JPH: ? -- I didn't think that would require any explication; obviously
JPH: omnipotence can use any number of means to accomplish this, no?

Then, in response to my next question:

JPH: And yet again we have the question: By what means have you arrived
JPH: at this "sure" conclusion, other than, "I think so"?

I find it rather humorous (and a bit annoying) how quickly you change from, “gee I don’t have to have an answer, God can do anything” when it suits your purposes, but then instantly do a 180 and demand that I have a complete answer. If it’s good enough for you, then it’s good enough for me: “obviously omnipotence can use any number of means to accomplish this.”
 

PJ: What's wrong with the "modern view"?

JPH: Nothing -- until it is used to interpret an ancient text.

But we are talking about (supposedly) eternal truths. The fact that you argue that we should analyze the texts in a more antiquated fashion seems almost an implied admission that we aren’t talking about eternal truths--merely ancient myths. Now, if we are just talking about ancient myths, and what they meant to the people who believed them, then the need for historical perspective is indeed reasonable. But if we are talking about eternal truths, then they should be just as reasonably viewed with a modern perspective than with an antiquated perspective.

PJ: You appear to have contradicted yourself because you earlier said that
PJ: hell is not why people should choose salvation, and hell should not be
PJ: used by preachers to encourage theism.

JPH: You'll have to give me an exact line

No problem. In an earlier round, I said:

PJ>Well, do they not do that already, here on Earth, before they die?
PJ>Aren't some people Christians because they don't want to go to hell?

To which you replied:

JPH>Yes, and they shouldn't. It's nowhere used as a kerygamtic appeal.

So, there is where you made the statement to which you are now contradicting yourself.

JPH: but keep in mind that I may have said that with a view towards hell as
JPH: fire and brimstone.

Well, um, you still contradicted yourself. You had said that people shouldn’t be Christians out of fear of hell, and hell should not be used as a “kerygamtic appeal” and now you are saying that the hell is indeed there to help motivate people to “toe the line”.
 

JPH: For the ancients, avoiding shame was already a goad to persons in life
JPH: to act properly; so shame would be a goad to choose the right path in
JPH: all circumstances -- not for hell particularly.

Well, for one, that says that the ancients viewed shame as a “punishment”—something undesirable and worth the effort to try to avoid. And for two, what might or might not have motivated ancients might be of some historical relevance in understanding their society—but ultimately, immaterial. What motivated some ancients or even what motivates you may or may not motivate me. If what might motivate me to do what God wants happens to be different than what you or some ancients might find motivating to do what God wants shouldn’t be a factor in my eternal salvation.

PJ: But for me, I see no relationship whatsoever between our reality here
PJ: and heaven. After all, children that die as infants and had almost
PJ: no "contiguous reality" presumably do fine in heaven.

JPH: Well, that will just have to be a difference of worldview.

Well, that’s just not an answer--smiley or no smiley. Basically, what you said (paraphrased) is, “I believe it because that is what my religion says.” But the idea of apologetics is that (supposedly) there are good reasons to believe theological tenets beyond simply, “that’s what my religion says.” But you didn’t provide any apologetic here, you just said, “that’s what my religion says.”
 

JPH: As for those that die as infants, why may I not argue in turn that these
JPH: are those for whom such a contiguous experience would have been in
JPH: some way damaging or less beneficial?

Okay, well, if your speculation here is correct, then indeed it is true that at least for some people, our “contiguous experience” is not necessary and perhaps even detrimental. But you are then contradicting yourself, where you previously said, "I don't see that we can have heaven as it is/will be without the contiguous reality of what we have had here...” Well, aparantly, at least some people can do without our "contiguous reality".

