Question For John Atheist: Don't You Want To Remember Your Good Deeds Forever?

I told you we were done.
You post whatever you want to post.

JAG

 

Can't say as I blame you. Your admiration for a murderer was off base to begin with.

 

Living one's life with the desire to be remembered does not seem a very moral way to live.

 

Good. I'm sure others have noted as well.

Facts that are accepted by archaeology, history and most other means possible have been ignored by you as 'not fact'. And you say you are not biased or bigoted? You refuse anything that doesn't suit your 'faith'. You don't have faith. You're stuck in a rut. Faith can overcome criticism, it doesn't have to rely on denying facts. You've tried to convert me and threatened me continually with your 'generals'. You've tried to convert others. How will you convert anyone when they find you're denying even basic truths about the Bible. My idea of Christianity when I was preaching was to persuade people of the Love of God, not threaten them with pain and hell.

And I don't have a 'secular moral code'. That's for those who want a classification. I live life as it comes.

 

No, I'm fine with there being no life or other valuable existence after death. I haven't complained about anything that wasn't an arbitrary decision on your part.

I haven't committed to any idea that all truths need to be celebrated. I can think of many truths that would be of no particular import, and that would merely be distracting if they were celebrated. I hold that conversations should be concise and to the point.

That doesn't mean leave anything important out (for instance, I agree that secularism postulating no afterlife should be readily available information, as it is), just that all information needs to be available in a practical and structured way (and arbitrarily picking out animals doesn't seem to do that).

It seems to me, the appropriate amount of "celebration" would be saying that secular humanism has no concern with an afterlife on wikipedia, and that's what's already there.

It seems to me, whoever said "Christianity is a joke" was trying to highlight something that they think is bad about Christianity, whereas you highlighted one thing which you think is bad, but then you flew in some more unrelated bad flavour under the radar. I don't know that'd I'd agree with whoever it was that "Christianity is a joke" is particularly useful way of wording the criticism, but at least they weren't trying to tag on other issues to the statement.

That being said, I'm sure you can find some smear if you want to. Then the question becomes whether that makes you justified in doing it back. That's even into "do unto A as B did unto you".

I'm not even objecting to you using smear tactics, I'm just pointing out that all secular humanists out here see through it easily. It makes it a lot harder to take your criticisms seriously.

 

Why all of them? It seemed to me you were happy to suggest putting "bug" on busses and said nothing about lions. Why is it that when you suggest something, you stop short at one animal, and when I do it, we suddenly have to do all? Or was it hypocritical of you to leave the lions out in your posts?

I've told you what I want, it includes no animals. I would say even the first two animals is further than necessary, I would have thought normal English would do just fine.

And indeed, that seems to be what others think to, as this is fairly common knowledge and seemingly "The People" already know it.

Right, so how come one of them warrants you creating posts about it, and all of the other stuff, you don't even seem to have read yourself?

 

Here's a proven fact for you all. The Hebrews were resident in Palestine in the 1st millenium BCE as the Bible says.
But JAG will deny this as all my proven facts, so far, have been false - even though most people accept them.. So we can do away with the Bible for if the Hebrews were not, then their history, archaeology and Bible stories are not true.

I could tell you that the Romans destroyed Jerusalem around 70 CE, but of course that wouldn't be true.

 

does God erase your memory when you die, does he erase the pain, some say he makes people forget loved ones that go to hell, that means God is playing with your brain, manipulating it, are you really you anymore if that is the case

 

I do not use "smear tactics."

Your continued accusation that I use "smear" tactics
puts the spotlight on ME PERSONALLY and takes the
spotlight OFF of the very unpleasant truths about your
Religion of Secular Humanism.

It is much easier to discuss ME PERSONALLY than it is
for you to actually "live with" what I posted in those back
pages in this thread about the Gloom, Doom, Defeatism,
and Pessimism with regard to the ultimate END of human
beings who, on your Secular Humanism, have the
identical ultimate END-destiny as does Grass, Weeds,
and House Plants which is ceasing-to-exist oblivion
where human beings become 0000000.

