# Reading > Religious Texts >  The Christian Hell

## The Atheist

In a discussion on what happens after death, I notice a number of people saying that we either go to heaven or hell. Many mainline christians believe Hell isn't so much a place as a state of not-being - the Roman Catholic Church, for instance, do not hold the old-fashioned "hellfire & brimstone" which some sects still cling to.

I'm interested to find out what christians believe "hell" really is. Jesus had little to say on the subject, and the issue seems to be a peculiar one to me, because it says that all sin is equitable - no matter whether I'm a child-eating murderer or simply an atheist, I'm going to hell. It would be a strange contradiction that a god, variously described as compassionate, loving and caring for humans would inflict identical suffering.

Opinions?

----------


## skasian

I am a devoted Christian, and I have been asked similar questions about hell by many atheists or people that are interested in becoming a Christian. 
We believe that hell exists as a realm that is inexplicable in terms of eternal suffering, pain and agony and because there is no sense of time or space, there is no way out forever. Hell is governed by satan and devils and they inflict abhorrent terrors unimaginable.
Now many people have asked the question who goes to Hell and why do people go there when God does cherish each and every one of us, and how come good people in the world that dedicate their life for other people can also go to hell.
The answer is that they do not have belief and faith in God, Jesus.
No matter how many good deeds you do in life, if you do not confess Jesus as your God then you go to Hell. Harsh, but true.
In order to be saved from hell, theres only one way, and that is Jesus once again. Jesus is the bridge between our world and Heaven, and without Him, you may not enter Heaven.
I know that God hates to see that His children have to suffer in Hell forever, but the ones that do not know him and love Him must be punished eternally.
I have been thinking about the people in the world, the ones that it is not their fault that they do not know God. I wondered what will happen to them. I thought it was not fair for them to miss out the good news about Jesus and how He can be their salvation. But it is evident in the Bible that it is us, Christians' duty to spread the good news about Jesus to these people that never heard about Him. I am still not sure what will happen to those people who it isnt their fault that they do not know Him, but one thing I am sure is that we must spread the Word about God.
Then it is up to them to whether to have faith with him and begin to have the greatest relationship with Him which will change their lives forever. See the love of God. See the glory of God. See how we are priceless in the eyes of the Lord. From then on, they will begin to get closer to God, and get closer to the His Kingdom where they will serve and share the joy together with God.

----------


## JacobF

> I am a devoted Christian, and I have been asked similar questions about hell by many atheists or people that are interested in becoming a Christian. 
> We believe that hell exists as a realm that is inexplicable in terms of eternal suffering, pain and agony and because there is no sense of time or space, there is no way out forever. Hell is governed by satan and devils and they inflict abhorrent terrors unimaginable.
> Now many people have asked the question who goes to Hell and why do people go there when God does cherish each and every one of us, and how come good people in the world that dedicate their life for other people can also go to hell.
> The answer is that they do not have belief and faith in God, Jesus.
> No matter how many good deeds you do in life, if you do not confess Jesus as your God then you go to Hell. Harsh, but true.
> In order to be saved from hell, theres only one way, and that is Jesus once again. Jesus is the bridge between our world and Heaven, and without Him, you may not enter Heaven.
> I know that God hates to see that His children have to suffer in Hell forever, but the ones that do not know him and love Him must be punished eternally.
> I have been thinking about the people in the world, the ones that it is not their fault that they do not know God. I wondered what will happen to them. I thought it was not fair for them to miss out the good news about Jesus and how He can be their salvation. But it is evident in the Bible that it is us, Christians' duty to spread the good news about Jesus to these people that never heard about Him. I am still not sure what will happen to those people who it isnt their fault that they do not know Him, but one thing I am sure is that we must spread the Word about God.
> Then it is up to them to whether to have faith with him and begin to have the greatest relationship with Him which will change their lives forever. See the love of God. See the glory of God. See how we are priceless in the eyes of the Lord. From then on, they will begin to get closer to God, and get closer to the His Kingdom where they will serve and share the joy together with God.


If Jesus is the bridge between heaven and earth, and accepting him is the only way to get into heaven, then what did the people before Jesus do? Are they suffering in eternal agony? And what about the people who lived when paganism and idolatry was the mainstream belief? Are they going to perish for eternity because they simply didn't conceive of a monotheistic God? Or did they inherit a get-out-of-jail-free card?

I don't mean to personally attack you for your beliefs, but the whole notion of accepting Jesus as being the only way to the afterlife doesn't make any sense to me. If I'm a child rapist and I accept Jesus in my final hours, I can go to heaven. But if I'm a generous, selfless and moral human being who doesn't accept Jesus I suffer for eternity because of it. 

I don't see the point in blind faith.

----------


## Delta40

Yes. Can you explain happy are the ignorant for they shall inherit the kingdom of heaven - doesn't this mean those that do not know about God shall be saved? I bloody hate the premise in order to believe you have to understand (SO NARROW MINDED) so these discussions piss me off actually but I accidentally clicked on the wrong post and accepted it as FATE!!! LOL

----------


## skasian

> If Jesus is the bridge between heaven and earth, and accepting him is the only way to get into heaven, then what did the people before Jesus do? Are they suffering in eternal agony? And what about the people who lived when paganism and idolatry was the mainstream belief? Are they going to perish for eternity because they simply didn't conceive of a monotheistic God? Or did they inherit a get-out-of-jail-free card?
> 
> I don't mean to personally attack you for your beliefs, but the whole notion of accepting Jesus as being the only way to the afterlife doesn't make any sense to me. If I'm a child rapist and I accept Jesus in my final hours, I can go to heaven. But if I'm a generous, selfless and moral human being who doesn't accept Jesus I suffer for eternity because of it. 
> 
> I don't see the point in blind faith.


Yes, I always thought it was "unfair" for thoes evil doers that do believe in Jesus in the final hours that can go to heaven while the good doers that do not believe in Jesus go to hell. However in God's terms, accepting your one and true God as Jesus outweighs whatever you do in Earth. I am not a pastor, and I am not an experienced preacher or any kind, therefore I cannot be certain on how God weighs our values in order to go to heaven. However I am sure that you must accept Jesus in order to go to heaven because that is the most important thing in ourlives. Think about it this way, if you do not hand in a research paper for school in the due date but have constructed the most ingenious paper that could earn you a place in Harvard, you dont get a chance to get in because you havent done the most vital thing. Hand in the paper by the due date. 

Ah. The people before Jesus. You see because Jesus was the only way that could give an opportunity to go to heaven, well before that, the soul was rested after their life. This is proved when Jesus was crucified and died. In the exact moment when he died, he had given us a bridge to go to heaven. All the people that died before him, have rosen with Him, and then judged to see whether they could go to heaven or hell. Makes sense?
The question about paganism and idolatry, the same applies for the rest of us. Have faith in God, then life in eternal happiness with him. The truth of faith is in front of you right now. Its just up to you to have the faith of accepting God in to your life. Our salvation.

----------


## skasian

> Yes. Can you explain happy are the ignorant for they shall inherit the kingdom of heaven - doesn't this mean those that do not know about God shall be saved? I bloody hate the premise in order to believe you have to understand (SO NARROW MINDED) so these discussions piss me off actually but I accidentally clicked on the wrong post and accepted it as FATE!!! LOL


Well do you have a precise reason that you do not want to believe in God? Let us have a discussion then. Why repudiate a being like Jesus that is recorded in history books as PERFECT, PURE, MOST RIGHTEOUS MAN that ever stood on earth. Isn't it logic to at least accept Jesus that he was infact perfect and Son of God? What wrong did he commit that will enable you to deprave the faith of God in this way? What did he do wrong to make you incredulous? What wrong did he do to you?
Christians and religious people are NOT narrow minded, you are. All religious people have deep spiritual states that cannot compare with the non religious. As the spirit is in balance with the mind, it makes the religious minds more powerful and stronger. We have fixed values and beliefs that anything in the world cannot touch. It is our God that makes our hearts, minds and soul stronger than any being in the world.

----------


## blazeofglory

[QUOTE
The answer is that they do not have belief and faith in God, Jesus.
No matter how many good deeds you do in life, if you do not confess Jesus as your God then you go to Hell. Harsh, but true.
In order to be saved from hell, theres only one way, and that is Jesus once again. Jesus is the bridge between our world and Heaven, and without Him, you may not enter Heaven.
[/QUOTE]

I can hardly find narrower sentiments than this. And if one has understood Jesus such obnoxious ideas would not be thought up.

Here the idea is so narrow that only Jesus is a savior, and that the rest are nothing.

I feel it is ridiculous. This idea is likened to working for the boss not for the organization. Or to put it differently if you work fro a company if you can please your boss and are a poor performer you are recognized.

Any rational thinker can not digest this idea. Of course the poster reserves the right to express his or her idea, and I too have the right to critically oppose the idea that is unpalatable to us and the rest of us.

----------


## skasian

> I can hardly find narrower sentiments than this. And if one has understood Jesus such obnoxious ideas would not be thought up.
> 
> Here the idea is so narrow that only Jesus is a savior, and that the rest are nothing.
> 
> I feel it is ridiculous. This idea is likened to working for the boss not for the organization. Or to put it differently if you work fro a company if you can please your boss and are a poor performer you are recognized.
> 
> Any rational thinker can not digest this idea. Of course the poster reserves the right to express his or her idea, and I too have the right to critically oppose the idea that is unpalatable to us and the rest of us.


Once again, to the atheist, it is natural for one to believe the idea that having faith for only one god and leaving all the other religion is quite narrow, however for a religious person that does believe that their god is true and the only way for salvation, it is not a narrow as it is a fact. Any religious person will think their idea on their religion is a fact not an idea and thats the difference between a believer and an atheist. 
Christians, as this thread is dedicated to the Christians belief in Hell, believe that Jesus is the only way for salvation. Again, for us it is not a narrow idea as it is a fact. Depict a lock and thousands of keys. A lock opens to heaven and only one key can unlock it. That key is Jesus and in reality, as only this key can open the lock to heaven, it is a fact.
I also think that for an atheist, the fact is hard to digest, but if one does gain belief in it, it instantly becomes a fact, not an idea.

----------


## Delta40

skasian, forgive me but you misread my post. I mean that people who need to understand the concept of things like say hell and gee, god before they are prepared to believe are narrow minded. I tend to go with believe and then you will see. Faith goes a long, long way sometimes. Assumptions, like yours don't.

----------


## blazeofglory

> Once again, to the atheist, it is natural for one to believe the idea that having faith for only one god and leaving all the other religion is quite narrow, however for a religious person that does believe that their god is true and the only way for salvation, it is not a narrow as it is a fact. Any religious person will think their idea on their religion is a fact not an idea and thats the difference between a believer and an atheist. 
> Christians, as this thread is dedicated to the Christians belief in Hell, believe that Jesus is the only way for salvation. Again, for us it is not a narrow idea as it is a fact. Depict a lock and thousands of keys. A lock opens to heaven and only one key can unlock it. That key is Jesus and in reality, as only this key can open the lock to heaven, it is a fact.
> I also think that for an atheist, the fact is hard to digest, but if one does gain belief in it, it instantly becomes a fact, not an idea.


In fact it is not just Jesus, there are others too the Buddha, Krishna, Mohamed and the like.

This idea that one's God is the only one that can be a savior and the rest are not leads to or led to all acts of Violence. We must have a wider perspective to love others' gods, beliefs. This idea is close to fanatics, fundamentalists.

I love Krishna, the Buddha, Jesus on an equal footing. I do not weigh up their significance as saviors incarcerated by narrow sentiments, geographical, racial or cultures. I can enter Guru Dwara, the Buddhist monastery, the Church and Masjid with the same feelings and warmth. Do you still consider me as an atheist by your standards or definitions.

----------


## aBIGsheep

Don't worry. Respawn in 10 seconds.

----------


## skasian

> skasian, forgive me but you misread my post. I mean that people who need to understand the concept of things like say hell and gee, god before they are prepared to believe are narrow minded. I tend to go with believe and then you will see. Faith goes a long, long way sometimes. Assumptions, like yours don't.


Not necessarily. Not all non-believers and incredulous atheists are not narrow minded. There are many people that are very open and tolerant to accept a religion and accounts many religion while finding their true god, and these people are not narrow minded. Some atheists are not narrow minded at all, some have sound knowledge of various religions and have a variety views that may not always have to be against a religion.

Yes, faith does go a long way as it is one of the most difficult thing in the world for an atheists to have full grasp into.
I have never made an assumption as for all Christians, it is the naked truth and the only truth we all need to have in this world.

----------


## skasian

> In fact it is not just Jesus, there are others too the Buddha, Krishna, Mohamed and the like.
> 
> This idea that one's God is the only one that can be a savior and the rest are not leads to or led to all acts of Violence. We must have a wider perspective to love others' gods, beliefs. This idea is close to fanatics, fundamentalists.
> 
> I love Krishna, the Buddha, Jesus on an equal footing. I do not weigh up their significance as saviors incarcerated by narrow sentiments, geographical, racial or cultures. I can enter Guru Dwara, the Buddhist monastery, the Church and Masjid with the same feelings and warmth. Do you still consider me as an atheist by your standards or definitions.


Of course there are many religions that respond to multiple gods and please, let me point out that Christianity does not promote violence, ever. We respect other religions no matter how contrasting they can be. 

Let me define atheist. It may mean one that do not believe in the existance of any god. However it may also mean one that do not FAITH in god. If you do not accept any god as your savior, then you are still classified as an atheist.

----------


## skasian

Everyone, may I please remind you that this thread is for the discussion of "CHRISTIAN HELL" not the discussion that Christianity is the only religion people must have in order to go to Heaven. I am not advocating or preaching Christianity, as I am providing the Christian view on hell.

----------


## blazeofglory

> Not necessarily. Not all non-believers and incredulous atheists are not narrow minded. There are many people that are very open and tolerant to accept a religion and accounts many religion while finding their true god, and these people are not narrow minded. Some atheists are not narrow minded at all, some have sound knowledge of various religions and have a variety views that may not always have to be against a religion.
> 
> Yes, faith does go a long way as it is one of the most difficult thing in the world for an atheists to have full grasp into.
> I have never made an assumption as for all Christians, it is the naked truth and the only truth we all need to have in this world.


Jesus was not a Christian. Christianity creates sectarian feelings and of course it creates voids and distances. It is divisive not integral idea.

We know there are follies among popes and some are even molesters, gay and the like and this is an open secret.

These popes are the pillars of Christianity and they are shaky.

