Actually, the wording in the Bible is that you shall not bear false witness. It has the same meaning, but is not ambiguous, like the word lie is. I'm sure you're aware that I meant lie, as the first meaning in the dictionary here. On a side note, which is likely to incite another flamewar, when I looked up lie, the one and only sponsored link was President Bush, with a link to the Daily Show on the Comedy Central Website.
I get the impression that you're just trying to insert a snide remark into this conversation to make a point. I would say that there are some religions that are just there for the money. There's no denying that. Heck, this one just made the news last week. But I would also argue that there are a lot of religions that are not in it for the money. I know that the Church I go to is very open about how money is spent, as well as the financial situation at all times. There's listings in the bulletin about what money is taken in, and what major projects the money is used for. To generalize to the extent that your remark is generalizing, is similar to racism at its roots. Someone has a bad experience with someone who has purple skin, and they think all purple-skinned people are the same. It's just spreading of fear.
I am not seeking proof from anyone. I didn't mean to ask for so many replies, but I was just clarifying what I thought was a common misinterpretation of what Christians say. I simply said that if the Christian is preaching what it says in the Bible, then they do not have the power to Damn someone. I know there are some out there who think that they can Damn someone on God's behalf, but I would argue that they are on a power trip. There are people out there who only participate in any sort of religion to try to get the power of God to work for them. I guess it sprung into an all-out debate. I know what I believe, and if asked, I will respond.
I believe that there is a higher power of some sort. I choose to call Him God. I also believe that He can be seen in different ways. There are, and will continue to be, things that cannot be explained, the easy one is existence itself. I went into more detail in another post, but I don't think there is a simple answer to where matter and life came from. Whatever beliefs or disbeliefs anyone else has are their business.
On a side note, I think that telling kids that Santa Claus is real is just stupid. When I have kids, I will be honest with them. I don't see the purpose of trying to convince someone of something that you don't believe yourself. That's just dishonest.
Well, perhaps the idea isn't as ridiculous as it seems. There is a lot that cannot be explained by science at this time. One of the big ones is existence itself. Where did all this stuff come from? What causes life? Those existential question cannot be answered by science. There's attempts, but there had to be something to start from. So, really, to say that something came out of nothing is a ridiculous idea, but it's easily glossed over. I think there must have been something before that. Whether you think it came from God, or somewhere else, that's up to you.
I'm trying to be reasonable here, but you seem to be implying that small-minded hatred is what Christianity is all about. If you don't believe there is a God, that's your choice to disbelieve. You don't have to call names about it. I get the impression that you're being closed-minded to any debate on the topic, and simply trying to push small-minded hatred at those who you don't agree with. Care to prove different?
In other words, they're correlated. I never said one caused the other, but they might as well be equivalent qualifications. They are correlated, but there is a difference between telling someone where they are headed, and saying that they are stuck going there. Excommunication just means you're a long way down the wrong path. Maybe it could be something like a milestone.
That's the rationalization for virtually every atrocity the Church has ever committed. "If it saves souls, then torturing Jews into conversion is worth it."
In any case, Jesus didn't seem to have a problem saving souls without a huge building to help him out. According to your own scriptures, such a thing isn't necessary. There's a huge difference between torturing Jews and having material things. One is absolutely, without a doubt, wrong, and the other is inconsequential, in the long run. I can't speak for anyone who has a lot of material goods, as I'm not one. I do have an average amount for someone in America, but not to the extent that you're speaking about. But I can see that they can be used for the greater good.
I never did say that a huge building is the only way to save souls. It isn't necessary, you're right on that. But it does make it easier.
In that spirit, I'll tell you why people get annoyed at even "minimally intrusive" evangelism. It's because people don't like to be told they're leading their lives wrong. And it's not like you can even show that a non-Christian is leading his life incorrectly. You just kind of proclaim it. When someone tells a smoker "You should cut back or quit", it's actually good advice, and that's been shown that there is a direct causal link between smoking and cancer. There is no way to show such a connection between "Christianity" and "being happy". I'm well aware of the fact that people don't like to be told that they are leading their lives wrong. I think there needs to be a certain relationship between people before they are really comfortable with that. I would never go up to a complete stranger, and say that they are going to Hell. That's just pointless, and usually baseless. As far as proclaiming it, I see your point. There are some things that can be shown to have negative consequences that are sin, and others that are harder to explain. But I would venture to say that many of the major sins can be said to have large consequences in the here and now. The easy target is Murder. There's obviously some repercussions if you sin in that way. There's also consequences for adultery, stealing, false witness (perjury), and even dishonoring your father and mother. For me, I see a connection between Christianity and happiness. If you don't, then it's obvious why you wouldn't want to be a Christian.