You have zeroed in on your "smear" thing because you
do not desire to deny what I have pointed out to
you about your Religion of Secular Humanism. You know
it is true and you even agree with it , , "sounds about right",
you said.

If there was a weak spot in what I have pointed out to you,
you would zero in on THAT WEAK SPOT, but there is not
one so you zero in on ME PERSONALLY with your
continued "smear" accusation , , ,

, , , and you repeat your "smear" thing over and over
which takes the SPOTLIGHT off the FACT that you cannot
put your Secular Humanism in a better light, but have to
"live with" the fact that on your Secular Humanism human
beings have the same ultimate end as do Weeds. Indeed
you agree with my claims -- you just don't want to celebrate
your "sounds about right" agreement.

So you zero in on subjects like "smear" and the word "celebrate"
to take the SPOTLIGHT , , , OFF , , that which you do not
want to celebrate and emphasize.

:"see through it"___Swensson

The "it" refers is your accusation of me using "smear" tactics.
So you are back to spotlighting ME PERSONALLY instead
of spotlighting the hideous ugly truth about Secular Humanism
being a "Grass & Weed Religion" -- as explained in this post and
up-thread.

You are saying that because I point out the truth about
your Secular Humanism --- that all the Secular Humanists
"out here" can "see through it" easily. What is there to
"see through"? How can your Secular Humanist friends
"see through" what you agree with? "Sounds about right",
you said.

So what is there for them to "see through" -- regarding
my "Rat Point" -- you already agreed with my "Rat Point"
--- So there is nothing for them to "see through" ---rather
it is "party time" to celebrate our "Rat Point" --- notice I
said "our" Rat Point --- yours and mine -- we both have
made our Rat Point -- the difference is I want to celebrate
it, and you don't. Wonder why you don't? , , , lol , , ,

Let me guess? Its because Wikipedia puts your Secular
Humanism in a far better light that JAG does and you
prefer to put the spotlight on those more cheerful
aspects of your Secular Humanism.

Hey lets talk about Wikipedia , , ,
, , and about the concept of "ultimate" , , ,
and about the concept of "yucky" , , ,

, , all that is your attempt to escape celebrating the truth,
that on your Secular Humanist Religion you predict and
expect Doom, Gloom, and Defeatism, and Destruction
for the human person at death and teach that they have
the same ultimate end as do Weeds and Pigs, which is
ceasing-to-exist oblivion.

You don't want to strongly emphasize the truth of what you
really believe , , that humans ultimately end up being this:

"Human Beings Ultimately = 00000"___signed Secular Humanism

You want to mostly "keep it out of sight" and focus on subjects
like , ,

"smear"
and
"celebrate" , , , ,

, , ,and spend time
analyzing the "smear" and "celebrate" concepts
instead of rejoicing in your "sounds about right" agreement
with my Bug, Rat, Grass, and Weeds point

. When cornered and "pinned down" you will admit that it
"sounds about right" to say that, on Secular Humanism, the
HUMAN PERSON has the identical same ultimate destiny as
does a COCKROACH and other BUGS, but you do NOT
want to celebrate your belief that this "sounds about right."

So you had rather "talk about me personally" rather than
talk about what your Secular Humanism actually says
about human beings -- thus your constant reference to
"smear" , , ,

I don't blame you.
Talking about "smear" is much better for you , , ,
, , , than is talking about this:
"Human Beings Ultimately = 0000000" __signed Secular Humanism

, , ,lol , , ,
Funny stuff to be sure.
Self delusion is what it is.
"Take your criticisms seriously" , , lol , , ,
The very idea that that'd even be a possibility is hilarious-funny.

_______

Say,, I have an idea.
How about if we, for the sake of argument, just for a moment,
remove anything on that list that you do NOT think sounds
"yucky" and then see if you and your Secular Humanist
friends will then take my "criticisms seriously"? ,, lol ,,
Do you find Grass to be "yucky"?
How about Weeds? Do you find Weeds to be "yucky?
Ants? You think Ants are "yucky"?
How about "man's best friend" Dogs. You find Dogs to be "yucky"?