----------


## Whifflingpin

"Christians, as this thread is dedicated to the Christians belief in Hell, believe that Jesus is the only way for salvation."

It is probably safe to say that all Christians accept the statement "Jesus is the only means of salvation."

Far fewer would accept the very different statement, "a belief in Jesus is the only means of salvation."

----------


## skasian

> Jesus was not a Christian. Christianity creates sectarian feelings and of course it creates voids and distances. It is divisive not integral idea.
> 
> We know there are follies among popes and some are even molesters, gay and the like and this is an open secret.
> 
> These popes are the pillars of Christianity and they are shaky.


Let me remind you that Christians are still human, and we make the same mistakes as another person, but we put an effort to limitate it with the help of God. 
I am not Catholic, and although that I believe that popes are important part of Christianity, I only look up towards God.

Of course Jesus is not Christian, he is not a little of himself is he? He is the Son of God, a Healer, a Savour.

----------


## blazeofglory

> Of course there are many religions that respond to multiple gods and please, let me point out that Christianity does not promote violence, ever. We respect other religions no matter how contrasting they can be. 
> 
> Let me define atheist. It may mean one that do not believe in the existance of any god. However it may also mean one that do not FAITH in god. If you do not accept any god as your savior, then you are still classified as an atheist.


Hitler regarded himself as a diehard Christian and there are still too many who think they are Christians. Once we do not divide ourselves between Christians and Jews, the same children we can come closer to truth.

----------


## skasian

> "Christians, as this thread is dedicated to the Christians belief in Hell, believe that Jesus is the only way for salvation."
> 
> It is probably safe to say that all Christians accept the statement "Jesus is the only means of salvation."
> 
> Far fewer would accept the very different statement, "a belief in Jesus is the only means of salvation."


It would depend on the non believer on whether they would also believe that "Jesus is the only means of salvation." This is because the non believer will at least know that in every religion, there is a specific belief that only their god will provode salvation for them. The only difference for the non believer to see is the fact that they do not know which is the "true" god for them.

----------


## skasian

> Hitler regarded himself as a diehard Christian and there are still too many who think they are Christians. Once we do not divide ourselves between Christians and Jews, the same children we can come closer to truth.


Hitler was simply a madman, and he missed out the point that violence is never the answer in Christianity. If he missed out one of the most important laws God has given us, he was obviously not a "diehard" Christian.

----------


## skasian

Blaze, you gave me something to think about, Christian and Jews. The difference between them is that Jews do not believe in Jesus and they follow the strict rules that God had appointed in the Old Testiments. As they do not believe in Jesus but believe in the Holy Father, it gave me a something to think about whether they are allowed to enter Heaven or not.

----------


## NikolaiI

> "Christians, as this thread is dedicated to the Christians belief in Hell, believe that Jesus is the only way for salvation."
> 
> It is probably safe to say that all Christians accept the statement "Jesus is the only means of salvation."
> 
> Far fewer would accept the very different statement, "a belief in Jesus is the only means of salvation."


I remember hearing... and I can't state this with full conviction, but I heard that one of the verses was mistranslated slightly... it had to do with faith in Jesus and so people though you had to have faith in Jesus, but the better translation was "Faith _of_ Jesus" so you had to have the faith of Jesus, if that makes any sense or difference.

----------


## The Atheist

> If I'm a child rapist and I accept Jesus in my final hours, I can go to heaven. But if I'm a generous, selfless and moral human being who doesn't accept Jesus I suffer for eternity because of it.


Yes. That's exactly what I mean.




> I bloody hate the premise in order to believe you have to understand (SO NARROW MINDED) so these discussions piss me off actually but I accidentally clicked on the wrong post and accepted it as FATE!!! LOL


 :Biggrin: 




> Why repudiate a being like Jesus that is recorded in history books as PERFECT, PURE, MOST RIGHTEOUS MAN that ever stood on earth.


Thanks for letting us in on your theology, but I would just note that there are no historical accounts of Jesus outside of the bible, so please don't try to intimate that there are.

The bible might make him out to have been perfect, etc., but no other books even suggest he lived, let alone died on the cross.




> It is probably safe to say that all Christians accept the statement "Jesus is the only means of salvation."


Surprisingly enough, that's not right. Anglican/Episcopalian beliefs don't work like that for starters.




> Hitler was simply a madman, and he missed out the point that violence is never the answer in Christianity.


Yet, if he recanted and sought forgiveness in those last hours in his bunker, embracing Jesus as lord and asking for forgiveness, he'll be in heaven. Seeing that he was Roman Catholic, it's quite possible he sought salvation this way.

Don't you find that a little less than "perfection"?

----------


## skasian

> Yes. That's exactly what I mean.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for letting us in on your theology, but I would just note that there are no historical accounts of Jesus outside of the bible, so please don't try to intimate that there are.
> ...


Your assumption is proved wrong, there are books that provides as fact that Jesus did live. Google and you get some.
Nope. No possible way. He suicided. No matter how he can ask for forgiveness, as he killed himself, there is no way he can enter the Kingdom of God.
Kingdom of God holds perfection, and it always will.

----------


## Delta40

lol I knew i shouldn't be in this thread! A little six year old who is sitting next to me right now, said there is not enough books in the world to answer this question! I'm going with this because I find subjective knowledge and objective knowledge don't meet. Nobody on this thread has objective knowledge really - I mean you guys haven't conducted any research on people that have gone to hell have you? It really is subjective then and even if you combine it with what is written in texts - I don't consider this to be in anyway objective, you still cannot have knowledge that is significant in one way and explanatory in another. It's rather like, pick a colour which you prefer and go with that.

----------


## Rush_of_Blood

I think that the topic has gotten a little off topic, so i'll go back to answering the actual question and inquiries that were originally brought up.

You have some very good questions. I had some of the same questions myself,
but with a little studying of the Bible, here's what answers I got for
your questions:

1) What is hell?


John Piper said:"The historic biblical view of hell is that it is "endless suffering." Both words are biblical and important: "endless"—hell is forever and never has an end—and "suffering"—in this endless condition people are in conscious torment."

So to use the definitions provided, hell is an eternal destination of endless conscious torment


The Bible addresses hell a lot, and so does Jesus. Here are some references:

Matthew 8:12
"....In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."


Romans 2:8
but for those who are self-seeking﻿ and ﻿do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury

Mark 9:43
And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than with two hands to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire.

Matthew 25:41
"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

Matthew 25:46
"And these will go away into eternal punishment"

Revelation 14:11
"And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night"

these are all descriptions of hell, and what will happen/ is happening there. a place of unquenchable fire, wrath and fury, eternal punishment, weeping, gnashing of teeth, and complete torment. that is what hell is.

another way to put it: hell is the abode of those who are permanently separated from God. they create it and maintain it. hell is not a work of God, but the absence of God.


2) why would a loving God create such a place?

RC Sproul says: "We need to realize that those who are in hell desire nothing more than the absence of God. They didn't want to be in God's presence during their earthly lives, and they certainly don't want Him near when they're in hell."

As you said earlier, compassionate, loving and caring are words that describe him and rightfully so. He is all those things plus many more. But God is also a God a justice. Just as a mu rder er gets sentenced for his actions, we are sentenced for a life time of actions.
Jesus actually paid the ultimate price for all our actions. He died on the cross to save us from our sins. And there are some people who will accept that truth, and there are others who will deny it.
For example, if a man says that gravity does not exist, he is definitely going to pay the price when he tries to prove he's right and jumps off a 100 story building. He denied this scientific truth. In the same way, many people will deny the spiritual truth of God, and pay the price for it in the end. The man who jumped off the building fell to his de ath , and we will always fall a continuous dea th if we do not accept God before we go to hell.

2 Timothy 2:12 says, " ......if we deny him, he also will deny us:"

3) why was hell created at all?
Hell was actually created for the devil and his angels, as i believe i quoted earlier, but i'll quote it again.

Matthew 25:41
"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels."

Satan says, "I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.' the "Most High" talked about here is God, and there is no one who can be above God. We can't even be equal like him! God is above all things. Isaiah 48:11, God himself says, "For my own sake, for my own sake, I do this. How can I let myself be defamed? I will not yield my glory to another." So hell was made for Satan to be his own master and his own god and have his own spiritual domain. But as James 1:15 clearly states, "Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth de ath ." Satan died spiritually when he wanted to be like God. And he could not be like God, and still can not be like God. So hell was made for Satan to reign, a continuous struggle against God, but always accepting God's judgment. He is in endless turmoil because he can not be like God, and his rage fills the earth to this day.

People who do not follow God have one alternative: to follow Satan. And Satan lives in hell, along with his demons and devils. So when one dies, they either accepted God and went to heaven to worship him, or go to Satan's domain and suffer along with their master.

4) Is there no hope then for entering God's kingdom? Is every sin, major or minor, bad enough to send you to hell?

yes, every sin is condemnable; and yes there is hope. Whether you sin once in your life, or millions of times in your life, one sin is enough to condemn you to hell, because you have gone against God. There is no difference between a mur der er and a liar in the end. They have both sinned, and they both are deserving of dea th (see James 1:15 again). But there is a way to escape this eternal destination of wrath, fury, gnashing of teeth, and weeping. This is where God's amazing love for us comes in. He knows we are not righteous. He knows we sin. And he gave us a way out of it. Romans 5:8 says, "But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us." Earlier, in Romans 4:25, Paul also states, " He [Jesus] was delivered over to for our sins and was raised to life for our justification." Later on, in chapter 5 verse 19, "For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous." We are made righteous through Jesus dying on the cross for us, all sinners, and all people. Proverbs 11:4, "Wealth is worthless in the day of wrath, but righteousness delivers from de ath ." We are then delivered from dea th through righteousness, which was given to us when Jesus died. All we need to do is accept it, and truly commit our lives to believing it. A murd er er can get saved, because through Mark 3:28, we are reassured that " all sins will be forgiven the children of man, and whatever blasphemies they utter...."

So there is hope for getting out of this horrible place, but the only hope is through God.

----------


## Maletbon

Ouch. So basically Christians are okay with joining a group that thinks everybody who disagrees with them is getting tortured by their creator for eternity? Strikes me as tribalism. Us good them bad.

If Christianity is true, that means God is insane, because only an insane father would torture his kids for all eternity just because they didn't believe some book a bossy person told them was from Him.

If by chance the millenium comes and everyone on the planet becomes a Christian all full of love, and we learn space travel and colonize the galaxy and every sentient being in the galaxy becomes a loving Christian and they go out to the entire universe and all beings thoughout the cosmos become Christians and love one another generation after generation for billions of years, until the universe becomes unliveable, all that Christian Love from untold trillions of billions for billions of years is as nothing compared to the agony of a single soul tormented in hell eternally, in love-hours, or pain-hours, take your pick.

That's Christian love. All because that guy didn't like their book.

----------


## skasian

Thank you rush of blood for your post containing valuable Words of God and your views in Christianity.

----------


## skasian

> lol I knew i shouldn't be in this thread! A little six year old who is sitting next to me right now, said there is not enough books in the world to answer this question! I'm going with this because I find subjective knowledge and objective knowledge don't meet. Nobody on this thread has objective knowledge really - I mean you guys haven't conducted any research on people that have gone to hell have you? It really is subjective then and even if you combine it with what is written in texts - I don't consider this to be in anyway objective, you still cannot have knowledge that is significant in one way and explanatory in another. It's rather like, pick a colour which you prefer and go with that.


The bible is indeed contains the Word of God and the truth He brings to our world. But lets keep in mind that the bible is not the only way we can interact and know more about God.

----------


## skasian

> Ouch. So basically Christians are okay with joining a group that thinks everybody who disagrees with them is getting tortured by their creator for eternity? Strikes me as tribalism. Us good them bad.
> 
> If Christianity is true, that means God is insane, because only an insane father would torture his kids for all eternity just because they didn't believe some book a bossy person told them was from Him.


Please read my previous posts discussing about how God is pure and is not responsible for some of the people suffering in hell. God has layed out the most obvious answer to go the heaven right in front of our noses. It is our incredulousness and relunctance that is responsible for not being able to enter his Kingdom.

----------


## andrew23

any god who creates a universe, and decides to make a test, which will either have you end up in heaven or hell, is unfair.

let us analyze.
first, when you create an imperfect world such as our universe, it is inevitable that some will go to heaven, and that some will go to heaven. god was aware of this, considering he's probably a trillion times wiser than we.

second. why still continue creating a universe such ours? indubitably, it is for one god's temporary entertainment. he laughs, and enjoys watching as we slaves walk towards our various, inevitable destiny. 

the truth..
some were born to do good, some were born to do evil, yet all of us are slaves. we are behind--bars made of unimaginable energy, in chains of the unrelenting power of destiny. not in control of our lives, some optimistic men consoles us. "you have free will" he said. yet, at any point of time, not in control of the various forces that causes an effect, he confidently, ignorantly, and innocently lies to comfort himself. and this, this consolation, is just part of our destiny, our destiny, our struggle for survival.

lacking resources in our civilization, trying to find purpose, man desperately invents an effective and efficient way to fullfill his destiny, to survive. "Religion", covered by the veil of human ignorance, does the job for the mean time to aid our survival.

however, soon enough, we shall realize its weakness..
when lies have been forgotten,
and enlightenment has been made,
when one gets tired of this endless charade.

----------


## skasian

> any god who creates a universe, and decides to make a test, which will either have you end up in heaven or hell, is unfair.
> 
> let us analyze.
> first, when you create an imperfect world such as our universe, it is inevitable that some will go to heaven, and that some will go to heaven. god was aware of this, considering he's probably a trillion times wiser than we.
> 
> second. why still continue creating a universe such ours? indubitably, it is for one god's temporary entertainment. he laughs, and enjoys watching as we slaves walk towards our various, inevitable destiny. 
> 
> the truth..
> some were born to do good, some were born to do evil, yet all of us are slaves. we are behind--bars made of unimaginable energy, in chains of the unrelenting power of destiny. not in control of our lives, some optimistic men consoles us. "you have free will" he said. yet, at any point of time, not in control of the various forces that causes an effect, he confidently, ignorantly, and innocently lies to comfort himself. and this, this consolation, is just part of our destiny, our destiny, our struggle for survival.
> ...


Recall your central idea "any god who creates a universe, and decides to make a test, which will either have you end up in heaven or hell, is unfair."

You say a test, and test is an experiment or an act to determine the quality or performance of the subjects' functions. Our test of life exists with resources that will help us excel in life and gain entry to Heaven. Our function: to serve and follow the Words of God. The resources: The bible and the connection we can have with God by prayer. As the answer is right in front of us, it is certainly NOT unfair that some goes to heaven while the others dont.