I think that's kinda been covered in the other posts in this thread, but really it's about making a choice to go on the path to Heaven, or the path to Hell. If you had one trail labeled "This way to eternal happiness", and another labeled "This way to some temporary happiness(maybe), but eventually leads to eternal pain", and I tell you that you're on the second path, that's not me forcing you to change direction. It would be a good idea, but still, you're free to keep right on going.
Very true. Being lukewarm is not something to strive for. But I don't think that it's in God's plan to go too far and turn people away. I strive to be honest and willing to share. If the questions are asked about what I believe, then I answer them accordingly. I don't force it upon people, because He gave us free will. I offer the option, and some take it, some don't. You do bring up a good point, though.
That may be true, depending on what the answer is. Good point, though.
On a side note, and even more off-topic. I took the opportunity, while waiting for slashdot to accept my post, to take a quick look at your website. The Hot Dogs to the moon and back is awesome. Very good read. It does have the side effect of making me want a hotdog, though.
That's a good point. I really like that analogy better than any car analogy on slashdot. Looking back at your posts, it seems you have a level head on your shoulders. Thanks.
I don't mean to start a debate, but this is quite on topic, as it's an article about a religion. But if you don't like it, log in, and turn on the new discussion format, and click on my original post. Then it all disappears for you, and you don't have to read any of it. I've found it useful when there's tangents of topics that I don't care to read.
I respect your opinion, and see that you've put some honest thought into it. You're right that there isn't physical evidence of His existence. There's quite a bit of evidence that Jesus was around, but that's not proof that He's God. That's the reason for faith. All I'm saying is that I choose to take the side of Pascal's Wager that has the greatest benefit. My experiences tell me that there's something out there, and whether you believe or not is your choice. Thanks for the thought-provoking discussion! I mean it.
Well, the burning is representative of the feeling of being without God. There are countless references to Hell, as well as its various names (Gehenna, Hades, Sheol) in the Bible. One example is Matthew 10:28: Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.
I wouldn't say so. I know you're probably (hopefully) not being serious, but if you are, the thought that you might think of me as a terrorist scares me, so then would you be a terrorist?
That's absolutely true. But the truth is that God (assuming his existence), is the only one with the power to damn anyone. People can say whatever they want, but that doesn't make it true. Nobody sees God damning people, mostly because that step happens after death. Being that you haven't yet died (assumption based on the fact that you're posting here), you wouldn't have seen that. Basically, people can say that anyone's damned, but that doesn't make it true.
It is your choice to make. Like I said, the analogy isn't perfect. But you do introduce the concept of Pascal's Wager. That is, weighing the possible benefits and consequences of a belief in God. In Pascal's eyes, the benefit of belief outweighs the investment needed to believe.
In the train situation, I would likely move off the tracks, as the investment needed to move a few feet is worth saving my life, whether there is a train or not. If there is no train, then it really doesn't matter either way. Either I moved, and got out of the way for no reason, or I was stubborn and stayed in place. There may be a very small amount of pride gained or lost. Alternatively, if there is a train, then moving has a great benefit, and staying stubbornly has a great loss.
Finally, it seems that you think that if you don't believe in God, then God cannot touch you, whether He exists or not. I find this to be like the child who covers his own eyes when he is caught with his hand in the cookie jar. He thinks that if he cannot see his parents, they cannot see him. If there is no God, then there's no threat, you're right. But if there is, do you honestly think that he won't bother with you because you don't believe in Him?
I think you might have misunderstood me. It's not "Do what I say, or I will make you regret it". Like I said in another post, Hell is a place without God. The pain that encompasses that is often described as a burning, as people take God for granted. So, the choice ultimately is to be with God, or without God. Without God is miserable. But God will allow you to choose to be miserable. I'd argue that free will is exactly what's being demonstrated there.
I couldn't agree with you more on the validity of this law. The idea of "Thought Crimes" makes me shudder.
I don't doubt your experience. I've been lucky to have been out of the house most of the time when they stop by, but I have seen some of the literature that they give out. Most of it is either grossly exaggerated, or simply untrue. There is a sliver of truth in some of it, but it's mostly a threat. What I'm saying is that the door-to-door people often don't represent your "average" Christian, if there is such a thing.
