Examine the evidence presented by each side.

<War has been a popular approach across the ages (and continues to be), but runs contrary to some of the most fundamental religious messages. >

Religious wars are a historical disaster. Winning a war doesn't prove one is right anyway.

<To put it another way: to an unbiased outsider, what makes your argument any more convincing than that of the follow of another faith?>

The evidence.

<Even within Christianity, people do not agree on what is gospel and what is not - condemning one another to eternal damnation. Are you claiming that your specific interpretation is the only correct one? >

Yes. If it wasn't, I'd reject it. We might have a different view of what "specific" means, but I make no apologies for believing I am right.

<When you consider the inherent similarities between all religions and mythologies, is it not more likely that every religion is the product of the human race's struggle to make sense of it all?>

That's a plausible idea. I don't think it stands up to scrutiny. As for humanity's struggle, I am reminded of a religion class I took in college. It was called Homo Religiosis. The point is men are by nature religious. We read maybe 5 books by various authors discussing why almost all men had some sense of the religious, be it by ritual, artwork, sacred history, etc. The last day of class, about 10 minutes in, the professor asked if we had any final comments about the topic. We could tell he was going to release the class if nobody answered. Most of the class were freshmen just getting through a humanities requirement and didn't much care about discussing it. "Is this on the test? yada yada yada" I was 23, pretty conversant in the Bible and theological argument at that point, and was intrigued by the topic. I answered the professor that I thought the authors we'd read/discussed missed what seemed to me an obvious and fundamental point: That is, if there was a God and He did create man, it would make sense He'd create them with some desire to seek Him. And the clinical meanderings of why all cultures had some sense of religious expression was a result of that intrinsic quality in man.

I accept. I wasn't offended on a personal level since I know you were expressing what you believe and that is okay.

<If you wish to delete some of the more offensive ones I totally understand. >

I am not inclined to. If you want them removed, I will. I am pretty sure I delete more of my own posts on Chessgames than anyone else, because I have second thoughts on what I say to others.

<To me it really doesn't matter what people believe. I believe that God is at work in all of us all the time, and sooner or later everybody makes it to Heaven. If you find Christianity enriching then I'm happy for you.>

<Examine the evidence presented by each side.>>

Sounds sensible. But now there's a problem: there are many holy texts, each claimed to be result of a direct human interaction with God, and yet none of them agree with each other. What makes you decide that the Bible is 100% true, while the Qu'ran, Tipitaka, Book of Mormon, Tanakh, Theogony, Book of the Dead, Sruti and Smriti are all just elaborate fairy tales?

<I answered the professor that I thought the authors we'd read/discussed missed what seemed to me an obvious and fundamental point: That is, if there was a God and He did create man, it would make sense He'd create them with some desire to seek Him. And the clinical meanderings of why all cultures had some sense of religious expression was a result of that intrinsic quality in man.>

If we can set aside whether man evolved into or was created in such a state (and not knowing how or why the Universe was created, I have no reason to reject the hypothesis that God created it knowing that intelligent lifeforms would develop who would question their own presence), it seems to me like we're essentially agreeing on this point. It is human nature to seek supernatural influences and explanations, and yearn for justice and immortality beyond the otherwise frightening finality of death, and that is ubiquitious across cultures. It really brings us back to the point of what makes your theology special?

<I think that my hypothesis is the truth, and I think most of the myths are simply corruptions of the orginal true accounts. There's nothing new under the sun.>

<OCF> With all due respect - I'm surprised at your mention in that both the Hebrew and Greek words used in the Bible (She'ol, Hades, Gehenna), later translated as "Hell", were originally translated as grave, or pit. The word often translated as Hell originally conveyed no thought of heat or torment, but simply a "covered or concealed place."

Ecclesiastes 9:5 - For the living are conscious that they will die; but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all, neither do they anymore have wages, because the remembrance of them has been forgotten.

Many more verses from the scriptures confirm this, and eternal torment or punishment is simply not a concept present or to be found in the Bible.

Gehenna - or Valley of Hinnom - is (was) in reality a place nearby Jerusalem where unclean things and carcasses were brought, and a fire was kept burning as a precaution for desease spreading.

So IMO the judgement of the wicked ones through an everlasting fire is unrealistic, unfounded/unmatched by the other relevant bible passages, and thus used hyperbolically at most.

Translations....

On a more personal note, I think the debate here is being carried with great care and respect, but I have to say that <YouRang> at several points in his lecture on the "scientific" method and the accusations towards "creationists" could employ more nuance and precision concerning the wide spectrum of creationists that exists, the difference among them, their secular beliefs at times, and their "scientific" back-ground.

Furthermore - as has been mentioned by whatthefat - there is "good science" and BAD science, and a lot of in between stuff that kinda appears appealing if you have your guard down, but NONE is "more than satisfactory" imho. But there is "science aiming to be good and peer-reviewed." Not much of it though imo. (Climate Change consensus.)

Exactly the reason I want to stress that - if one thing has been proven - it is that <OCF> has shown repeatedly and with high class, that he is a die-hard, here to stay, and by no means someone you'd avoid entering a discussion on a sensitive subject with, in fear of jeopardizing some sort of imagined friendship or friendly interaction. On the contrary; to me he appears as the type that relishes and applauds intellectual and spiritual challenge. As do I.

Don't be such cowards to hide behind that "I don't take part in the discussion because..." screen.

<YouRang> was brave enough to take up the baton, and now in his forum people are playing chicken and applaud from the gallery for no apparant reason. At least not inspired by a longing for unadulterated scientific method being applied, but rather stay comfortable soothing themselves with the occasional affirmation of their immovable rusty convictions.

TAKE A CHANCE FOR "CRIPES" SAKE!!

The concept of Hell is repellant to sinful, antinomian, secular man. It always was, and always will be.

My gift for evangelism is not great, and I doubt I can say anything to make you reconsider your attitude, let alone your opinions. (Gee, who would ever believe this was supposed to be a chess forum?) So I'll stop trying, before this discussion strays into incivility.

As for Science and wars, if you mean to discredit Science for our ever increasing ability to kill one another, I can't agree. I know much technology is used in modern warfare, but that technology is also a great benefit to mankind.

<whatthefat> the short answer to what makes my theology special (I was taken aback by that word choice until I tried to formulate a response and couldn't come up with anything better) is the resurrection.

<achieve> I am aware the KJV has some mistranslations. Several times they translate hades as hell and that's simply wrong. As for eternal punishment, Jesus is clear as a bell in Matthew 25:46:

<And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal. >

Investigate; YOU were the one stressing the value of "evidence", and rightly so.

1. When you take a position, to some degree, you're obliged to defend that position. They don't wish to enter the arena, so they commend those who do and have a similar viewpoint.

2. They don't wish to insult/upset me.

3. They don't see the point of making a post here that says little more than "I agree with <YouRang>" About 3 times a day, I want to do that on the <Rogoff> page in response to another of <PinnedPiece> brilliancies. I don't see the point, so I usually defer.

4. This issue is outside their comfort zone and while they have their opinions, they are hard pressed to put them into words and are grateful for someone who can.

As for your interpretation of the crowd at <YouRang> I'm mostly with you.