And no. People are not born to do evil while some are born to do good. Human are born equally in terms of morality. Human are all born neutral from the start, ie infants are blind from morality. It is their responsibility while they mature to sway closer to God or to devils that will make them act good or bad.

People who follow religion in general may be faulty as they are still human however their gods are flawless and they are pure of imperfections. As religion is a dedication for them, religion should not be rebuked or depraved as gods should not be held against.

As this thread is specified with Christianity, let us further discuss only Christianity and not religion in general.

----------


## andrew23

> Recall your central idea "any god who creates a universe, and decides to make a test, which will either have you end up in heaven or hell, is unfair."
> 
> You say a test, and test is an experiment or an act to determine the quality or performance of the subjects' functions. Our test of life exists with resources that will help us excel in life and gain entry to Heaven. Our function: to serve and follow the Words of God. The resources: The bible and the connection we can have with God by prayer. As the answer is right in front of us, it is certainly NOT unfair that some goes to heaven while the others dont.
> 
> And no. People are not born to do evil while some are born to do good. Human are born equally in terms of morality. Human are all born neutral from the start, ie infants are blind from morality. It is their responsibility while they mature to sway closer to God or to devils that will make them act good or bad.
> 
> People who follow religion in general may be faulty as they are still human however their gods are flawless and they are pure of imperfections. As religion is a dedication for them, religion should not be rebuked or depraved as gods should not be held against.
> 
> As this thread is specified with Christianity, let us further discuss only Christianity and not religion in general.


Yes, and after this eerie test, the innocent defective ones, which God knew to be doomed from the start, were destined for eternal damnation.

Stating the meaning of "test", and your seemingly random words hasn't justify any of my propositions so far. And yes, human are born equally in terms of morality, as everyone starts from zero action. however their morality in the future --their actions and thoughts are out of hand, but rather enslaved to the chains of destiny. 

Your bold yet unwitting statement "People are not born to do evil while some are born to do good." lacks more workable rationale.

However I on the other hand can present to you simple, yet easily fathomable facts that are relevant and logically justifies my propositions unlike your logical fallacies which I have encountered innumerable times in my lifetime.


-At any point of time, every effect has a cause.
-At any point of time, the cause of an effect is not under the control of man, nor god(less god itself is the universe, or he controls the universe), but is rather due to various interconnected forces from the entire universe.
-At any point of time, the actions and thoughts of man is determined by his genes, environment, the people affecting him, the time, the structure of his civilization, the value of gravity, blablabla, etc. -- all of which he was never ever under control during any point of time.

You said "Our function: to serve and follow the Words of God."
But actually, our main function is "to survive, and repoduce better surviving men". Along the way, to help the survival of men, religion was just invented for temporary consolation and aid. Apparently, we're already seeing the cons of religion.
-people not following the laws of their religion
-segregation (instead of unification) 
-ignorance (some people are torturing and killing themselves)

And as you said "religion should not be rebuked or depraved as gods should not be held against." Quite frankly, I believe that's true, not because its logical in terms of truth, but because it's logical and beneficial when we speak for survival. In our present civilization, with our primitive form of technology and politics (compared to the future ofcourse) we are not ready yet to abandon religion. Religion as of now, is effective and efficient enought to aid survival.

You said "As this thread is specified with Christianity, let us further discuss only Christianity and not religion in general". I'm sorry I cannot help but to discuss religion in general, as most religion is similar to the form of christianity. And all of them are theistic in nature. But I guess you have a point, Christian hell is like fires and lavas, while Muslim hell is like scimitars and blades. hehe  :Biggrin:

----------


## The Atheist

> Your assumption is proved wrong, there are books that provides as fact that Jesus did live. Google and you get some.


No.

It's not an assumption of mine, it's a piece of knowledge I have that there is not one peice of contemporary literature which mentions Jesus Christ in any way other than the bible.

Far from Google, this is a subject I have been involved with for thirty years.

If you believe there is any historical record of Jesus, could you please let me know as I know a large number of historians and theologians who will be delighted by the news.




> Nope. No possible way. He suicided.


Stalin then. He died of nice, natural causes and was another childhood theist. Mao, Pol Pot, any despot, is able to beg forgiveness before death and will be received in your heaven.




> It's rather like, pick a colour which you prefer and go with that.


Which is precisely why various christian sects have various visions of Hell, ranging from the liberal "nothing" to the fundie Hell which is based entirely on Dante's.

The ones I'm interested in hearing from are the ones whose Hell is Dante's.




> So there is hope for getting out of this horrible place, but the only hope is through God.


Thanks.




> If Christianity is true, that means God is insane, because only an insane father would torture his kids for all eternity just because they didn't believe some book a bossy person told them was from Him.


That's why Dante's Hell is a minority concept in christianity since the late 20th century. The vast majority of the world's christians are Roman Catholics and they gave it up years ago. To them, Hell is simply non-existence.

----------


## skasian

> No.
> 
> It's not an assumption of mine, it's a piece of knowledge I have that there is not one peice of contemporary literature which mentions Jesus Christ in any way other than the bible.
> 
> Far from Google, this is a subject I have been involved with for thirty years.
> 
> If you believe there is any historical record of Jesus, could you please let me know as I know a large number of historians and theologians who will be delighted by the news.
> 
> 
> ...


http://www.biblehistory.net/ heres a site that mentions books that prove the life of Jesus.

http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Dynasty-.../dp/0743287231 This is certainly a book about his "hidden" life.

Obviously there are books that are dedicated on Jesus's life, all you need to do is GOOGLE.

It depends on how God weighs their confessions of their sins in the last minute of their life and it is doubtful that God will accept them as confession on the last minute of their lives may not cover for all their sins done at their life time. An acceptable confession takes time, and it depends on how much heart you put into the prayer. It is up to God who can go to heaven or hell, not us.

----------


## The Atheist

> Obviously there are books that are dedicated on Jesus's life, all you need to do is GOOGLE.


Nope, sorry, but you're so far wrong I find it hard to credit.

Your faith in Google is no doubt excellent news for Messrs Page & Brin, but it has nothing to do with any kind of proof.

Unfortunately, the sites you link to are no use to me, being nothing but blind assertion and based upon the bible, i.e. the same as all other religious historical sites. You may not have understood the reference I made to "contemporary". *That means historical records from the time of Jesus.*

There are none, apart from the bible.

I suggest you check this out with your pastor if you don't want to believe me, but it is factual that no contemporary historical evidence exists. I can guarantee you that if some were to turn up at this late stage, it would be the most earth-shattering news of the century.

----------


## skasian

> Yes, and after this eerie test, the innocent defective ones, which God knew to be doomed from the start, were destined for eternal damnation.
> 
> Stating the meaning of "test", and your seemingly random words hasn't justify any of my propositions so far. And yes, human are born equally in terms of morality, as everyone starts from zero action. however their morality in the future --their actions and thoughts are out of hand, but rather enslaved to the chains of destiny. 
> 
> Your bold yet unwitting statement "People are not born to do evil while some are born to do good." lacks more workable rationale.
> 
> However I on the other hand can present to you simple, yet easily fathomable facts that are relevant and logically justifies my propositions unlike your logical fallacies which I have encountered innumerable times in my lifetime.
> 
> 
> ...


I assume that you have not read my post carefully. I have justified that your view that the "test" of entering heaven as unfair is incorrect and that for us, the test is fair in any way. 
God indeed know whether an unborn infant will end up in heaven or hell but God is irresponsible for the result as the infant will come upon any opportunity to accept God into their life which will prevent them from going to hell. For example, you have the knowledge that believing in God and accepting Him as your God will earn you a place in His Kingdom. However as you are incredulous, and prefer your own ways, you have repudiated God and the chance to go to Heaven. Its your choice 100%, and for that it is not "unfair" that you may not enter Heaven.

Mankind are not enslaved by their own destiny. We make them, as every decision in our lives depends on our choice. Even though God may know the outcomes, He does not want us to be robots, and rather intends to give us free choices in life. God is wanting us to accept Him into our lives and enter His Kingdom as rightful childrens. Its our ignorance towards Him that leaves ourselves in Hell. Simple as that.

Please forgive the statement "People are not born to do evil while some are born to do good." I was intending to say "people are not born to do evil but to do good." Strange result I must admit.

And your assumptions that are based with "time" suggests the life time in earth, and the power of mankind. Let me discuss that God governs time and that nothing is impossible to Him. When a man is with God, then he is not the man of the world even though he may be a man in and from the world. What I am implying is that when someone is with God therefore accepts Him as their one and only God, a man becomes man of God, not of the world. See now the world is wicked and its state of abhorrence and terror is aggravating. When a person is with God, he or she will gain His protection, His love, and His salvation, promoting good in the world as well as serving Him.
The central idea is that a religious person will not be the same as the physical world, as they will have a spirit that others dont possess. So what ever man of the world will have against a spirit that loves God, nothing can withstand as a religious spirit is more powerful and pure than any other in the world.

To a religious eye, the spiritual function is "to serve and follow the Words of God."
To a biological eye, the physical function is "to survive, and reproduce better surviving men". As science and religion are not the same thing, there are separate functions for mankind.
Through the biological eye, survival may still apply in the third world countries, however for the rest,currently it is being and possessing the palmary that is the main function.

Now let me point out that religion and the followers of religion are different. Religion is system dedicated to god(s) that are immaculate in their holiness,purity and goodness. The followers of religion are mankind that serves the god in a particular religion and as they are mankind, they are sometimes unholy, suffer from impurity and turn away from their god to act evil deeds. It is incorrect that religion has cons, it is the follower of religion that demonstrate cons and acts that are recognised as shame to their religion.

Why dont you make a separate thread for discussing religious aspects you like to cover, because Christianity is not the only religion and there are a range of users that believe in different religions that can also input in your discussion.

----------


## skasian

> Nope, sorry, but you're so far wrong I find it hard to credit.
> 
> Your faith in Google is no doubt excellent news for Messrs Page & Brin, but it has nothing to do with any kind of proof.
> 
> Unfortunately, the sites you link to are no use to me, being nothing but blind assertion and based upon the bible, i.e. the same as all other religious historical sites. You may not have understood the reference I made to "contemporary". *That means historical records from the time of Jesus.*
> 
> There are none, apart from the bible.
> 
> I suggest you check this out with your pastor if you don't want to believe me, but it is factual that no contemporary historical evidence exists. I can guarantee you that if some were to turn up at this late stage, it would be the most earth-shattering news of the century.



http://www.religionfacts.com/christi...tory/jesus.htm
Sources on the Life of Jesus 
The earliest available records of the life of Jesus are the four Gospel narratives, which were written by Jesus' followers within a few decades of his death. A handful of other sources from the first and the second centuries, including Christian, Roman, Jewish, and Gnostic sources, also mention Jesus. 

What is this handful of other sources from 1st and 2nd centuries? I have no knowledge in any other sources about Jesus other than the bible, but I do not need written "proof" that He existed, because belief comes from the spirit, and written proof cannot turn the atheist to a Christian unless the Holy Spirit helps you so. Thank you for a spiritual refreshment, I have reminded myself that even though there may be limited written sources of the life of Jesus, the Holy Spirit that acts to move people to spread the Word of Jesus through generations is almighty.

----------


## Maletbon

Time is the problem.

Linear time as we experience it  that is, in our Christian case  first sin then punishment, only happens when space moves. If nothing moved there would be no time.

Since we now realize that God isn't sitting up in the clouds with the angels, our conception of God is that He exists outside the universe, in a godlike spiritual dimension. Not in space. Therefore not in time.

So when He creates somebody He already knows is doomed to eternal torment, He takes no responsibility for that?

Must be nice to be God. No responsibility and all.

----------


## Zee.

> I am a devoted Christian, and I have been asked similar questions about hell by many atheists or people that are interested in becoming a Christian. 
> We believe that hell exists as a realm that is inexplicable in terms of eternal suffering, pain and agony and because there is no sense of time or space, there is no way out forever. Hell is governed by satan and devils and they inflict abhorrent terrors unimaginable.
> Now many people have asked the question who goes to Hell and why do people go there when God does cherish each and every one of us, and how come good people in the world that dedicate their life for other people can also go to hell.
> The answer is that they do not have belief and faith in God, Jesus.
> No matter how many good deeds you do in life, if you do not confess Jesus as your God then you go to Hell. Harsh, but true.
> In order to be saved from hell, theres only one way, and that is Jesus once again. Jesus is the bridge between our world and Heaven, and without Him, you may not enter Heaven.
> I know that God hates to see that His children have to suffer in Hell forever, but the ones that do not know him and love Him must be punished eternally.
> I have been thinking about the people in the world, the ones that it is not their fault that they do not know God. I wondered what will happen to them. I thought it was not fair for them to miss out the good news about Jesus and how He can be their salvation. But it is evident in the Bible that it is us, Christians' duty to spread the good news about Jesus to these people that never heard about Him. I am still not sure what will happen to those people who it isnt their fault that they do not know Him, but one thing I am sure is that we must spread the Word about God.
> Then it is up to them to whether to have faith with him and begin to have the greatest relationship with Him which will change their lives forever. See the love of God. See the glory of God. See how we are priceless in the eyes of the Lord. From then on, they will begin to get closer to God, and get closer to the His Kingdom where they will serve and share the joy together with God.


That's got to be about the biggest piece of bull**** i've ever read. 

That right there - that's scare tactics. Fear.

Yes when us non believers die we all go to dance with the devil in hell for all of eternity forever and ever and ever.

See that belief, which not all christians hold is insanely flawed and does not make sense of much at all.

Maybe your hell is my heaven.

----------


## Zee.

> any god who creates a universe, and decides to make a test, which will either have you end up in heaven or hell, is unfair.
> 
> let us analyze.
> first, when you create an imperfect world such as our universe, it is inevitable that some will go to heaven, and that some will go to heaven. god was aware of this, considering he's probably a trillion times wiser than we.
> 
> second. why still continue creating a universe such ours? indubitably, it is for one god's temporary entertainment. he laughs, and enjoys watching as we slaves walk towards our various, inevitable destiny. 
> 
> the truth..
> some were born to do good, some were born to do evil, yet all of us are slaves. we are behind--bars made of unimaginable energy, in chains of the unrelenting power of destiny. not in control of our lives, some optimistic men consoles us. "you have free will" he said. yet, at any point of time, not in control of the various forces that causes an effect, he confidently, ignorantly, and innocently lies to comfort himself. and this, this consolation, is just part of our destiny, our destiny, our struggle for survival.
> ...