The truth is that nobody truly knows without a doubt if God exists until death. That's why it's called faith. Belief without the ability to find absolutely solid proof. On the same token, can you prove that there is no God?
This sub-group can be making a threat. I don't particularly agree with the law as written here, as it can be used to harass, such as what is done in the article. But if you are saying that under this law, could they be said to be making a threat? That could be true. Hell can be used as a threat, when presented in that way. Just as someone could propose a warning as a threat. It's one thing to say that eating entirely junk food isn't good for you. It's another to say that if you don't stop eating all forms of junk food right now, your arteries will clog, and you'll have a heart attack and die. That's just an exaggeration.
I think God does have the ability to stop the train. The reason that He doesn't is the concept of Free Will. Each person is given the choice of Hell or Heaven. If He were to say that he wouldn't accept that choice until you gave the answer He wanted you to, then it really isn't Free Will. It only has that illusion. Like I've said in other posts, Free Will is given to us for us to make choices, not to have the choices decided for us.
Could I ask you to cite some of those times? I know he told many people that they needed to correct their ways, but I can't think of a time that he said that they were going to Hell.
This passage is seen in the Catholic Faith as the institution of the Sacrament of Confession. In that Sacrament, people go in, express regret to God and the Community for their sins, and then they are forgiven by the priest, who is acting in the person of God, as is mentioned in this passage. For a priest, acting in God's name, to deny that forgiveness, is a serious matter. That priest would be wise to have a good reason for denying that request. What I'm saying is that it's not something that's taken lightly.
Also, I think an important part of that verse is that it says "Whatever" instead of "Whoever". It may seem like I'm splitting hairs, but I think it's an important distinction. Even if the sin was not forgiven, then it may not be enough to send someone to Hell. That's only in God's hands.
It's the equivalent. In other words, if you get excommunicated, you might as well be damned to Hell. I would say that the cause flows the other way. If you are excommunicated, you are likely on the path to Hell, not because of the excommunication, but it's a sign of what's on the way.
Any religion whose leaders preach about how terrible materialism is from gigantic churches filled with priceless art doesn't get to claim they're not in it for the money. Some Christians actually take those teachings seriously, but the larger churches obviously do not, especially the Catholic Church. I don't buy this "We build giant churches to glorify God" nonsense for one second. They do it to glorify themselves and skim a little off the top of the donations. Like I said, not all people who take those vows follow them completely. In my opinion, having things isn't bad, it's the reason for having them that can be malicious. If your goal is to accumulate as many material goods as possible, then that's materialism to the extreme. If your goal is to reach out to others, and you happen to use material goods, then that's totally different. Also, the Church building is there for the people, not the clergy. If it saves souls, then it's worth it.
Evangelism by its very nature is intrusive. It requires that the target make a conscious effort to ignore you. My wording in the previous comment was bad, I apologize for that. What I mean is that evangelization should be done in a way that does not excessively intrude. It should be aimed at helping, not annoying. There's a lot of it going on that isn't that way, and it burns people so much that they refuse to participate in rational dialog. I've been pleasantly surprised with how rational people are being in not flaming me for my beliefs, and I'd like to thank not only you, but the others who are responding rationally.
Ahh, you've found one of the flaws in the analogy. As I said, it's still imperfect. The imperfection you've found is that a train has the ability to stop. Let me address your points:
we must consider why the sadistic train conductor does not apply the breaks (sic) This is the main failure in the analogy I proposed, like I mentioned before. God is incompatible with Sin. A Christian believes this to be a fact. The warning is one that living in Sin makes you incompatible with God. Hell isn't necessarily a place of Fire, but simply a place without God. I'd say that God is often taken for granted. Being separated from Him is what Hell is. Now, that doesn't sound all that bad, so people use the (again, imperfect) analogy of Fire and Burning. But the fact is that God gave us free will, and won't take it away. So the choice to be in danger (on the tracks in the analogy, or in Sin), is a choice that we each make.
why the people warning the track-dwellers are smug when the train comes This is something that I dislike in many "Christians". That the intent of their "Evangelizing" is for their gain, and not to genuinely help others. I think my other posts in this thread show that I am aware of many hypocrites. Those that are smug at others' failures, aren't really looking out for others. Basically what I'm trying to say is that they shouldn't be smug. I know I hate to see anyone go down the wrong path, even if we have differences, or they've wronged me, or anything like that. Suffering sucks, no matter who does it.
why the warners continue to see the train conductor as as anything other than evil. That's kinda covered above. In my view, God doesn't send people to Hell. They commit sins that make them incompatible with God. It is the choices that a person makes that decide where they end up. That's why Christians don't see God as evil.