So?

So will you and your Secular Humanist friends join me in
celebrating the fact that on your Secular Humanism, human
beings have the same identical ultimate end-destiny as does
Non-Yucky Grass, Weeds, Ants, and Dogs -- which is
ceasing-to-exist oblivion, as in nothing, as in 0000000 ?
"Human Beings Ultimately = 000000" ___signed Secular Humanism


JAG

``

 

Your proof.? Yes, I'm asking you for your proof. You've come back from the dead?

 

First there was your "smear" thing.
Now there is your "hypocrisy" thing.
More stuff about ME PERSONALLY.
I can know I have won the points when you start getting personal.
Keep it up.
_____

Speaking of winning the points , , ,
Actually we don't even have any disagreements over the areas
of my major points because you already agree with my main
points and you say "sounds about right" --- so that leaves you to
quibble about "nothing of import" --- subjects like
~ "yucky"
~ and "smear"
~ and "hypocrisy"
~ and what warrants my posts
~ and whatever else you can come up with to escape having to
emphasize the truth about your Secular Humanism, which is:

"Human Beings Ultimately = 000000, Like Yard Grass Does"___signed Secular Humanism

No.
Let us keep them all.
All of them are the truth.
All of them tell the truth about your Secular Humanism

"Human Beings Ultimately = 000000, Like Ants Do"___signed Secular Humanism

"Human Beings Have The Same Ultimate End As Do Yard Weeds."___signed Secular Humanism

It never hurts to re-emphasize the truth to The People.
And the truth is that on your Religion of Secular Humanism,
human beings have the same identical ultimate END as does
every animal and every plant on Earth, which is ceasing-to-exist
as in oblivion ---- so let us re-emphasize that truth to The People.

That truth is so heart-warming that The People might come to
truly love it.
This is why Secular Humanists regularly take out full page ads in
America's major newspapers saying , , , ,
"Human Beings Ultimately = 00000"___signed Secular Humanism

Because that is what I wanted to do.
In my judgement it warranted a post.
Why do you create posts on the subjects you want to post on?
When you ask those kinds of questions, I interpret that as you
wanting to take the spotlight off the unpleasant parts of your
Secular Humanism.
In fact this whole thing has now reduced down to discussing
unimportant trivial subjects because you and I already agree
on my "Weed, Grass, Bug, and Rat" points, namely ,,,
"Human Beings Ultimately = 000000, Just Like Bugs"___signed Secular Humanism

No.
I have read myself just fine.
You have read me just fine too.
You don't like what you read. I don't blame you, for example you don't like
to strongly emphasize this , , ,
"Human Beings Ultimately = 000000"___signed Secular Humanism

Best.

JAG

 

Myfacts are proven and accept by humanity. Though you don't seem to want to accept them as they disprove what you believe. You have given me no 'evidences' only other peoples opinions, and in some cases I've shown you their errors.

As I understand it one of the rules is that you do not attempt proseletysing. I haven't stayed away because you amuse me. You're posts just show your bias and refusal to accept what is real.

 

You keep mentioning "arbitrary" assuming that I do not have reasons.
Who are you to say I do not have reasons for what I post?
I do have reasons and I believe them to be good reasons too.
We can now add your "arbitrary" to your , , ,
~ "yucky"
~ and "smear"
~ and "hypocrisy"
~ and what warrants my posts
~ arbitrary

Yeah but anything as important as this , ,
"Human Beings Ultimately = 000000, Just Like Bugs"___signed Secular Humanism , , ,
, , ,needs to be celebrated , , ,
, , or at least published abroad.
Why would you not want the Bug aspect to be emphasized?
And the Grass and Weed aspect too?
Its all the truth.

There is your word "arbitrarily" again.
But I had good reasons for listing animals {and plants too}
I explained my good reasons in detail. They are all here
to be read.