Look here's my belief, whatever this higher power may be, he has no more involvement with us beyond our creation. Why? because we have free will. We choose to live our life how we wish and the consequences are a result of our doing. Nothing more nothing less.

Coming from a buddhist family, there is no "god" there is only our goal to reach enlightenment.

----------


## Zee.

I dont doubt Jesus existed either. Let me make that clear.
But i don't believe he was the son of anything "almighty". He seemed to have been kind, a good man - but nothing can prove he was anything more.

----------


## Maletbon

> Why dont you make a separate thread for discussing religious aspects you like to cover....


You must really be an idealist if you thought that a thread called Christian Hell would not provoke discussions on belief. Here is a quote describing Hell from the renowned American preacher Jonathan Edwards:

It is everlasting wrath. It would be dreadful to suffer this fierceness and wrath of Almighty God one moment; but you must suffer it to all eternity. There will be no end to this exquisite horrible misery. When you look forward, you shall see a long forever, a boundless duration before you, which will swallow up your thoughts, and amaze your soul; and you will absolutely despair of ever having any deliverance, any end, any mitigation, any rest at all. You will know certainly that you must wear out long ages, millions of millions of ages, in wrestling and conflicting with this almighty merciless vengeance; and then when you have so done, when so many ages have actually been spent by you in this manner, you will know that all is but a point to what remains. So that your punishment will indeed be infinite. Oh, who can express what the state of a soul in such circumstances is! All that we can possibly say about it, gives but a very feeble, faint representation of it; it is inexpressible and inconceivable: For "who knows the power of God's anger?"

All this because somebody doesn't believe some silly old book? I think you're wrong to say that no one suffers from religion. If you are right, only people who agree with you will avoid the most horrible fate imaginible in the mind of man. And you're okay with that? Christians think their religion is good but don't realize it's only good for them.

Also, fyi, I am a believer in God, however my God loves everybody, not just those who agree with you. And if you say God loves everybody but tortures some of them anyway, then I don't see any point in continuing in this quasi-logical vein.

----------


## Zee.

Skasian. Not everyone holds your beliefs, the way you're going about them is forceful and off putting. You don't have all the answers, you never will. Stop speaking as if you know that everything you're saying is fact. For all you know, your next stop might be the devil's door.

----------


## The Atheist

> What is this handful of other sources from 1st and 2nd centuries? I have no knowledge in any other sources about Jesus other than the bible, ...


I'm not too bothered by any kind of "proof" either, but I don't like fallacies of any kind being promoted. Your faith is your affair.

----------


## NikolaiI

*Skasian*, I thought your posts were wonderful and illumating. Thank you for sharing, and I agree with you on many points. I don't believe in Hell - I do believe in Hellish worlds, hellish conditions, hellish suffering, etc. But the hell worlds are not the same as Hell. But I wanted to say I agree that we are not enslaved to destiny. We may have a destiny, but I think... our free will is part of what decides it? Arguging that God is responsible for our sufferings, if he exists, although it is clear they are dependent on our actions, seems to me a silly reason not to think God exists. After all, no one likes it if someone says "God is responsible for my actions," so why would non-believers use the "God is responsible for my actions - or would be, if he existed" as an argument? Silly.

----------


## Zee.

> I'm not too bothered by any kind of "proof" either, but I don't like fallacies of any kind being promoted. Your faith is your affair.


I bet that child in The Atheist's avatar has been through hell quite a few times...
But i suppose..if they dont believe in jesus they deserve to stay there and rot with the rest of us, right?

Ridiculous. That whole religion is flawed.

----------


## NikolaiI

I would like to point out that not all Christians believe in Hell.

Also, no, the child's suffering is not a good thing. But would you also blame the sun, for giving life? God created, and he is present. The child's suffering is because we are not taking care of our responsibilities on this planet. It is not a reason for or against God.

----------


## skasian

> That's got to be about the biggest piece of bull**** i've ever read. 
> 
> That right there - that's scare tactics. Fear.
> 
> Yes when us non believers die we all go to dance with the devil in hell for all of eternity forever and ever and ever.
> 
> See that belief, which not all christians hold is insanely flawed and does not make sense of much at all.
> 
> Maybe your hell is my heaven.


Do you know anything called respect? You are rude and you hold no sense of competence when dealing with manners.
You are not welcome to rebuke the faith of Christianity, and especially rebuking other people's belief. How would you feel if someone spat on you just for believing in something that others dont. Its like saying your belief of Buddhism is fake and your incompetence in living in this world is worthless. Feel good? Look at yourself before commenting on other peoples faces. Is this what your mother taught you? Treat other people that have different views with dirt? I feel sincerely sorry for you if she did not. 

Rather than speaking your disagreeing views in lame statements, why dont you submit yourself in a DISCUSSION on why you believe so. If you need to learn the skill of discussing in an argument, go back to school and learn so. It would be tremendously beneficial to you. :Smile: 
And what induced you to think that I have "all the answers" and "knowing everything as facts", look at the thread title darling, its called CHRISTIAN HELL where Christians can have share their belief in their own hell. I simply shared the view of Christian hell as a Christian. Dont ever make such pathetic assumptions when you have no support.
It is disagreeable people like you that are causing the suffering of children in third world countries. Not God. Open your eyes and stop your adamant reluctance to accept other people's views that differ from you especially in religion.
I pray to God that He will forgive your previous thoughts in Christianity and that someday you will think over the mistakes you have caused.

----------


## skasian

> *Skasian*, I thought your posts were wonderful and illumating. Thank you for sharing, and I agree with you on many points. I don't believe in Hell - I do believe in Hellish worlds, hellish conditions, hellish suffering, etc. But the hell worlds are not the same as Hell. But I wanted to say I agree that we are not enslaved to destiny. We may have a destiny, but I think... our free will is part of what decides it? Arguging that God is responsible for our sufferings, if he exists, although it is clear they are dependent on our actions, seems to me a silly reason not to think God exists. After all, no one likes it if someone says "God is responsible for my actions," so why would non-believers use the "God is responsible for my actions - or would be, if he existed" as an argument? Silly.


Thank you Nik for sharing your views in hell and for agreeing with my thoughts in how we may have a destiny but how God is not responsible for our actions. Your inputs are always precious.

----------


## skasian

> Time is the problem.
> 
> Linear time as we experience it  that is, in our Christian case  first sin then punishment, only happens when space moves. If nothing moved there would be no time.
> 
> Since we now realize that God isn't sitting up in the clouds with the angels, our conception of God is that He exists outside the universe, in a godlike spiritual dimension. Not in space. Therefore not in time.
> 
> So when He creates somebody He already knows is doomed to eternal torment, He takes no responsibility for that?
> 
> Must be nice to be God. No responsibility and all.


Yes, we must be nice to God, as God is our Father, it is true that like our biological fathers, we must be nice to them in order to make them happy, and in result, they reciprocate us with more love and with great awards. The relationship between us and our biological fathers are very similar to our relationship with God.

----------


## skasian

> You must really be an idealist if you thought that a thread called Christian Hell would not provoke discussions on belief.


No, I do not consider myself as an idealist and I never thought this thread will provoke a discussion on belief. Actually, I am against the idea. The only reason why I wanted andrew to make a thread dedicated for discussion on belief was that I didnt want him to make a discussion on it in this thread which was what he intended.

----------


## curlyqlink

I'm interested in the origins of the Christian Hell. It is very different from the pagan Hades, particularly so as a place of punishment for a life lived ill. I'm guessing Hell was borrowed from earlier mystical traditions. Was it first synthesized by Tertullian? Are there other, earlier literary sources?

----------


## The Atheist

> I'm interested in the origins of the Christian Hell. It is very different from the pagan Hades, particularly so as a place of punishment for a life lived ill. I'm guessing Hell was borrowed from earlier mystical traditions. Was it first synthesized by Tertullian? Are there other, earlier literary sources?


You familiar with this?

The need to have Hell as a place of eternal punishment has always interested me, and it's probably what started me asking questions when I was about 8.

What does it say about the sects which use it and the people who fervently believe their god is the type of being who would punish someone eternally for as little as failing to believe in him/her/it?

It's always seemed to me that the whole concept is based on misanthropy and I see no reason to change that view. It explains why fundamental sects look to impose cult-inclusiveness on their congregations; to remove themselves from the rest of humanity to enable the misanthropy to work.

----------


## The Atheist

> Do you know anything called respect? You are rude and you hold no sense of competence when dealing with manners.
> You are not welcome to rebuke the faith of Christianity, and especially rebuking other people's belief. How would you feel if someone spat on you just for believing in something that others dont.


I'd just like to add a couple of things here, foremost of which is that while the description of your post wasn't all that polite, he hasn't attacked your character, so maybe it's a little premature to start attacking his?

Anyway, enough said, because this is an interesting thread and it would be a shame for it to be closed.

I want to look at your comment about "spitting on people's beliefs".

You have your views on Hell, which you're most welcome to, but I want you to stop and think about something for a second. 

So far, in this thread, you've made 23 posts - _almost half the thread_.

Here is a selection:




> Hell is governed by satan and devils and they inflict abhorrent terrors unimaginable.
> 
> ... if you do not confess Jesus as your God then you go to Hell. Harsh, but true.
> 
> In order to be saved from hell, theres only one way, and that is Jesus once again. Jesus is the bridge between our world and Heaven, and without Him, you may not enter Heaven.





> Have faith in God, then life in eternal happiness with him.





> It is our God that makes our hearts, minds and soul stronger than any being in the world.





> Christians, as this thread is dedicated to the Christians belief in Hell, believe that Jesus is the only way for salvation.





> I have never made an assumption as for all Christians, it is the naked truth and the only truth we all need to have in this world.





> If you do not accept any god as your savior, then you are still classified as an atheist.





> I am not advocating or preaching Christianity, as I am providing the Christian view on hell.





> Of course Jesus is not Christian, he is not a little of himself is he? He is the Son of God, a Healer, a Savour.





> Kingdom of God holds perfection, and it always will.





> The bible is indeed contains the Word of God and the truth He brings to our world.


That tends to create a sense of irony when added to this:




> I am not advocating or preaching Christianity, as I am providing the Christian view on hell.


I'd just like to sit back for a few minutes and ask yourself what you are really doing. Evangelising is all very well, but your posts seems to be more like someone desperately needing confirmation. We know and understand your beliefs, so I'm a bit confused as to why you keep repeating them.

Also, you possibly need to understand that the constant chant of "believe in god or go to hell" can be irritating. It doesn't bother me, because I'm pretty thick-skinned, but try turning the other cheek, as it were, and consider how you'd feel if someone stoood constantly shouting at you, "You don't believe in the Great, Green Arkleseizure, you will spend the rest of eternity as a handkerchief, bwahaha!" Some people see that every bit as bad as spitting.

I trust you take this in the manner which I offer it - just a polite chat between two Kiwis.

----------


## Zee.

> Do you know anything called respect? You are rude and you hold no sense of competence when dealing with manners.
> You are not welcome to rebuke the faith of Christianity, and especially rebuking other people's belief. How would you feel if someone spat on you just for believing in something that others don’t. Its like saying your belief of Buddhism is fake and your incompetence in living in this world is worthless. Feel good? Look at yourself before commenting on other peoples faces. Is this what your mother taught you? Treat other people that have different views with dirt? I feel sincerely sorry for you if she did not. 
> 
> Rather than speaking your disagreeing views in lame statements, why dont you submit yourself in a DISCUSSION on why you believe so. If you need to learn the skill of discussing in an argument, go back to school and learn so. It would be tremendously beneficial to you.
> And what induced you to think that I have "all the answers" and "knowing everything as facts", look at the thread title darling, its called CHRISTIAN HELL where Christians can have share their belief in their own hell. I simply shared the view of Christian hell as a Christian. Don’t ever make such pathetic assumptions when you have no support.
> It is disagreeable people like you that are causing the suffering of children in third world countries. Not God. Open your eyes and stop your adamant reluctance to accept other people's views that differ from you especially in religion.
> I pray to God that He will forgive your previous thoughts in Christianity and that someday you will think over the mistakes you have caused.



See, now you're missing my point. If you worshipped flying seahorses, i wouldn't care. But i do start caring when you're telling people on this board that if they don't believe in Jesus Christ, they're going to hell.

So don't you dare try to tell me i'm the one without respect. I don't need you to pray for me. See that's the thing about so many of you extreme christians, you think everyone else in the world needs saving. I know of no other religion like yours, it is so unaccepting of other people's faith and condemns them to hell for not accepting it, and that is absolutely ridiculous.
I don't accept Jesus Christ, never will, my beliefs don't allow me too - so when you're telling me i'm going to hell for that, who then is the one spitting on someone else's beliefs?
I think that might be you.

Also i don't see you willing to talk about other people's beliefs - from what i can see, you seem pretty intent on shoving jesus down our throats.

----------


## Rush_of_Blood

> Yes. Can you explain happy are the ignorant for they shall inherit the kingdom of heaven - doesn't this mean those that do not know about God shall be saved? I y the premise in order to believe you have to understand (SO NARROW MINDED) so these discussions piss me off actually but I ally clicked on the wrong post and accepted it as FATE!!! LOL



I believe you are quoting the sermon on the mount, but your quote from it is not anywhere in there. Here's the whole thing. Which one of these did you mean?

Now when he saw the crowds, he went up on a mountainside and sat down. His disciples came to him, and he began to teach them saying:
"Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are those who mourn,
for they will be comforted.
Blessed are the meek,
for they will inherit the earth.
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they will be filled.
Blessed are the merciful,
for they will be shown mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart,
for they will see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they will be called sons of God.
Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

"Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

----------


## Maletbon

> Do you know anything called respect?


Skasian, you hold a belief that means everyone who disagrees with you burns in Hell for all eternity. And you blame others for not respecting you?

What happens when a fundamentalist-type or Christian person who goes strictly by scriptures disagrees with me? At worst, I insult his grandmaw.

What happens when I disagree with him? Oh, I just spend eternity with my eyeballs boiling in their sockets, my internal organs sizzling furiously in their own superheated blood, every single one of my long-gone nerve cells afire with the most hellish pain available, driven straight into me by my Creator forever and ever and ever, to no end, ever. Ever. Never ever. No end. It just keeps going. Never stops. Ever. Just goes and goes, but nobody knows why. Why? We don't know. Vengence, the book says, just like teenagers and really stupid people like. But it can't be that, that would be too silly. For it just goes and goes. More pain. For ever and ever more and more and never and never stop. Like this except ten bajillion times worse. Even worse than this. Forever. I mean ever. It doesn't stop. Never! And then it keeps going. And going. Wish there was a better word than etcetera....