JPH: By my reckoning, once my study has led me to see Christianity is true,

JPH: your other candidates go far down the list of things to consider;

And of course a Muslim would say that once his study has led him to see Islam is true, his need to consider other candidates such as Christianity drop down on his/her list. And once my study of Christianity has let me to see it is false means that while there may be many possible pieces of evidence to consider that could potentially alter my view nonetheless drop down on my list of things to consider. Of course, since I’m fairly public atheist, I do try to keep up with at least the most well known of the evidences and arguments used. But ultimately, I’ll never review every possible evidence or argument in favor of Christianity, nor will you be able to review every possible evidence and argument in favor of every possible alternative.

This basically takes us to the simple fact that humans are limited. Conceivably there is some evidence out there that might convince me of Christianity. Conceivably, there might be some evidence out there that might convince you of Islam. But if Allah is the One True God, He would be unreasonable to have expected you to search every possible evidence for this. And if Yahweh is the one true God, He would be unreasonable to expect me to search every possible evidence for this.

JPH: Hmm. I think you are confusing the concepts of "free will" and "freedom"
JPH: here. "Free will" means the ability to make choices from available
JPH: options, not the ability to do anything at all (and without
JPH: consequences).

But of course I don’t control my available options, not entirely anyway. So, if I can only do what is within my available options, and my available options are not within my control, ultimately, what I do is not completely within my control. I can’t do things that are not in my available options. But that means it is unreasonable to base my eternal destination based upon a limited set of actions I do--which were merely among a set of possible actions and the set of possibilities is beyond my control.
 

JPH: How about God saying, "Imagine how Cathy is suffering now." Or:
JPH: Having them turn on the TV just when something came up on the news
JPH: about deadbeats?

Okay, you are saying that God didn’t FORCE the deadbeat customer to pay, but perhaps gave some kind of subtle encouragement, which the deadbeat customer may or may not have acted upon. Had the deadbeat customer not acted on the subtle hint, Cathy would still be without her $5,000. I can concede this is at least a plausible scenario. But, if God lending a bit of subtle encouragement can help Cathy get her $5,000, well, one would think God could use a lot of subtle encouragements to solve all sorts of problems. If it’s that (relatively) easy to get a deadbeat customer to pay up 5 g’s, subtle encouragement to millions of God-believers in this country and around the world should result in billions of dollars to feed the hungry—enough to feed the world.

PJ: You might say that I am thereby making a positive claim that he is not
PJ: an alien from an alternate dimension. But it is still not reasonable to say
PJ: we both have a burden to show our side.

JPH: Not at all; it just so happens that your burden is light as a feather.

Actually, if you were to claim that G. W. Bush is an alien from an alternate dimension, I would be totally without any way to prove you wrong. What possible evidence could I produce that wouldn’t be consistent with your claim that G. W.'s very human appearance had simply been well engineered by the aliens? If I instantly have the burden of proof to disprove any theory you come up with, my burden would be impossibly heavy. So I still reject your claim that I have any burden of proof to refute any of your claims. [But I think I've done a fair job nonetheless... ] You still have the burden of proof to prove your claims.  It is as simple as that.

PJ: Well, God could have chosen believing "dog doo-doo is yucky" as His
PJ: salvation plan. And that would have has much efficacy as God wants it
PJ: to have.

JPH: Um. Hypothetically, if I came to you offering salvation with such a core

JPH: belief, would you take it seriously?

That’s the beauty (so to speak) of my salvation plan. I could think you are completely nuts if you would come to me offering that as a salvation plan—and yet I still believe that “dog doo-doo is yucky”. So, say you come to me and offer that as your salvation plan. And say I assume you are a wacko and ignore everything you say. One day I die and God says, “you, for believing ‘dog doo-doo is yucky’ are hereby granted entry to heaven.” And then I happen to run into you and you say, “see, I told you so!”

Ready to concede? I think I'm getting better at finding your contradictions. Granted I'm biased, but I think you're eating my dust... (I probably should have avoided grandstanding here, as you so far have avoided grandstanding in this debate. But grandstanding is such a JPH trademark that I couldn't help myself...)