, , ,lol , , ,
Yeah, and you'd never say it was a "smear" -- rather
you phrase it as "them merely trying to highlight something
they think is bad about Christianity" --- but then my
"Grass, Weeds, Bug Point" is a "smear" - --
, , but their "Christianity is a joke" is NOT a smear.
/funny stuff to be sure

Under the radar?
Flew in?
Unrelated?
Bad flavor
Well you have to have something to object to, since you
and I already agree on my "Weed, Grass, Rat, And Bug Point."
That's quite a list of charges:
{1} Under the radar?
{2} Flew in?
{3} Unrelated?
{4} bad flavor

, , lol , , ,
■ When your friends do it, its "criticism"
and
■ "them merely trying to highlight something
they think is bad about Christianity"

■ but JAG's criticism becomes not criticism, but becomes a "smear"

■ Then don't forget to mention the Golden Rule thingy
{which implies hypocrisy on my part}

■ By the way, of course you are not to any extent biased
or prejudiced on any of this ,,, you're just a seeker of truth
that will "follow the evidence where ever it leads."

~ lag on other issues
~ "yucky"
~ and "smear"
~ and "hypocrisy"
~ and what warrants my posts
~ and whatever else you can come up with to escape having to
emphasize the truth about your Secular Humanism.

JAG

 

You're just making yourself look silly. Give it up.

 

The point you are making is the point you people always make - you have no proof for any of your claims.

 

True, my guess is that you have reasons, deliberately misleading reasons, for choosing the words. I think you're trying to distract from the actual issue (no afterlife) by adding links to concepts which have a bunch of other connotations as well (which are not in themselves related to there not being an afterlife). It seems to me you have failed to discuss the lack of an afterlife in any meaningful way, but you're adamant about adding bugs to everything.

I think that's the issue, to secular humanists, "ultimate destiny", is not very important. In fact, it falls completely by the wayside (by virtue of not existing or having any value), the importance is shifted to our actual lives. The idea that the lack of an ultimate destiny is a problem is your addition, it has no basis in secular humanism.

 

I'm inviting you to provide another reason for the choice of words. Indeed, I've asked you many times, how come you chose the word "bug" rather than "lion" (note, I'm not asking you whether either is applicable, I'm asking you why you chose a certain one)? And how come you were justified in including only one of them, but you demand that I include the list? Why wasn't the demand of the list there when you said it?

And if a statement is hypocritical, are we not justified in addressing it as such?

Agreed, I'm well aware of life being limited to the life we live and how that relates to various material views of life. I do however object to you suggesting that this should give any credence to any other view, or that we should expend the amount of sadness that you suggest. Without those steps of logic, your thread has no point.

"In other breaking news: Pope Catholic"

"It never hurts to re-emphasize the truth", now that's a statement which you keep making but can't seem to back up. If we wrote "JAG* has legs, just like a bug", on busses etc. (we'll add some nice pictures of bugs etc.), would you think that was completely reasonable, just because it is true? Before, you answered "that's a bit of a stretch" or something to that effect (and I would agree), but your principle "it's always good to re-emphasize the truth" doesn't take "it's a stretch" into consideration. You haven't mentioned what constitutes a stretch, or what it has to do with whether truths should be re-emphasized. I think linking atheism with bugs is a bit of a stretch, not because it isn't true, just like you thought "JAG and bugs have legs" is a stretch, not because it isn't true.

They tend to be in response to things that I think are false, or misrepresented, or questions about things I genuinely don't know about a religion or view.

What is it about bugs that warranted a post that doesn't warrant one about lions then? Why do you "want" posts about bugs, but not about lions?

How so? I'm more than happy to discuss the lack of an afterlife, but you seem not to have anything in particular to say about it, you just want to put the words next to the word "bug".

Have I emphasised it any more or less strongly than any other aspect of secular humanism? It seems to me, I am much more even in my representation of secular humanism than you are. You have only really emphasised one aspect.

It seems to me, whoeveritwas was pretty clear about what the criticism was, whereas your link to making posts about bugs rather than lions is still unclear (I mean, I have my suspicions, as does everyone else, I'm sure). Either way, I won't defend whoever it was, I don't know what they're meaning to say or not.