I know I'm just a dumb ol' non-believer and all, and if I had a lick of sense I'd agree with you, but that just don't seem fair to me, or in any way respectful.

Seems more like cheating to me, since those ideas don't come from you but are from a book, or from what someone told you, or are a feeling you have. So you have no responsibility at all for what you believe. How godlike of you. I'm all for feelings and inner spiritual convictions, but it strikes me as weird when other people have to suffer for them.

I read the King James Edition cover-to-cover and didn't get very inspired by it at all. Bored, mostly. Call me strange, or damned, but I like spiritual writing that isn't about punishment and vengeance, but about love and forgiveness.

You have a Savior, but I ask why? What are we supposed to be saved from? From being human? Being stupid and bad more often than we should be? If God made us like this and expected us to act like more than darn fools most of the time, He's dumber than I think. Fella like that must have got lucky on this universe, what with gravity and all.

God is love. And that is that. We are already forgiven. I almost even forgive myself. Maybe someday. And I do forgive you, Skasian. I know you are a soul of Love, with all the best intentions, who had no idea how hurtful her creed was to others. You didn't realize when you entitled this thread Christian Hell, that you were making one for yourself. Oops. Don't blame us, you started it, believe it or not. Sometimes it is your responsibility, alas.

Please don't post any quotes from some book as a response, thanks. I would much rather hear you speak from your heart and mind, even if it is only anger.

----------


## Delta40

Lol Thanks Rush of Blood. I'm terrible at holding forth on these discussions. I figure nobody on this thread will have a definitive answer before their death, no matter the view. It is nice to get an insight of how other people feel and also how they communciate.

----------


## Zee.

You know - it seems to me that if all we need to do is accept what's written in a bible to score a ticket in to heaven, it's a little a bit of a cop out..

It's like believing that someone who has murdered, raped, and done terrible things deserves a place in heaven if they "just believe" whereas a good person, someone who has yeah, made mistakes - probably made some huge ones, but all in all has been a decent HUMAN being will burn in hell if they don't accept Jesus.

That is not only so morally backwards but, simply stupid. And i highly doubt a God that could create such beauty and mystery in our world, could be so stupid and cruel.

----------


## skasian

> I'd just like to add a couple of things here, foremost of which is that while the description of your post wasn't all that polite, he hasn't attacked your character, so maybe it's a little premature to start attacking his?
> 
> Anyway, enough said, because this is an interesting thread and it would be a shame for it to be closed.
> 
> I want to look at your comment about "spitting on people's beliefs".
> 
> You have your views on Hell, which you're most welcome to, but I want you to stop and think about something for a second. 
> 
> So far, in this thread, you've made 23 posts - _almost half the thread_.
> ...


I wouldnt be affected as much if he attacked my character rather than my religion, this is because I hold my religion more importantly than in my character. I think it is worse for a person to attack a religion than in anything and most every one that are deeply religious would feel this.

The only reason why I have made many posts here is because most of the people reply to my opinions, therefore it results in reciprocating as much as their posts.

The only reason why I post up my views of Christianity is because people ask something and my views may be the solutions for them. I do not wish to repeat the same views, but how could I not when people ask something that is relevant in the same line? This thread is Christian Hell after all isnt it? Apart from atheist and other religious views on it, what more can there be then Christian views in it? What did you intend in this thread apart from insults?The bottom line is that people ask about the Christian hell and the most close answer to it is a view from a Christian. 

And I think you have the wrong idea, I am not saying to non Christian people that they are going to hell and they must believe in it, I am giving the Christian idea of who may go to hell and how to stop it. I am not directly telling atheists that you are going to hell. Never. I speak of the Christian faith as a Christian. Convert to Christianity or not, I do not mind. If people dont want to hear a Christian view on the Christian hell (which will be strange) please tell me so I dont have explain your enquires.

I believe that you have caused me no trouble, and I respect that you are talking in such manner which some people do not have the imprudence to do so.

----------


## skasian

> See, now you're missing my point. If you worshipped flying seahorses, i wouldn't care. But i do start caring when you're telling people on this board that if they don't believe in Jesus Christ, they're going to hell.
> 
> So don't you dare try to tell me i'm the one without respect. I don't need you to pray for me. See that's the thing about so many of you extreme christians, you think everyone else in the world needs saving. I know of no other religion like yours, it is so unaccepting of other people's faith and condemns them to hell for not accepting it, and that is absolutely ridiculous.
> I don't accept Jesus Christ, never will, my beliefs don't allow me too - so when you're telling me i'm going to hell for that, who then is the one spitting on someone else's beliefs?
> I think that might be you.
> 
> Also i don't see you willing to talk about other people's beliefs - from what i can see, you seem pretty intent on shoving jesus down our throats.


Please read what I have wrote for The Atheist, I am not directly telling people that if you dont believe in Jesus you are not going to heaven, it is a Christian rule and all I did was share it with you. If it affected you, then just accept or leave it as there is such a rule. There is no reason to deprave that you dont accept it. Thats absolutely ludicrous. Note that most religions have such rules that may leave the atheists in state of skeptism. But it gives you no authority to insult. Accept or leave it, but dont ever insult in beliefs that you do not follow.

----------


## skasian

> That is not only so morally backwards but, simply stupid. And i highly doubt a God that could create such beauty and mystery in our world, could be so stupid and cruel.


Your thoughts do not support that Christianity is "simply stupid." You need a full discussion to support that it is "simply stupid." read what I wrote for andrew, and get a sense of Christian faith before blasting an inane invalid statement as "simply stupid." Insulting something you have lack knowledge makes your thoughts invalid. Insulting God equally is inane of you. As God is perfect and pure, it makes you wrong, incorrect and impure.

----------


## Delta40

I was 35 000 ft in the air yesterday looking down at the clouds above the bluest of blue oceans. The clouds seemed like giant seashells and they tapered off into the distant horizon, where above them was a white diamond light. It was like a pathway to the opening to heaven. I cried then. My father is terminally ill. I could imagine him walking this path. I felt in myself that only God could create something as majestic as this. 

I have read the other threads. I know how the world in a scientific context was created and I have read the posts about hell. It seems to me that for the living, it is not enough. When a loved one is dying, rational explanations won't do at all. The loss of a loved one contrasted with the posts of this thread, is unsettling and disappointing. I am struck by the lack of humanity. How ironic. 

I hope without naming names, respect for the beliefs of others is adopted in the same way it is commanded.

----------


## skasian

> Skasian, you hold a belief that means everyone who disagrees with you burns in Hell for all eternity. And you blame others for not respecting you?
> 
> What happens when a fundamentalist-type or Christian person who goes strictly by scriptures disagrees with me? At worst, I insult his grandmaw.
> 
> What happens when I disagree with him? Oh, I just spend eternity with my eyeballs boiling in their sockets, my internal organs sizzling furiously in their own superheated blood, every single one of my long-gone nerve cells afire with the most hellish pain available, driven straight into me by my Creator forever and ever and ever, to no end, ever. Ever. Never ever. No end. It just keeps going. Never stops. Ever. Just goes and goes, but nobody knows why. Why? We don't know. Vengence, the book says, just like teenagers and really stupid people like. But it can't be that, that would be too silly. For it just goes and goes. More pain. For ever and ever more and more and never and never stop. Like this except ten bajillion times worse. Even worse than this. Forever. I mean ever. It doesn't stop. Never! And then it keeps going. And going. Wish there was a better word than etcetera....
> 
> I know I'm just a dumb ol' non-believer and all, and if I had a lick of sense I'd agree with you, but that just don't seem fair to me, or in any way respectful.
> 
> Seems more like cheating to me, since those ideas don't come from you but are from a book, or from what someone told you, or are a feeling you have. So you have no responsibility at all for what you believe. How godlike of you. I'm all for feelings and inner spiritual convictions, but it strikes me as weird when other people have to suffer for them.
> ...


"Skasian, you hold a belief that means everyone who disagrees with you burns in Hell for all eternity. And you blame others for not respecting you?"
With common sense, the answer is yes. Not respecting someone that holds different view from you especially in religion is wrong in everyway.

Let me point this out, This thread was created by The Atheist, not me. So please dont point the finger at me that I "started it, believe it or not." It is true that I have committed myself to explain the Christian rules of Christian hell, but who doesnt want a truthful aspect to that specific religion?
What I dont understand from all of you is that when you have committed yourself to discuss a religion's hell that you do not believe and hear something that you dont want to hear, whats the point of having a discussion in it? Leave it if you dont think it is right rather than insulting it. Again, its common sense.

What you have been misunderstanding is that I am not wanting people to be mad at the rules that seems wrong to them, ever. If you do have problems about Christian hell and the rule that follows, please just accept of leave it as it is, theres no reason to be angered that it seems wrong and that you disagree. Respect all religions.
And I have never quoted from the Bible before, I always posted the views of Christianity. 

You have asked why we have a saviour, let me give you an insight of the Christian faith. Yes you are correct about being saved from Jesus by "Being stupid and bad more often than we should be?" and saving us from going to hell. He gives us salvation, hope and light.
I will be deeply resented if someone replies this with how they think this is "simply stupid" again lets respect all religion and their values, rules that they have.

----------


## skasian

> I hope without naming names, respect for the beliefs of others is adopted in the same way it is commanded.


Thank you, and everyone please, lets RESPECT other peoples belief no matter how contrasting it might be with yours.

I am deeply sorry for your father, I hope your last moments with him will be the very best moments of your life that you had with him.

----------


## Zee.

> Your thoughts do not support that Christianity is "simply stupid." You need a full discussion to support that it is "simply stupid." read what I wrote for andrew, and get a sense of Christian faith before blasting an inane invalid statement as "simply stupid." Insulting something you have lack knowledge makes your thoughts invalid. Insulting God equally is inane of you. As God is perfect and pure, it makes you wrong, incorrect and impure.



That's my point! god isn't stupid. So it makes no sense to me that he'd send good people to hell just because they "don't believe".

It's YOU who seems to be doing the insulting here. You seem to believe that he'd send good people to hell because they don't believe. And please, don't argue against that point because you stated quite clearly that "non believers" burn in hell. So who has more faith in your God, You or me? I mean..i'm not the one saying he wants to throw innocents into a pit of fire.

----------


## Zee.

Skasian, if you're going to make a point, at least stand by it.

Don't insult me or anyone else by trying to justify your comments about people burning in hell.

----------


## skasian

> That's my point! god isn't stupid. So it makes no sense to me that he'd send good people to hell just because they "don't believe".
> 
> It's YOU who seems to be doing the insulting here. You seem to believe that he'd send good people to hell because they don't believe. And please, don't argue against that point because you stated quite clearly that "non believers" burn in hell. So who has more faith in your God, You or me? I mean..i'm not the one saying he wants to throw innocents into a pit of fire.


What is your point? It changes so easily that it seems that you dont even understand what you are thinking.
And let me just ask this one thing. Are you insulting Christianity just because of an aspect doesnt make sense to you? What is your problem? Just because you dont understand an aspect you decide to insult? Why would you do this? Having no sense therefore insult : you have to be joking. If you want to understand something and make sense to you, ASK NICELY. Any children age of 5 would know this. This question have been asked before in a thread, and I have answered that seemed to end the enquiry with not much hassle. YOU JUST HAVE TO ASK AN EXPLANATION THAT WILL MAKE AN ASPECT MAKE SENSE TO YOU. Your incoherence gives you no authority to insult. You are simply insulting at yourself for your incoherence.

If you want to know why God seems to be throwing innocent to hell, then JUST ASK. Thats all you have to do. You dont need to insult at something becuase you have lack the knowledge of that concept. It incredibly unacceptable that you may insult just because of your lack of knowledge.

----------


## skasian

Everyone, please do not insult or rebuke Christianity or any other religion you are not familiar or just because you disagree.
Even though some religious aspects may be different or disagreeable to your views, please do not insult as you are insulting the gods and the people that dedicate their lives to. Lets be consistent and RESPECT others. It is not too hard. If you disagree in an aspect, move on or engage in a POLITE discussion with someone. If an aspect doesnt make sense to you, POLITELY ask someone for an explanation or just move on without the unnecessary remarks.

Or else there are no reasons to discuss religious aspects or religion altogether if we do not learn to respect and leave the aspects you feel strongly against.

----------


## Zee.

> What is your point? It changes so easily that it seems that you dont even understand what you are thinking.
> And let me just ask this one thing. Are you insulting Christianity just because of an aspect doesnt make sense to you? What is your problem? Just because you dont understand an aspect you decide to insult? Why would you do this? Having no sense therefore insult : you have to be joking. If you want to understand something and make sense to you, ASK NICELY. Any children age of 5 would know this. This question have been asked before in a thread, and I have answered that seemed to end the enquiry with not much hassle. YOU JUST HAVE TO ASK AN EXPLANATION THAT WILL MAKE AN ASPECT MAKE SENSE TO YOU. Your incoherence gives you no authority to insult. You are simply insulting at yourself for your incoherence.
> 
> If you want to know why God seems to be throwing innocent to hell, then JUST ASK. Thats all you have to do. You dont need to insult at something becuase you have lack the knowledge of that concept. It incredibly unacceptable that you may insult just because of your lack of knowledge.




My point has never changed, not once, you'd know that if you read my points properly. Which, if you had, would take note that i wasn't insulting Christianity, i was insulting extremists like yourself.

----------


## skasian

> I bet that child in The Atheist's avatar has been through hell quite a few times...
> But i suppose..if they dont believe in jesus they deserve to stay there and rot with the rest of us, right?
> 
> Ridiculous. That whole religion is flawed.



Are you sick of yourself to contradict so easily?
I think you need a break :Biggrin:

----------


## skasian

limajean. When you say the whole religion Christianity is flawed, it means you are insulting Christianity. Do you understand this? Please stop contradicting yourself.

----------


## Delta40

I'm sorry people can't conduct a discussion without getting personal. I really would like to hear answers from both sides. 

You're both hairsplitting and point scoring now in your way. Why not discuss the topic without considering the respondent a source of angst?

----------


## skasian

> I'm sorry people can't conduct a discussion without getting personal. I really would like to hear answers from both sides. 
> 
> You're both hairsplitting and point scoring now in your way. Why not discuss the topic without considering the respondent a source of angst?


I never mentioned a word about how people shouldnt make a personal discussion, I only want people to respect other people's belief even though it may be strongly disagreeable to their terms. 
I never consider this as a point scoring system, and I never intend it to be.