That is a good point. I think there are many people who try to manipulate people into believing through dishonest ways. They probably think that they are helping, but it rarely does. As I mentioned in another post, I believe we were given free will for a reason. We shouldn't be forced to be perfect, not in the least. But it is a goal to strive for. In my opinion, one should not be told that they are going to Hell in most, if not all, circumstances. Terrifying someone in order to give them information is not good, no matter how noble the information is. People can use religion for nefarious purposes, that doesn't mean that religious beliefs are nefarious. I believe there is a saying (and I would appreciate a full quote, as Google fails me), that if you give me 3 lines of an honest man's word, there's something in there to have him hanged.
I see that the analogy isn't perfect. The modified analogy that you have has a bit of an improvement, the relationship between the "warner" and the "harm". The thing that I don't believe in is the intention of harming. I believe that it's not an intimidation, but a fact. In the same sense that oil and water don't mix, God and sin don't mix. Moving away from the car analogy (I know, on slashdot, no analogy is complete without a car), say that it's a train that is on a schedule. Now let's say that I work for the train company. If I see someone on the tracks, I would say that it is my duty to warn them of the danger. I know the fact that a train will be coming, and that if someone is on the tracks when the train comes, they will not fare well. There's a chance that they might be on the tracks, and will jump off them at the last second, but I think I need to at least warn them on the inherent danger of the train.
That's my modification to the analogy, still imperfect, but better. I still maintain that it is not a threat.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, the wording in the Bible is that you shall not bear false witness. It has the same meaning, but is not ambiguous, like the word lie is. I'm sure you're aware that I meant lie, as the first meaning in the dictionary here. On a side note, which is likely to incite another flamewar, when I looked up lie, the one and only sponsored link was President Bush, with a link to the Daily Show on the Comedy Central Website.
I get the impression that you're just trying to insert a snide remark into this conversation to make a point. I would say that there are some religions that are just there for the money. There's no denying that. Heck, this one just made the news last week. But I would also argue that there are a lot of religions that are not in it for the money. I know that the Church I go to is very open about how money is spent, as well as the financial situation at all times. There's listings in the bulletin about what money is taken in, and what major projects the money is used for. To generalize to the extent that your remark is generalizing, is similar to racism at its roots. Someone has a bad experience with someone who has purple skin, and they think all purple-skinned people are the same. It's just spreading of fear.
I am not seeking proof from anyone. I didn't mean to ask for so many replies, but I was just clarifying what I thought was a common misinterpretation of what Christians say. I simply said that if the Christian is preaching what it says in the Bible, then they do not have the power to Damn someone. I know there are some out there who think that they can Damn someone on God's behalf, but I would argue that they are on a power trip. There are people out there who only participate in any sort of religion to try to get the power of God to work for them. I guess it sprung into an all-out debate. I know what I believe, and if asked, I will respond.
I believe that there is a higher power of some sort. I choose to call Him God. I also believe that He can be seen in different ways. There are, and will continue to be, things that cannot be explained, the easy one is existence itself. I went into more detail in another post, but I don't think there is a simple answer to where matter and life came from. Whatever beliefs or disbeliefs anyone else has are their business.
On a side note, I think that telling kids that Santa Claus is real is just stupid. When I have kids, I will be honest with them. I don't see the purpose of trying to convince someone of something that you don't believe yourself. That's just dishonest.
Well, perhaps the idea isn't as ridiculous as it seems. There is a lot that cannot be explained by science at this time. One of the big ones is existence itself. Where did all this stuff come from? What causes life? Those existential question cannot be answered by science. There's attempts, but there had to be something to start from. So, really, to say that something came out of nothing is a ridiculous idea, but it's easily glossed over. I think there must have been something before that. Whether you think it came from God, or somewhere else, that's up to you.
I'm trying to be reasonable here, but you seem to be implying that small-minded hatred is what Christianity is all about. If you don't believe there is a God, that's your choice to disbelieve. You don't have to call names about it. I get the impression that you're being closed-minded to any debate on the topic, and simply trying to push small-minded hatred at those who you don't agree with. Care to prove different?