Ok, so say his is smear. Does that justify you using smear against me, or any irreligious person who hasn't (for instance, people not on this forum)?

 

I seem to live just fine without any of this gloom or pessimism. That's a projection on your part. I have already agreed with the lack of an afterlife on many occasions, in what sense am I not living with that? And do I seem to have a problem with it?

I mean, I think failure to justify belief in a position is a way worse light on a position. So by comparison, I think my view still shines pretty bright.

I didn't say see through the "rat point", I merely mean seeing through calling it a "rat point", rather than spelling it out and explaining it.

Well, I tend to prefer Wikipedia since they have standards of impartiality, relevance, clarity, etc.. The fact that you need to deviate from those to put it in a bad light is something.

I'm fine with celebrating the idea (insofar that I am happy to "celebrate" any idea, which is mostly to just put them on wikipedia). It is only the choice to pick yucky animals I disagree with, and that's not an aspect of secular humanism, that is your addition.

I mean, probably. "Celebrate" is still a weird word, but yeah, we'd treat it as any truth.

 

Bug tells the truth about your Religion of Secular Humanism.
You prefer lion because you do not think that lion is yucky.
You do think Bug is yucky -- so you do not like Bug.

There are people who do like Bugs and they eat them.
China. I've seen it on YouTube --- street food in China.

They might even say, "Humm, you mean Secular Humanism
has a relationship to Bugs, I like that, maybe I ought
to give some thought to becoming a Secular Humanist."
, , lol , ,

Because you say it is hypocritical does not mean that it is
hypocritical --- it only means that you say it is hypocritical.
I say it is not hypocritical.

Disagree.
One man's logic is another man's illogic.
My OP and my follow-up posts in this thread make a reasonable
case that it'd be a good thing for John Atheist to remember his
noble and heroic deeds for all Eternity.
What I believe to be Reasonable, you believe to be Unreasonable,
You logic is my illogic.

You can say that this , ,
"Human Beings Ultimately = 00000"___signed Secular Humanism
, , , is like saying the Pope is Catholic if you want to.
Sell it if you can.
Of course, here its an easy sell for you.
I mean who here in this Religion Department is going to disagree with
you on much of anything? You have noticed have you not, that there
are DOZENS of Christians that post in this Religion Department. , , ,
, , and only just 1 or 2 atheists , , ,you know! People who are ideologically
"on your side" , , , only 1 or 2 here -- heh heh, bet you feel real lonely, er?
, , ,lol , , ,

One thing we can be sure of:
There are no Secular Humanists that would object to this
being on the side of busses , , ,
"The Pope Is A Catholic"___signed Secular Humanism
, , , but they would strongly object to this being on the side of busses , ,
"Human Beings Ultimately = 00000"___signed Secular Humanism
You lose the point.
We both know it.

, , ,lol , ,
The Bug thing really "bugged" you, me thinks.
Otherwise you'd have forgot it by now.

Post about both.
Bugs & lions.
Picture an old lion.
I saw one on YouTube.
He was sick and he was down to skin and bones.
He was dragging along waiting for the vultures that
were hovering over head.
He was a mess, a wreck of a mess.
On your Religion Of Secular Humanism you have the
same identical ultimate destiny as do Bugs and
that Old Sick Lion that was dragging along --- namely
ceasing-to-exist as in Oblivion.
Also the same identical ultimate destiny as does a
a young healthy lion.
So?
So we can do posts on , , ,
{1} Bugs
{2} Young Healthy Lions
{3{ Old Sick Unhealthy Lions
We could do a slogan-picture of that Old Sick Unhealthy Lion
and put his picture on the side of busses along with this message
underneath his picture , , ,
On Secular Humanism human beings have the
identical Ultimate Destiny as does this Old Sick
Unhealthy Lion, which is ceasing-to-exist Oblivion.
On another bus you could do one with a Bug.
On another bus you could do one with a Young Healthy Lion.
On another bus you could do one with a Road Kill.
On another bus you could do one with a House Plant.
On another bus you could do one with a Yard Weed.
Get the Truth out there.
People might love it.
People love to be told that they have the same identical ultimate
destiny-End as do Road Kills and Bugs and Yard Weeds,

I have my suspicions too.

