

(For my part, I'm just a theist at this point, but even when I was an Christian, the existence of Hell was never the reason one should believe.)

[Immanuel Can]

I am contempuous of a theory of God that makes him petty and amoral.

Then we have something in common.

Suppose I said, I know what God really wants (and you do not). God told me that "A" is true and anyone that disagrees with "A" will rot in hell. You disagree with God and me! Therefore if you continue to disagree with me (because God and I are in agreement) you will rot in hell. Wouldn't you say that that was the fallacy of the appeal of force?

Yes, on two conditions: 1) that it mattered one iota what I thought on matter "A", which it does not. (Now what God may or may not think, that would be important.) And b) that "you will rot in Hell" was being offered as some reason for believing a thing, which is also not the case here.

Otherwise, no. For force is not being used as a means to advance an argument, and what the Supreme Being "thinks" is bound to be important for all of his creatures, regardless of the personal disposition of any of them.

What I am proposing to you is not that you believe me because of any threat -- that would indeed be a bad reason -- but because contempt for God is dangerous and foolish because it is a denial of what is really the case. It is not the "threat" of a tiger that you need to worry about. Nor is it the "threat" of a mountain that keeps you back from its edge. In both cases, it is something inherent in the nature of the thing itself. Some things just require respect of us, and it is never rational or wise to fail to accord them the respect that is their due.

Mountains are not so great, and tigers are not so powerful as the Supreme Being.

So it comes as a bit of a relief that you disavow contempt for God. At first your tone seemed to suggest otherwise.

Basically Immanuel is saying," believe in my version of God or he will torture you for eternity." That has been the propaganda technique used by conventional Christians for centuries to sell their brand of faith.

No such thing. And, of course, your characterization of both "Christian" and history is ridiculous here. This is not the Christian message, and it has not been advanced on that basis. That you do not know that is perhaps a condemnation of our failure to share that message clearly enough, or perhaps of your willingness to find out what we actually say.

[Immanuel Can]

ReliStuPhd:

For someone who claims to be "relistuphd," you're really not. You're on the money again. Astutely put.

[ReliStuPhD]

For someone who claims to be "relistuphd," you're really not. You're on the money again. Astutely put.

Thanks. As I've said elsewhere, I think it's important to accurately represent a position, even if one disagrees with it (or, in my case, is yet to be (re)convinced by it). After all, how else does one disprove Xianity?