I never did say that a huge building is the only way to save souls. It isn't necessary, you're right on that. But it does make it easier. In that spirit, I'll tell you why people get annoyed at even "minimally intrusive" evangelism. It's because people don't like to be told they're leading their lives wrong. And it's not like you can even show that a non-Christian is leading his life incorrectly. You just kind of proclaim it. When someone tells a smoker "You should cut back or quit", it's actually good advice, and that's been shown that there is a direct causal link between smoking and cancer. There is no way to show such a connection between "Christianity" and "being happy". I'm well aware of the fact that people don't like to be told that they are leading their lives wrong. I think there needs to be a certain relationship between people before they are really comfortable with that. I would never go up to a complete stranger, and say that they are going to Hell. That's just pointless, and usually baseless. As far as proclaiming it, I see your point. There are some things that can be shown to have negative consequences that are sin, and others that are harder to explain. But I would venture to say that many of the major sins can be said to have large consequences in the here and now. The easy target is Murder. There's obviously some repercussions if you sin in that way. There's also consequences for adultery, stealing, false witness (perjury), and even dishonoring your father and mother. For me, I see a connection between Christianity and happiness. If you don't, then it's obvious why you wouldn't want to be a Christian.
I think that's kinda been covered in the other posts in this thread, but really it's about making a choice to go on the path to Heaven, or the path to Hell. If you had one trail labeled "This way to eternal happiness", and another labeled "This way to some temporary happiness(maybe), but eventually leads to eternal pain", and I tell you that you're on the second path, that's not me forcing you to change direction. It would be a good idea, but still, you're free to keep right on going.
Very true. Being lukewarm is not something to strive for. But I don't think that it's in God's plan to go too far and turn people away. I strive to be honest and willing to share. If the questions are asked about what I believe, then I answer them accordingly. I don't force it upon people, because He gave us free will. I offer the option, and some take it, some don't. You do bring up a good point, though.
That may be true, depending on what the answer is. Good point, though.
On a side note, and even more off-topic. I took the opportunity, while waiting for slashdot to accept my post, to take a quick look at your website. The Hot Dogs to the moon and back is awesome. Very good read. It does have the side effect of making me want a hotdog, though.
That's a good point. I really like that analogy better than any car analogy on slashdot. Looking back at your posts, it seems you have a level head on your shoulders. Thanks.
I don't mean to start a debate, but this is quite on topic, as it's an article about a religion. But if you don't like it, log in, and turn on the new discussion format, and click on my original post. Then it all disappears for you, and you don't have to read any of it. I've found it useful when there's tangents of topics that I don't care to read.
I respect your opinion, and see that you've put some honest thought into it. You're right that there isn't physical evidence of His existence. There's quite a bit of evidence that Jesus was around, but that's not proof that He's God. That's the reason for faith. All I'm saying is that I choose to take the side of Pascal's Wager that has the greatest benefit. My experiences tell me that there's something out there, and whether you believe or not is your choice. Thanks for the thought-provoking discussion! I mean it.
Well, the burning is representative of the feeling of being without God. There are countless references to Hell, as well as its various names (Gehenna, Hades, Sheol) in the Bible. One example is Matthew 10:28: Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.
I wouldn't say so. I know you're probably (hopefully) not being serious, but if you are, the thought that you might think of me as a terrorist scares me, so then would you be a terrorist?
That's absolutely true. But the truth is that God (assuming his existence), is the only one with the power to damn anyone. People can say whatever they want, but that doesn't make it true. Nobody sees God damning people, mostly because that step happens after death. Being that you haven't yet died (assumption based on the fact that you're posting here), you wouldn't have seen that. Basically, people can say that anyone's damned, but that doesn't make it true.
It is your choice to make. Like I said, the analogy isn't perfect. But you do introduce the concept of Pascal's Wager. That is, weighing the possible benefits and consequences of a belief in God. In Pascal's eyes, the benefit of belief outweighs the investment needed to believe.
In the train situation, I would likely move off the tracks, as the investment needed to move a few feet is worth saving my life, whether there is a train or not. If there is no train, then it really doesn't matter either way. Either I moved, and got out of the way for no reason, or I was stubborn and stayed in place. There may be a very small amount of pride gained or lost. Alternatively, if there is a train, then moving has a great benefit, and staying stubbornly has a great loss.