Is that Tribe?
"Everyone else" , , ,
Everyone else has their suspicions.
And I'm sure they're unbiased and unprejudiced too.
Just like you are unbiased and unprejudiced.
Secular Humanists are never biased and never
prejudiced -- they follow the truth where ever it leads,
including when it leads to Bugs and Rats and Lions --
and they do it cheerfully to and with a glad heart.

It was just standard atheist attack-ridicule on Christianity.
If somebody said "Swensson is a joke" {or "JAG is a joke"}
that would be an insult and a ridicule-attack against you.
That'd be not a good thing to say.

, , ,lol , ,
I have not used smear against you.
Two can play the smear game.
Henceforth you are guilty of using smear against me because you
try to smear me, by accusing me of using smear.
Each and every time you accuse me of smear, I will accuse you
of smear. Look for it. It will be there.

Best.

JAG

 

What a load of drivel. You have no idea what you are talking about. A vast number of bugs are beneficial to nature and man. Without them humans would be much poorer off. Most of the things mentioned are of benefit to man. Not only do you lack Biblical knowledge you lack knowledge of nature. You're simply making yourself look silly.

 

But it is important to the vast huge enormous majority of
Collective Humanity -- who do NOT like to be told that they
have the same identical ultimate destiny-End as do the
entities on this list below , ,
~ Humans
~ Grass
~ Weeds
~ Lion
~ Fish
~ Housefly
~ Spiders
~ Cockroach
~ Cow
~ Bats
~ Geese
~ Buffalo
~ Horse
~ Mule
~ Zebra
~ Bug
~ Rat
~ Mouse
~ Black Roach
~ House Plant
~ Mosquito
~ Pig
~ Road Kill
~ Turtle
~ Hog
~ Peat Moss
~ Snake
~ Ants

Get the Truth out there.
People might love it.
People love to be told that they have the same identical ultimate
destiny-End as do Road Kills and Bugs and Yard Weeds.

The world's relatively few activists Secular Humanists
do NOT speak for Collective Humanity. There will be
some 5.7 billion Theists in the world by 2050 ---and
they do not like your Secular Humanist message. In
fact there are very few human beings that actually
love to be told they will have the same identical ultimate
destiny-END as does a Rat, a Bug, a Lion, a Pig,
a Yard Weed. and a Road Kill.

This is why you are strongly partial to the message
of Wikipedia on Secular Humanism --- because
Wikipedia puts your Religion Of Secular Humanism
in a good light --- and does not tell the Truth, the
Whole truth, and Nothing But The truth --- about
your Sad Religion of Secular Humanism -- that
ENDS in Gloom, Doom, and Destruction for the
entire Human Person at Death --- namely
ceasing-to-exist as in Oblivion.

You have a very cheerful Religion in your Secular Humanism.
Your message to Collective Humanity is what all humans love
to hear -- that they will ultimately END UP like a Bug and a
Rat and a Yard Weed -- as in ceasing to exist Oblivion.


JAG

 

And you are partial to Christian belief of life in eternity. What proof can you show your readers. The whole truth is that you have no proof. What's the difference. W.H. Auden had a verse describing you and your 'spoutings' but I won't post it. It may be against rules.

 

Speaking about "ultimate destiny" I have a question for you.
You are a Bible reader and a man who knows something about
the history books. If you do not mind, glance over what I posted
below and tell me how, as a Secular Humanist, you explain this
below?

