lucifer69133

1) He introduced it to the Abrahamic religions. And I should have been more specific in that he brought Eternal Hell to the Abrahamic religions. Gehenna was temporary, and only for the "wicked." I won't get into whether or not disbelief in the face of a staggering lack of evidence qualifies as "wicked."

2) You seem to assume that I'm approaching strangers and demanding they tell me their most deeply held beliefs so I can rail against them. That's not the case. I'm referring to people either joining a conversation already in progress with their non-contributions, or people making broad assertions but falling back on vague, nebulous positions when those assertions are challenged.

The metaphor/parable thing is something I hear a lot about the Bible. What I don't hear is what moral truths, exactly, they're supposed to impart. If the voice in your head tells you to kill your child, you should do it unless it tells you to stop? Don't fuck with bald people? Frankly, as a set of parables intended to teach morals, I've seen better. But let's not start asserting that most Christians are of the Thomas Jefferson variety. I've seen no evidence to back that up. The default assumption should be to take them at their word - they believe that Jesus Christ was literally the son of God, and only through him can we be redeemed for our sins (and if we are not redeemed for our sins, punishments ranging from Eternal Torture to Eternal Separation From God That Just Seems Like Torture to Annihilation are the result).

Yes, the gospels are inconsistent and they make it difficult to figure out what Jesus really said. Does that matter? In the context of this discussion, we're talking about someone who has taken what is biblically attributed to Jesus, and come to the conclusion that the person who said those things is/was some sort of moral leader. If we're rejecting the reliability of the Bible in determining what Jesus did or did not say, how do we come to any conclusions about his character?

EDIT

I also meant to add, though I lost my train of thought addressing the gospels, that it was just meant to be a cathartic rant. I wouldn't take it terribly seriously.

None taken. I have a blunt and terse way of phrasing my sentences that perhaps makes me sound more hostile than intended. When it comes to theological arguments, I especially try to be as direct and succinct as possible, because it's a field so rife with vague, unending pontification.