----------


## Delta40

Delta40 sighs wistfully and would like to comment further but fails to find anything effective to say at this point

She hopes effective communication will occur in this thread at some point and will drop in to see how well it is actually doing.

closes door softly and respectfully

----------


## The Atheist

> I wouldnt be affected as much if he attacked my character rather than my religion, this is because I hold my religion more importantly than in my character. I think it is worse for a person to attack a religion than in anything and most every one that are deeply religious would feel this.


That's a fairly sad admission really - that you put a doctrine above yourself. If you have a look at history, it's an attitude which has led to some pretty awful problems. 

Seriously, I've spent over thirty years debating christians - my uncle was a Canon in the Anglican church - and the enormous majority of people I've spoken to haven't been hurt at all by attacks on their religion. If faith is strong, it should be water off a duck's back.

If your god is omnipotent and taking notes according to the bible, then why would it bother you if someone attacks the god? Obviously, the god itself can't be hurt by it, and the only result can be an everlasting death and torture for whoever does that.

I can understand your defence of the religion, but demanding respect for religion always seems a bit of a cop out to me.




> The only reason why I have made many posts here is because most of the people reply to my opinions, therefore it results in reciprocating as much as their posts.


Yes, you've been replying to other posts, but as I noted, the replies seem to be more of something taken from a Jack Chick tract rather than discussion. We want to know what you, skasian, think, not what you've learned from pastors and fellow christians.




> This thread is Christian Hell after all isnt it? Apart from atheist and other religious views on it, what more can there be then Christian views in it? What did you intend in this thread apart from insults?The bottom line is that people ask about the Christian hell and the most close answer to it is a view from a Christian.


I certainly didn't want it to become insulting, because that will just get the thread closed.

And your opinion is appreciated, that's exactly what I did want - an explanation of how christians view hell and reconcile their belief with life in 2009. 




> And I think you have the wrong idea, I am not saying to non Christian people that they are going to hell and they must believe in it, I am giving the Christian idea of who may go to hell and how to stop it.


Which is two ways of saying exactly the same thing. From your perspective, you told us several times that the only way to the god is through Jesus Christ and those who fail will go to hell for eternal torture. What you're doing is playing Pascal's Wager, but instead of blind chance, you're offering 100% certainty that hell is the only possible result for irredeemable heathens like myself. It doesn't concern me a whit, personally, and I don't fear for the souls of my children, despite the god itself promising damnation for them for at least the next three generations for my disinclination to believe.

See, while I think Pascal's Wager is silly, I can see the attraction.

Where I - and many others, as evinced so far - struggle is seeing the attraction in a doctrine of eternal punishment. This is why most christian sects don't believe it any more.

Sure, the bible and Jesus say that one must love and worship the god or be sent to hell/wherever, and parroting the words of the bible is fine, but meaningless. 

The doctrine of equivalent eternal punishment for *all* sinners just doesn't gel with the standards most christians accept for their god, and I certainly agree with the earlier suggestion that Jesus himself would have trouble with your version of hell and how it works.

I'd love you to tell me how that doctrine makes you feel as a human being who is personally living in a land of milk & honey in 2009, but repetition of "god says so, so it must be good" doesn't fire. I'm not asking you to justify it - which is what you've tried to do in a roundabout way - but I'd like you to consider an analogy:

Three people are about to be executed by flaying alive. (flaying = peeling off the skin, a slow, agonising death.)

One is a murderer, one a rapist and the other is an accountant who wrote a letter accusing the government of fraud.

Now, there is no point arguing that it's wrong for #3 to die, because the rules were clear and he knew that his letter would attract the death penalty. 

During their time in prison, before execution, the rapist and murderer both confessed their sins, begged Jesus for forgiveness and were baptised into the christian faith. #3 is a fervent atheist who refused to recant his crime and in fact was virtually held in solitary confinement as he continued to try to verbally attack the government.

How would that make you feel?




> I am not directly telling atheists that you are going to hell.


Directly/indirectly makes no difference - as above.

----------


## Maletbon

> Again, its common sense.


Ha, what a joker. Someone with bizarre, hateful, and selfish beliefs like yours has no call talking about common sense. If you want common sense: Any Creator who thinks it's okay to torment his children for eternity is an insane sadistic monster. I know you think if I understood I would realize that God has zero responsibility for torturing his kids. So I guess you think somebody's making Him do that. God the omnipotent has no choice. He created the entire universe for goodness sake. Hell was optional. Sheesh, very kooky, way beyond not common sense. 

Thanks for not quoting the Bible though, that was nice of you, and a considerable relief. The reason I thought this was your thread was because you were complaining so much about people not saying what you wanted.

You say who anybody who disagrees with you just doesn't understand. Please explain to me and help me understand why the creator of this magnificent universe is insane and sadistic, not to mention dumb as a stump.

You have no intellectual or emotional access to how horrible your hateful religion makes other people feel. Your religion disrespects others, but they are not free to disrespect it. I know you are really proud of yourself for believing the torture-tale. Enjoy.

And don't worry about Hell. That's just baloney.

----------


## NikolaiI

Mal, your post really makes me shudder... 
I am serious.

I would also point out to all that the subject matter of this thread is Christian Hell (which was created by The Atheist, by the way), therefore please do not partake if the only way it is possible for you to do so is in the way you have done.

Maybe it would be helpful for me to quote the Original Post. So I will do that and reply to the origianl post of the thread.




> In a discussion on what happens after death, I notice a number of people saying that we either go to heaven or hell. Many mainline christians believe Hell isn't so much a place as a state of not-being - the Roman Catholic Church, for instance, do not hold the old-fashioned "hellfire & brimstone" which some sects still cling to.
> 
> I'm interested to find out what christians believe "hell" really is. Jesus had little to say on the subject, and the issue seems to be a peculiar one to me, because it says that all sin is equitable - no matter whether I'm a child-eating murderer or simply an atheist, I'm going to hell. It would be a strange contradiction that a god, variously described as compassionate, loving and caring for humans would inflict identical suffering.
> 
> Opinions?


First of all thank you for making this post, it is a fine post and idea for a thread. I see no reason why this had to turn so ugly. 

Yes as you say many mainline Christians do not believe in Hell. Or they might think it is a state of separation from God. It's necessary to point this out, as you have done.

The last thing you say is similar to the idea of the problem of evil argument against the existence of God. Would it be wrong for me to argue against this? God exists - so why is there suffering on Earth? As your avatar shows, some people on earth are suffering very greatly. But then would it be sane to say that because of this suffering, we should not live our lives? Someone named Wayne Dyer said something intelligent about this.




> You cannot get sick enough to heal one person on this planet, you cannot get poor enough to make one person wealthy on this planet, and you cannot get confused enough to un confuse one person on this planet. No amount of you feeling bad will help others because you are losing your connection to source.


from here: http://www.4evayoung.com/wayne-dyer-...ention-part-1/

So maybe hell doesn't exist, maybe it does. I don't believe it does... if someone called my view hateful or bizzarre it would upset me, as I am not a superman. I sincerely please people like Mal to stop saying such awful things.

----------


## dzebra

> It's not an assumption of mine, it's a piece of knowledge I have that there is not one peice of contemporary literature which mentions Jesus Christ in any way other than the bible.


Here's what I've found.


Origen, Contra Celsum

Celsus lived in during the 2nd century, CE. Origen is refuting him in the 3rd century. Celsus' writings no longer survive in tact, but we have access to some of his work when Origen quotes passages for the purpose of refutation. The following is one such passage.

_"Jesus had come from a village in Judea, and was the son of a poor Jewess who gained her living by the work of her own hands. His mother had been turned out of doors by her husband, who was a carpenter by trade, on being convicted of adultery [with a soldier named Panthéra (i.32)]. Being thus driven away by her husband, and wandering about in disgrace, she gave birth to Jesus, a bastard. Jesus, on account of his poverty, was hired out to go to Egypt. While there he acquired certain (magical) powers which Egyptians pride themselves on possessing. He returned home highly elated at possessing these powers, and on the strength of them gave himself out to be a god."_



Tertullian, De Spetaculis

Tertullian wrote this passage late in the 2nd century, CE. Here, he is imagining himself, after Jesus' return, mocking the Jews for their perversions of of the truth about Jesus.

_"This is your carpenter's son, your harlot's son; your Sabbath-breaker, your Samaritan, your demon-possessed! This is he whom you bought from Judas. This is he who was struck with reeds and fists, dishonored with spittle, and given a draught of gall and vinegar! This is he whom his disciples have stolen secretly, that it may be said, 'He has risen', or the gardener abstracted that his lettuces might not be damaged by the crowds of visitors!"_



The quote is from Morris Goldstein in _Jesus in the Jewish Tradition_, talking about Baraitha Bab. Sanhedrin.

(a Baraitha is a Jewish collection of teachings and commentary of the oral law)

_"There is a tradition (in a Baraitha): They hanged Yeshu on the Sabbath of the Passover. But for forty days before that a herald went in front of him (crying), "Yeshu is to be stoned because he practiced sorcery and seduced Israel and lead them away from God. Anyone who can provide evidence on his behalf should come forward to defend him." When, however, nothing favorable about him was found, he was hanged on the Sabbath of the Passover."_



Josephus mentions Jesus in Antiquities, Book 18, chapter 3, paragraph 3

_“Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.”_ 


On top of these, there are the Gospels and Epistles in the Bible (I don't see why so many people are so quick to doubt their authenticity), and the Gospels that were not put in the Bible (Gospels of Judas, Mary, Peter, etc.)

----------


## Zee.

I dont understand how someone can proclaim that they respect and understand other peoples beliefs ...yet, tell them they're going to hell because they don't follow Jesus.

----------


## Zee.

> Are you sick of yourself to contradict so easily?
> I think you need a break



I said that whole religion was flawed. I didn't say I hated it, i barely insulted it. I pointed out a fact.
It's exremists like you who give it a bad name. You want respect for your religion? you're not going to get it by telling us we're all going to hell.

Your whole faith that you have built up is dependant on a book.

----------


## The Atheist

> Ha, what a joker...


Just a polite suggestion - this is going nowhere, so maybe it's best to just let it drop.

I understand your frustration, but it only detracts from any discussion.





> The last thing you say is similar to the idea of the problem of evil argument against the existence of God. Would it be wrong for me to argue against this?


That's not what I'm doing, because I recognise the theology which covers evil and have no problem with it. I think it's rubbish, but that's just a personal view.

The bit I'm interested in, as explained to skasian, is how adherents reconcile the Dante-type hell with life.




> On top of these, there are the Gospels and Epistles in the Bible (I don't see why so many people are so quick to doubt their authenticity), and the Gospels that were not put in the Bible (Gospels of Judas, Mary, Peter, etc.)


As usual, none of which is contemporary with Jesus.

I don't expect that to have any relevance to believers, but it's factual.

----------


## Rush_of_Blood

> You know - it seems to me that if all we need to do is accept what's written in a bible to score a ticket in to heaven, it's a little a bit of a cop out..
> 
> It's like believing that someone who has murdered, raped, and done terrible things deserves a place in heaven if they "just believe" whereas a good person, someone who has yeah, made mistakes - probably made some huge ones, but all in all has been a decent HUMAN being will burn in hell if they don't accept Jesus.
> 
> That is not only so morally backwards but, simply stupid. And i highly doubt a God that could create such beauty and mystery in our world, could be so stupid and cruel.





You really are looking at things with totally opposing viewpoints. You said:



"It's like believing that someone who has murdered, raped, and done terrible things deserves a place in heaven if they "just believe" whereas a good person, someone who has yeah, made mistakes - probably made some huge ones, but all in all has been a decent HUMAN being will burn in hell if they don't accept Jesus."


So you DO believe that people who have murdered and raped and done terrible things DESERVE to go to hell, but you don't understand how the "good" people could. You have really just told me that you believe hell exists, but only for the horrible, bad people.

Now see, this is where the logic does not follow. If there is no God ruling over us, then there is no morals. There is nothing that is able to tell us what is right or wrong, good or bad. The only thing we could rely on is human emotions, and if we relied on that, our entire world would be chaotic. So if there is no God, there is no morals. 

It _does_ logically follow that once there are no morals, there is no right or wrong. There is no crime, and there is no punishment or justice.....you wouldn't need justice, because there is no right or wrong!!! 

You said:

"That is not only so morally backwards but, simply stupid. And i highly doubt a God that could create such beauty and mystery in our world, could be so stupid and cruel."


you have nothing whatsoever to measure up against. Who are you to say what is cruel and beautiful, mysterious and stupid? you are relying on your own thoughts and emotions when you decide that, and your definition will not be consistent, it will always change depending on what events have happened to you and emotional struggles that you have had. and also, morals come from a higher power, so if there is no God, there is no morals to go back on. If there is a God, he told you what morals are and how you should live by them. A person or being such as God, who does *NOT* rely on emotions, and is *NOT* constantly having mood swings would not be able to go backwards! He is not shaken by emotions!! he said it in the first place, and if he is not swung by anybody, there is no backwards.


My first question for you would be:
1) What do you define good and bad as?

and second
2) you said at the beginning of your post that:

"it seems to me that if all we need to do is accept what's written in a bible to score a ticket in to heaven, it's a little a bit of a cop out.."

a cop out of what? If it is too easy to follow, then why have you not accepted it? by saying this, you are showing to me that you want the hard way, and not the easy way. why is that?

----------


## Delta40

I wish I knew more about philosophy. I have been following this thread with interest. Rush of Blood - Good Show old chap! You wrote that just wonderfully . 

It's like waiting for the next exciting instalment of a mini-series.

----------


## Rush_of_Blood

> I dont understand how someone can proclaim that they respect and understand other peoples beliefs ...yet, tell them they're going to hell because they don't follow Jesus.




there is a vast difference between respect and truth. I do respect your beliefs. I had your standpoint once. I understand where you are coming from. But saying someone is going to go to hell is not a matter of respect or disrespect. it is a matter of fact or fiction.

If someone does not believe gravity exists and someone else says it does, is that a sign of disrespect? no. it is just opposing view points. I don't think respect is exactly the right word to use.

Are you respecting my beliefs? You are using your own logic against yourself. You have called Christians dumb, stupid, and when someone tried to explain their beliefs, you called it "the dumbest piece of bull**** ever." The point of this is not to insult people, but to get their minds working, thinking, and maybe re looking the issue over. Insults and disrespect will get you nowhere; it will only get you enemies.