Finally, it seems that you think that if you don't believe in God, then God cannot touch you, whether He exists or not. I find this to be like the child who covers his own eyes when he is caught with his hand in the cookie jar. He thinks that if he cannot see his parents, they cannot see him. If there is no God, then there's no threat, you're right. But if there is, do you honestly think that he won't bother with you because you don't believe in Him?
I think you might have misunderstood me. It's not "Do what I say, or I will make you regret it". Like I said in another post, Hell is a place without God. The pain that encompasses that is often described as a burning, as people take God for granted. So, the choice ultimately is to be with God, or without God. Without God is miserable. But God will allow you to choose to be miserable. I'd argue that free will is exactly what's being demonstrated there.
I couldn't agree with you more on the validity of this law. The idea of "Thought Crimes" makes me shudder.
I don't doubt your experience. I've been lucky to have been out of the house most of the time when they stop by, but I have seen some of the literature that they give out. Most of it is either grossly exaggerated, or simply untrue. There is a sliver of truth in some of it, but it's mostly a threat. What I'm saying is that the door-to-door people often don't represent your "average" Christian, if there is such a thing.
The truth is that nobody truly knows without a doubt if God exists until death. That's why it's called faith. Belief without the ability to find absolutely solid proof. On the same token, can you prove that there is no God?
Like I mentioned in another post, there's a big difference between Excommunication and Damnation.
This sub-group can be making a threat. I don't particularly agree with the law as written here, as it can be used to harass, such as what is done in the article. But if you are saying that under this law, could they be said to be making a threat? That could be true. Hell can be used as a threat, when presented in that way. Just as someone could propose a warning as a threat. It's one thing to say that eating entirely junk food isn't good for you. It's another to say that if you don't stop eating all forms of junk food right now, your arteries will clog, and you'll have a heart attack and die. That's just an exaggeration.
I think God does have the ability to stop the train. The reason that He doesn't is the concept of Free Will. Each person is given the choice of Hell or Heaven. If He were to say that he wouldn't accept that choice until you gave the answer He wanted you to, then it really isn't Free Will. It only has that illusion. Like I've said in other posts, Free Will is given to us for us to make choices, not to have the choices decided for us.
Could I ask you to cite some of those times? I know he told many people that they needed to correct their ways, but I can't think of a time that he said that they were going to Hell.
This passage is seen in the Catholic Faith as the institution of the Sacrament of Confession. In that Sacrament, people go in, express regret to God and the Community for their sins, and then they are forgiven by the priest, who is acting in the person of God, as is mentioned in this passage. For a priest, acting in God's name, to deny that forgiveness, is a serious matter. That priest would be wise to have a good reason for denying that request. What I'm saying is that it's not something that's taken lightly.
Also, I think an important part of that verse is that it says "Whatever" instead of "Whoever". It may seem like I'm splitting hairs, but I think it's an important distinction. Even if the sin was not forgiven, then it may not be enough to send someone to Hell. That's only in God's hands.
That is a good point. I think there are many people who try to manipulate people into believing through dishonest ways. They probably think that they are helping, but it rarely does. As I mentioned in another post, I believe we were given free will for a reason. We shouldn't be forced to be perfect, not in the least. But it is a goal to strive for. In my opinion, one should not be told that they are going to Hell in most, if not all, circumstances. Terrifying someone in order to give them information is not good, no matter how noble the information is. People can use religion for nefarious purposes, that doesn't mean that religious beliefs are nefarious. I believe there is a saying (and I would appreciate a full quote, as Google fails me), that if you give me 3 lines of an honest man's word, there's something in there to have him hanged.
I see that the analogy isn't perfect. The modified analogy that you have has a bit of an improvement, the relationship between the "warner" and the "harm". The thing that I don't believe in is the intention of harming. I believe that it's not an intimidation, but a fact. In the same sense that oil and water don't mix, God and sin don't mix. Moving away from the car analogy (I know, on slashdot, no analogy is complete without a car), say that it's a train that is on a schedule. Now let's say that I work for the train company. If I see someone on the tracks, I would say that it is my duty to warn them of the danger. I know the fact that a train will be coming, and that if someone is on the tracks when the train comes, they will not fare well. There's a chance that they might be on the tracks, and will jump off them at the last second, but I think I need to at least warn them on the inherent danger of the train.
That's my modification to the analogy, still imperfect, but better. I still maintain that it is not a threat.