"I have fought the good fight . . . I have kept the faith"___The Apostle Paul
2 Timothy 4:7

Just think about the Apostle Paul's agony, pain, and suffering , , ,

Here are the particulars , , , ,
{2 Corinthians chapter 11}

■ Paul was a servant of Christ

■ He worked much harder than others did

■ He was put in prison more frequently

■ He was flogged more severely

■ He was exposed to death again and again

■ Five times he received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one
{that comes out to 195 lashes on his back}

■ Three times he was beaten with rods

■ Once he was pelted with stones

■ Three times he was shipwrecked

■ He spent a night and a day in the open sea

■ He was constantly on the move

■ He was in danger from rivers

■ He was in danger from bandits

■ He was in danger from his fellow Jews

■ He was in danger from Gentiles

■ He was in danger in the city

■ He was in danger in the country

■ He was in danger at sea

■ He was in danger from false believers

■ He labored and toiled and often went without sleep

■ He knew hunger and thirst

■ He often went without food

■ He was cold and naked

■ Besides everything else, he faced daily the pressure of his
concern for all the churches

■ In Damascus the governor under King Aretas had the city
of the Damascenes guarded in order to arrest him

■ But he was lowered in a basket from a window in the wall
and slipped through his hands.
____from 2 Corinthians chapter 11

_________________


Here is the passage , ,

2 Corinthians chapter 11 , , , ,
"Are they servants of Christ? , , , ,
I am more. I have worked much harder, been in prison more
frequently, been flogged more severely, and been exposed to
death again and again. Five times I received from the Jews
the forty lashes minus one. Three times I was beaten with
rods, once I was pelted with stones, three times I was
shipwrecked, I spent a night and a day in the open sea,
I have been constantly on the move. I have been in danger
from rivers, in danger from bandits, in danger from my fellow
Jews, in danger from Gentiles; in danger in the city, in danger
in the country, in danger at sea; and in danger from false
believers. I have labored and toiled and have often gone
without sleep; I have known hunger and thirst and have
often gone without food; I have been cold and naked.
Besides everything else, I face daily the pressure of my
concern for all the churches. Who is weak, and I
do not feel weak? Who is led into sin, and I do not inwardly burn.
If I must boast, I will boast of the things that show my weakness.
The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, who is to be praised forever,
knows that I am not lying. In Damascus the governor under King
Aretas had the city of the Damascenes guarded in order to arrest me.
But I was lowered in a basket from a window in the wall and slipped
through his hands." ___ 2 Corinthians chapter 11

___________

Swensson , , ,

As A Secular Humanist , , , ,

How do you explain the fact that the Apostle Paul was willing to
suffer like that?

Do you really believe Paul went through all that suffering because
he was duped into believing something that was nonsense?

Do you accept as historical fact that list up there of Paul's suffering?

Would you be willing to read the entire chapter 11 in 2 Corinthians
before you give me your answers? {to get the whole context}

The Apostle Paul was totally convinced that his "Ultimate destiny"
was Heaven -- and no amount of suffering could turn him away from
his goal of living to please his Lord Jesus. As a Secular Humanist,
how do you explain that?

JAG

 

Swensson,

Continued , , ,

I wanted to add this short passage for your consideration,
if you will answer my questions in my post up-thread.

2 Timothy 4:6-8
"For I am already being poured out like a drink offering, and
the time for my departure is near. I have fought the good fight,
I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. Now there is
in store for me the crown of righteousness, which the LORD,
the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day-and not only
to me, but also to all who have longed for his appearing"
___The Apostle Paul

_____________


The Lord Jesus said about the Apostle Paul:
{before Paul began his ministry}

"I will show him how much he must suffer for my name."__The Lord Jesus
Acts 9:16

___________

"for the time of my departure is near"___The Apostle Paul , , ,

"It is not so important how the apostles died. What is important
is the fact that they were all willing to die for their faith. If Jesus
had not been resurrected, the disciples would have known it.
People will not die for something they know to be a lie. The
fact that all of the apostles were willing to die horrible deaths,
refusing to renounce their faith in Christ, is tremendous
evidence that they had truly witnessed the resurrection
of Jesus Christ"___Off the web
https://www.gotquestions.org/apostles-die.html

JAG

 

So Mohammed was a true Prophet. Many die believing in his teachings. He even saw and spoke with Gabriel.