----------


## Rush_of_Blood

> I said that whole religion was flawed. I didn't say I hated it, i barely insulted it. I pointed out a fact.
> It's exremists like you who give it a bad name. You want respect for your religion? you're not going to get it by telling us we're all going to hell.
> 
> Your whole faith that you have built up is dependant on a book.



You said:

It's exremists like you who give it a bad name. You want respect for your religion? you're not going to get it by telling us we're all going to hell.


So give us an alternative. how do we gain your respect? what exactly are you looking for?

----------


## Delta40

I know nobody is taking note of what I say but I must say this. It is fair to say religion is flawed. I do wish to point out that all systems created by humankind are flawed. Democracy, communism, education, health, infrastructure etc. Religion is not an exception. Do flaws in a system make them useless and obselete?

----------


## Rush_of_Blood

> I know nobody is taking note of what I say but I must say this. It is fair to say religion is flawed. I do wish to point out that all systems created by humankind are flawed. Democracy, communism, education, health, infrastructure etc. Religion is not an exception. Do flaws in a system make them useless and obselete?



I must make note that you have used the term 'religion' as reference to all religions in the world. What exactly is it that makes religions, in general, flawed? Is there one flaw tying them together?

----------


## Delta40

RoB I am referring to religions in general. I mean that nothing can be perfect. Our creator is. We are not. Our interpretations and consequent formations of religions are not. They are flawed. Imperfect. They are as flawed as any other system we have created in our societies. We can strive to perfect what we have created perhaps. I'm not a philosopher. You seem like a deep thinking person. This is my understanding. It is arrogant to me to suggest that religion above any other system is perfect while nothing else is. It is not a judgment, simply an observation. call it a sociological one. I don't have the knowledge to discuss at a micro level how those systems are flawed but that isn't the point. It is fair to say such systems are not without flaws but it does not make them obsolete. They are still a necessary function despite their imperfections.

----------


## Rush_of_Blood

> RoB I am referring to religions in general. I mean that nothing can be perfect. Our creator is. We are not. Our interpretations and consequent formations of religions are not. They are flawed. Imperfect. They are as flawed as any other system we have created in our societies. We can strive to perfect what we have created perhaps. I'm not a philosopher. You seem like a deep thinking person. This is my understanding. It is arrogant to me to suggest that religion above any other system is perfect while nothing else is. It is not a judgment, simply an observation. call it a sociological one. I don't have the knowledge to discuss at a micro level how those systems are flawed but that isn't the point. It is fair to say such systems are not without flaws but it does not make them obsolete. They are still a necessary function despite their imperfections.



If our Creator is perfect, and he told and instructed us to do certain things, does that make it flawed, or does it make it, since it was instructed by our creator, perfect?

You said:
It is arrogant to me to suggest that religion above any other system is perfect while nothing else is.

it is not arrogant at all! it is completely fine to say that! if it is true, then there is no arrogance in that. 

my question is: what makes something perfect?


and just to get really really picky, you contradicted yourself:
nothing can be perfect. Our creator is. We are not.

so something CAN be perfect. (I'm sure you just love picky people, do you not?  :Wink:  ) it now all depends on what you define perfect as.

----------


## Delta40

Lol Rob! My point exactly! Look at that - I am flawed!

----------


## Delta40

I take it for granted that God is perfect, humankind is not, therefore anything created by humankind will be flawed. I'm sorry about my communication skills (they too are flawed) God can instruct humankind till the cows come home. Religion is a human-tainted system. Let me give you an example. I love my daughter very much. My love for her is immeasurable. I am however aware of her imperfections. Does this mean I should no longer love her? No. It means that I acknowledge she is not perfect but I adore her anyway.

Religion is the same. So is any social system

----------


## Rush_of_Blood

> I take it for granted that God is perfect, humankind is not, therefore anything created by humankind will be flawed. I'm sorry about my communication skills (they too are flawed) God can instruct humankind till the cows come home. Religion is a human-tainted system. Let me give you an example. I love my daughter very much. My love for her is immeasurable. I am however aware of her imperfections. Does this mean I should no longer love her? No. It means that I acknowledge she is not perfect but I adore her anyway.
> 
> Religion is the same. So is any social system



yet another contradiction  :Wink:  
You said:
I take it for granted that God is perfect, humankind is not, therefore anything created by humankind will be flawed."

You could be saying one of two things:

1. God is a made up idea, and therefore since it was made up by mankind, it is flawed.

2. God is the only perfect idea created by humans.

Human kind is not perfect, you are absolutely right. So humans could not have made up an idea such as this. who could think of such an idea as this? 

could you please define for me what perfect is. once you give me that, i can answer what you are saying more thoroughly

----------


## Zee.

See Rush_of_blood - you've missed my point, like Skasian also missed my point.

I don't CARE about what you believe in. Believe in what you want, it doesn't bother me. But when someone is turning to me and telling me that I'M going to Hell because i don't accept THEIR beliefs - that is a lack of respect and acceptance.

It doesn't make sense for God to see us as his "children" ( and when i say God, i'm making reference to Christianity - not my God ) and yet be okay with us burning in hell and suffering. I find that you insult your own faith when you're pointing the finger at others and saying they're going to Hell for not believing. And you know what, it's scary stuff - it's frightening and it's cruel, telling others they're going to burn in Hell, please stop for a second and think about how messed up that even sounds...

----------


## Zee.

When I say "you" i'm speaking in general terms.

Also i want to make it clear - i find Christianity flawed, but like i said earlier on, i'm talking about extremists. Most of my friends are Christians, not one of them believe i'm going to burn in hell because i don't support their faith.

----------


## Zee.

And another thing, we as human beings have free will..

and yet - we supposedly get punished for exercising that free will? that's something else that just DOES NOT MAKE SENSE. 
Why doesn't it make sense? because in my opinion, the evidence is too overwhelming, to ever believe in such a place as Hell.

Why would a God punish me for using the tools he supposedly gave me?

Anyway i'm done with all of this, it's a waste of energy and time. I really don't want to hear about the millions of ways im going to Hell for not believing in a fairytale.

----------


## Rush_of_Blood

> See Rush_of_blood - you've missed my point, like Skasian also missed my point.
> 
> I don't CARE about what you believe in. Believe in what you want, it doesn't bother me. But when someone is turning to me and telling me that I'M going to Hell because i don't accept THEIR beliefs - that is a lack of respect and acceptance.
> 
> It doesn't make sense for God to see us as his "children" ( and when i say God, i'm making reference to Christianity - not my God ) and yet be okay with us burning in hell and suffering. I find that you insult your own faith when you're pointing the finger at others and say they're going to Hell for not believing. It contradicts what your religions supposedly stands for. And you know what, it's scary stuff - it's frightening and it's cruel, telling others they're going to burn in Hell, please stop for a second and think about how messed up that even sounds...





So, from your standpoint, what does our religion stand for?

----------


## Delta40

You're perfectly right Rob. I am not philosopher material. You would do well to be in politics. There you would never have to answer a question directly! I know if i put a definition of perfection to you I will be stuck in more nitpicking discussion contests. It is a pointless pursuit. I would rather be happy than right. I think I said that somewhere before. I promise to visit your progress though because I like some of the things you say.

----------


## Zee.

Rush - it certainly shouldn't stand for wanting to burn people in hell. That's not the type of Christian beliefs i associate, respect or accept. 
Shouldn't God love all his children? no matter whether they accept him, love him, hate him - whatever it may be?

Like with every religion, there are people who - although may share the same faith, have varying beliefs. The belief that people will burn in hell for not accepting Jesus Christ insults the belief of love, healing, and freedom from suffering - which i know holds fast in many Christian foundations.
So i really can't understand why someone can say that God is loving, caring, everything we're not - yet he wants us to burn in hell for not accepting him?. Hmm.. right. I'm not insulting God when i say that, i'm insulting the people who believe that, and when you think about it, like i said before, you can't have much faith if you believe a "g\God" would do such a thing.
The belief that non believers go to hell is incredible flawed. It's used to incite fear. It paints god as a power tripping, monster.

And really, a rapist, a murderer - the scum of the earth can suddenly "find" god - and they get a ticket in to heaven? but the innocent kid/adult who may have his or her own set of beliefs burns for all eternity because jesus sounds just like another fairy tale to them..
makes sense doesn't it?

----------


## Rush_of_Blood

> Rush - it certainly shouldn't stand for wanting to burn people in hell. That's not the type of Christian beliefs i associate, respect or accept. 
> Shouldn't God love all his children? no matter whether they accept him, love him, hate him - whatever it may be?
> 
> Like with every religion, there are people who - although may share the same faith, have varying beliefs. The belief that people will burn in hell for not accepting Jesus Christ insults the belief of love, healing, and freedom from suffering - which i know holds fast in many Christian foundations.
> So i really can't understand why someone can say that God is loving, caring, everything we're not - yet he wants us to burn in hell for not accepting him?. Hmm.. right. I'm not insulting God when i say that, i'm insulting the people who believe that, and when you think about it, like i said before, you can't have much faith if you believe a "g\God" would do such a thing.
> The belief that non believers go to hell is incredible flawed. It's used to incite fear. It paints god as a power tripping, monster.
> 
> And really, a rapist, a murderer - the scum of the earth can suddenly "find" god - and they get a ticket in to heaven? but the innocent kid/adult who may have his or her own set of beliefs burns for all eternity because jesus sounds just like another fairy tale to them..
> makes sense doesn't it?


i understand what you are saying, but my question is still unanswered. There are actually many questions that haven't been answered:

1) what is your standpoint on Christianity? what is the purpose of it?

2) what do you define good and bad as?

3) what are Christians copping out of?

4) what exactly are you looking for?

5) what would you like me to explain that i haven't in previous posts?

----------


## Maletbon

> Mal, your post really makes me shudder...


Thanks Nikolai, for pointing out so nicely that I was going overboard. I think I need to stay out of discussions like this. All fundamentalist religions make me shudder, because they are so dangerous.
Way more than just flawed.

Anyway, no sense hurting people's feelings who feel justified in hurting mine, since they have a book and all. Can't argue with a book, no matter how crazy its ideas.

----------


## Rush_of_Blood

one more question, limajean:

do you support the death penalty?

----------


## The Atheist

> Now see, this is where the logic does not follow. If there is no God ruling over us, then there is no morals. There is nothing that is able to tell us what is right or wrong, good or bad. The only thing we could rely on is human emotions, and if we relied on that, our entire world would be chaotic. So if there is no God, there is no morals.


No, but it is another frequent flyer fallacy. One of the more naive ones, at that.

This is an argument from incredulity - because you believe morals cannot exist outside of a god's determination, you refuse to accept they exist at all.

Whether or not you agree with it, the thousands of studies into morality, altruistic behaviour and genetic success belie the fact that your answer is the only one. You might be right, but there *are* non-divine alternative views, and quite authoritative ones in many cases.




> It _does_ logically follow that once there are no morals, there is no right or wrong. There is no crime, and there is no punishment or justice.....you wouldn't need justice, because there is no right or wrong!!!


And this one, the proof is simply in the pudding. If there were any truth in the assertion, jails would be chock full of atheists and secular criminals. Unluckily for the premise, they aren't. 

As it happens, what statistical analysis there is of criminals, especially violent ones, tend to skew towards the theist side. But hey, don't let reality stand in the way of a good story.




> I know nobody is taking note of what I say but I must say this. It is fair to say religion is flawed. I do wish to point out that all systems created by humankind are flawed. Democracy, communism, education, health, infrastructure etc. Religion is not an exception. Do flaws in a system make them useless and obselete?


I'm taking note of what you say, but you haven't been controversial enough for me to reply to yet!

 :Biggrin: 

In the above post, I'll agree wholeheartedly with with all human systems being flawed. Nobody's perfect, so no system designed by/for humans can be.

----------


## Zee.

No, i do not support the death penalty.

----------


## Zee.

There is no such thing as right or wrong, Rush, only perspective.

----------


## Zee.

Rush:

1) what is your standpoint on Christianity? what is the purpose of it?
The purpose of christianity? Does it not depend on the individual? like i said, i know plenty of christians who neither think they need saving or condemn others to hell for not following their beliefs ( even saying that sounds so unbelievably ridiculous - burning in hell? give me a break ) these people believe in being the best that they can be, to others and to themselves, and that's good enough for them. It is my belief that people turn to religion for answers, hope, reassurance - whatever they can't find within themselves. Because they THINK that they cant find such answers within themselves.

2) what do you define good and bad as?
And again, if i did say good and bad, i meant the term very loosely. And probably just as a comparison. The whole good and bad thing - i assume you're questioning me in relation to people, i used to make the point that if what today's society considers to be unnatural - and for a lack of a better word "bad", can pass through to heaven, why can't someone who has done little harm to others and doesn't believe in Jesus?

Like i said, i used the terms very loosely - and i dont think i need to explain that to you for you to understand that. Both you and I know that people are far too complex to put into "good" or "bad" categories. But, like i said, perspective.

3) what are Christians copping out of?
Copping out of?
What point of mine are you referencing with this question? once i know, i can answer it.

4) what exactly are you looking for?
Too broad.

----------


## Zee.

You know, what bothers me about this whole discussion, is how not only my questions are being ignored - but those who hold similar ideas to me.
I feel like many of you are skipping the most logical questions - and when you are answering them, well , it's barely an answer. It makes me think that you believe in something that you're not even quite sure of yourself.

I mean - no one has explained to me how innocent people who don't believe in jesus will burn in hell, makes any sense?
That is such an extremist view - and there clearly is that belief shown within the posts of many of you here.

----------


## Delta40

Ha Ha Thanks Atheist. I'm trying to believe in what you say but it just ain't working for me!

However, I'm doing really well sitting here with my popcorn, enjoying the show....

Limajean - there is a need for direct answers but it will NEVER HAPPEN HERE!!! It's like watching The Young & the Restless over 30 years. Is enlightenment gonna happen or isn't it? Today? tomorrow? Who knows? Stay tuned.....(lol) Popcorn anyone?

----------


## Rush_of_Blood

> No, but it is another frequent flyer fallacy. One of the more naive ones, at that.
> 
> This is an argument from incredulity - because you believe morals cannot exist outside of a god's determination, you refuse to accept they exist at all.
> 
> Whether or not you agree with it, the thousands of studies into morality, altruistic behaviour and genetic success belie the fact that your answer is the only one. You might be right, but there *are* non-divine alternative views, and quite authoritative ones in many cases.
> 
> 
> 
> And this one, the proof is simply in the pudding. If there were any truth in the assertion, jails would be chock full of atheists and secular criminals. Unluckily for the premise, they aren't. 
> ...




Where would we derive morals, if not from God?

----------


## Rush_of_Blood

> There is no such thing as right or wrong, Rush, only perspective.


If there is no such thing as right or wrong, how can you say God is wrong for condemning?

----------


## Rush_of_Blood

> You know, what bothers me about this whole discussion, is how not only my questions are being ignored - but those who hold similar ideas to me.
> I feel like many of you are skipping the most logical questions - and when you are answering them, well , it's barely an answer. It makes me think that you believe in something that you're not even quite sure of yourself.
> 
> I mean - no one has explained to me how innocent people who don't believe in jesus will burn in hell, makes any sense?
> That is such an extremist view - and there clearly is that belief shown within the posts of many of you here.


Please give me a list of what you would like answered, and i will respond.

----------


## Zee.

I'm saying that if he were to condemn such people, it would contradict the whole foundation of that religion! and that, right there, is my problem with the Christian faith - it is so incredibly weak at the knees. It can't support itself because their is such conflicting ideas within it.

Love thy neighbour, don't judge, etc etc, all are God's children

yet, condemning to an eternity of burning because they will not accept him, is illogical and like i said, greatly contradicts the faith itself!

I'm sick of repeating myself. I have made that point over and over again.

----------


## Zee.

I don't want to write you a list because even you can not provide me with such answers. 

Plus, it is your beliefs that are on the table, not mine, how can i ask questions to a bias source? i cant.

We can talk and talk and talk, but the extent of our knowledge, in this case, yours, is limited to that of a book.

----------


## Rush_of_Blood

> I don't want to write you a list because even you can not provide me with such answers. 
> 
> Plus, it is your beliefs that are on the table, not mine, how can i ask questions to a bias source? i cant.
> 
> We can talk and talk and talk, but the extent of our knowledge, in this case, yours, is limited to that of a book.




If i can not provide with answers, others can. If you are actually interested in answering this, here are some books and sites that you can go to: 

"Evidence for Christianity" by Josh McDowell

http://www.redeemer.com/news_and_eve...e_of_hell.html

http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceL...f_Hell_Part_1/

http://www.dbu.edu/jeanhumphreys/Dea...achinghell.htm


as for being bias, you are just as bias for your opinion. i would be happy to see what you think, you just haven't laid it out yet. i am pretty familiar with world religions. so please, lay out what you do believe so that i know where you are exactly coming from.


knowledge is also not limited to a book. knowledge _is_ limited, but not to books.

----------


## The Atheist

> Where would we derive morals, if not from God?


Nature. It's clear that behaviour which can be described as morality is hard-wired into animals. Even birds protect their young.

----------


## Delta40

That's instinctive and does not require decision. Birds and animals don't decide it is the 'right' thing to do. Mother's naturally secrete hormones which make them more aggressive when they give birth. Men actually secrete hormones that make them less aggressive.

----------


## Rush_of_Blood

> Nature. It's clear that behavior which can be described as morality is hard-wired into animals. Even birds protect their young.


It seems like it's called a moral because it's good. Interesting.......therefore anything in nature is justified. It benefits, therefore it is moral.

So if the birds start attacking their young, does that make it all of a sudden moral to attack the young? maybe the mother never wanted offspring. is that moral?

----------


## The Atheist

> That's instinctive and does not require decision. Birds and animals don't decide it is the 'right' thing to do. Mother's naturally secrete hormones which make them more aggressive when they give birth. Men actually secrete hormones that make them less aggressive.


Exactly!

Evolution at work creates a perfectly natural phenomenon. That we take it a stage further and call it morality is the human construct part, but it doesn't change the fact that the morality is still geared towards evolutionary success. Without rules, human society cannot flourish. If we all kill each other, it's not going to help humans survive as a species.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> If there is no such thing as right or wrong, how can you say God is wrong for condemning?


Bravo - good question, my friend.

----------


## Virgil

> Nature. It's clear that behaviour which can be described as morality is hard-wired into animals. Even birds protect their young.


I can buy that. I do think that ultimately that comes from God, but your position is way better than moral relativism.

----------


## Zee.

Like i said... perspective.
Not going to repeat myself again - read my posts.


Yes - infact, having a conscience is one of the main reasons we aren't all off killing each other. And science has proven that those who do, have a chemical imbalance within themselves. It's evolution. We, as the higher species have evolved, the fact that we have the ability to understand the killing another is .. to use the term loosely "bad" - has evolved from our natural instincts to protect our kind.
The Atheist is correct - it's about surviving. 

But what are we "surviving" for? seems to be the question people want to know.
Spend their lives wondering and then they drop dead having not lived a second of it.

----------


## Zee.

Evolution has a lot more backing and evidential support than alternative beliefs. We only have to look at ourselves and animals to see that.

----------


## Delta40

Actually I thought I knew where you were going but that is another thread. Since it is instinctive to have those qualities which is a foundation to evolve upon, it is therefore instinctive to kill that which would harm us. I'll just slip into the revenge - right or wrong thread.....

----------


## NikolaiI

> Evolution has a lot more backing and evidential support than alternative beliefs. We only have to look at ourselves and animals to see that.


Yes, but when I look at nature, animals, and children, I see that there seems to be a divine form reflected in everything. This leads me to belief in God. I am sorry you had a conflict with a Christian on here. Both Christianity and Buddhism (you said you came from a Buddhist family) preach humbleness, humility, and compassion or love. I wish we would be able to learn from each other here. I studied the Tibetan saint Milarepa fairly indepth, as well as many other Buddhist teachers and a few scriptures and sutras. I have also now been studying "Hindu" scriptures such as Bhagavad-Gita (The Song of our Lord), Srimad Bhagavatam (The beautiful Bhagavata or the story of the Fortunate One), and other scriptures such as in the Vedas Sri Isopanisad and things like this. Yet when I look at nature and when I look inward and outward, I see that things come from a divine soul. This is why that is what I believe. And I have deep faith and respect for Buddha because he taught a great path, and respect for life, compassion toward humans and compassion and ahisma, or non-violence, toward animals.

I believe in reincarnation rather than hell, and the Bhakti-vedanta philosophy also believes in karma and reincarnation. I don't think we go to hell if we die, although there are hell planets and in Buddhism there is a hell realm. I think we would get reincarnated as a human if we lived a normal life and did not do anything better or worse than normal. If we produced the karma of an animal in this life, or created the consciousness of an animal, we would take an animal's body in our next life, which is suitable for fulfilling our baser desires. (Such as one might become a tiger for the taste of flesh, a bear for the desire to hibernate, or a pigeon for the desire for sex, as pigeons have a body capable of having sex more than a thousand times a day.) As in Buddhism where there is the land of the hungry ghosts -- beings with bodies that have great desire but are unable to satisfy their desire by consuming anything -- in my religion there are beings exactly like this. A friend of mine, Jivananda, was giving class or we were just in a discussion, and he told me he knew about creatures who are very fat, very lazy, and get everything they desire, in fact anything they desire they can produce it and simply consume it, they do nothing but consume all day -- they are hogs.

I would encourage you to try to foster a spirit of openness and positivity in your next posts. One Buddhist sutra I dearly love and great respect for is the Heart Sutra. This explains the deep wisdom of the Buddha, and you have possibly heard of it or know it. All is interconnected. What this means to me, personally, is that all the forms of the universe are the same, in a way. That is, the form of the whole is also the form of the parts. Since we are all interconnected, all is, in a sense, of the essence of the Buddha. Buddha nature is our nature, and also the entire universe is Buddha. It's been said that all phenomena are the teachings of Buddha. It's also written in scripture that Buddha is equal to the realm of reality, or to the cosmos. Also in the Flower Ornament Heart Sutra it is stated that in every atom of the universe, there are oceans of world systems. All of these scriptural evidences indicate that there is more to all of this than meets the eye. Buddhist scriptures will describe a teaching, and then say if read or hear it and are not afraid, it means you have haerd it from Chenrezig in a past life. I know one is not required to believe any of the teachings of different parts of Buddhism. One idea in Buddhism is not to accept things without thinking, or in other words taking them for granted. I use this and I do not try to convert people for vegetarianism (cow protection) which I am strongly for. It's a cause of mine but I don't try to be forceful about it, for what can I say at best but - I disagree with your actions, which I used to partake in? Vegetarianism is right for me, because I cannot find any reason which would convince me it's okay to partake in eating meat. I believe in non-violence and even compassion toward animals, whom it is not necessary to kill to eat, or even be the healthist you can be..

So you don't have to believe what any teacher in Buddhism teaches, not Zen, not Pure Land, or any other. You don't have to accept dakinis, ghosts, or Bodhisattvas, although I believe they all exist and have their place.

Yogi Milarepa was a great saint, and I believe, an authentic yogi. I believe he could live in the mountain in very cold temperatures with only a cloth garment (which is what his name means) - I believe he could fly, as well as manifest the blissful Buddha-body (though this is in a way far beyond my conception). I believe he could fly as well. All of these yogic perfections are also part of Vedic knowledge and history, but they are not considered the ultimate goal. For instance there is a planet called Siddha-loka, and the Siddhas have achieved the eight kinds of materialistic, or yogic perfections. But these perfections even though they are great, do not result in the end of birth and death. In the higher planets of the spiritual worlds, the demigods have completely pure karma and many benedictions and enjoyments; but this is our main reason for being within the material universe, of birth and death, in the first place; our desire to enjoy, or enjoy separately from the Lord.

So I have great respsect and faith for the Heart Sutra and other sutras, as well as Buddhas, Bodhisattvas (the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha), and I believe there is power in sutras and mantras, but they are not the only mantras there are. In fact there are thousands upon thousands of mantras. People in the West are sometimes confused and misled by these. They are all part, reflected true or with some distortion, of the original transcendental sound, Om. Om is also the Godhead in bhakti-yoga we follow devotion to the Godhead. Yes, the Godhead is invisible from our material sense perspective, but that is because it is the Godhead. If you see violence being preached in the name of God you can be sure it is false. As false as the awful post by Mal. I know you haven't said anything as sacreligious as he; but how would you feel if someone called Lord Buddha to be insane and cruel or stupid. Maybe it would seem like nothing to you but then -- should anyone say anything like this? For Skasian, Christ is God and God is Christ, and Christ is as personal and accessible to her as the Buddha is to you are any Buddhist. Now I am a third party besides Buddhist or Christian, as there are also yet Jews, Muslims, and all others. I believe in Lord Hari as opposed to Buddha, I believe in Sri Ram instead of Allah, I believe in Krsna as well as Christos. Now please consider all I have had to say.

I am a theist but I believe in karma and reincarnation very similarly to the Buddhists. But I don't anyone should be criticized the way people have been on here recently (I particularly noticed a barrage or ganging up on Skasian) and I am calling for some deceny and respect. I am not putting blame on you any more than anyone else, but calling someone's views "Bizarre and hateful" at least in this case -- is FLATOUT personal aggression, in this case _as far as I can tell_ completely a wrong judgement; and it is nearing demonization -- at least you are demonizing someone she feels is The Lord, who is perfect and who, even if she doesn't love, feels is more deserving of love than anyone, since they are, after all, the source of all beauty, strength, wisdom, etc. as well as all the spiritual and material worlds.

_Please consider your words carefully because they do matter, just as actions matter, and be careful not to let negative energy guide your words because if you do you are feeding something which does not get smaller when it is fed._

----------


## Zee.

Revenge?
or self defence?

because revenge isn't exactly the right word for it.

----------


## Delta40

good point limajean but I thought it might fit the eye for an eye concept that everyone keeps raising. You kill my babies = I kill you. Oh well

----------


## The Atheist

> I can buy that. I do think that ultimately that comes from God, but your position is way better than moral relativism.


I'll go along with that - moral relativism just doesn't stack up on its own.




> Yes - infact, having a conscience is one of the main reasons we aren't all off killing each other. And science has proven that those who do, have a chemical imbalance within themselves.


That's not quite right - some people can live amoral lives without having a physical defect like an imbalance.




> Spend their lives wondering and then they drop dead having not lived a second of it.


That does happen and it saddens me, too.




> Actually I thought I knew where you were going but that is another thread. Since it is instinctive to have those qualities which is a foundation to evolve upon, it is therefore instinctive to kill that which would harm us. I'll just slip into the revenge - right or wrong thread.....


Yes, just as a lion will attack that which threatens his pride, a bear will protect his territory and dolphins will attack sharks who come too close to them.

Which reminds me of a very good one on this current derail - dolphins have been recorded as saving human lives, even though we're responsible for killing more of them than any predator.

Diver saved by dolphins?

Dolphins drive off great white?

Lifeguards swear dolphins saved them from shark attack.

There seem to be enough reputable anecdotes cases that we can accept that dolphins have indeed saved human lives. Why do they do that? Do dolphins and humans share the same god? Or is it just that we share a common enemy and they would protect a seal the same way?

I tend to go with the latter.

----------


## NikolaiI

> There seem to be enough reputable anecdotes cases that we can accept that dolphins have indeed saved human lives. Why do they do that? Do dolphins and humans share the same god? Or is it just that we share a common enemy and they would protect a seal the same way?
> 
> I tend to go with the latter.


That's a wonderful point and I thank you very much. While of course I believe it's wrong to kill dolphins, as wrong as it is to kill any living creature; and while of course I think dolphins and humans have the same god, I don't wish to contradict you on that point, but yet I still disagree with your idea that it is only to work against a common enemy. First I would say that you have given a good reason for us not to kill them. They do not kill us - in fact they save our lives!! Much the same way dogs have saved our lives. Now while we in the west do not eat dogs, some cultures do. Many people in the west, though they eat food which comes from slaughterhouses, are very upset or disagreeable to eating dogs, and would never do so; just as sometimes they have this feeling for horses. Because with dogs, they are very close to us here in the west and are generally considered part of the family, totally loyal, totally capable of love and affection. In fact all animals are this way and this is why I disagree with killing them. Anyway, having said all that I think dolphins have a greater reason for protecting humans... you may consider this garbage for the reason I have not met dolphins, and if you do that is valid although I hope you aren't cruel about it; but I would guess that it is more than just sharing a common enemy. Dolphins are very intelligent and it seems that animals, especially mammals, are almost always pack animals, with family units and so forth. Some mammals like bears are very dangerous, or even lions are terribly dangerous. But if you simply connect the lion with the house cat, you can see we can have relationships with animals like cats and dogs -- it shows it's possible, and so dolphins may protect humans for more than just going after the shark or whale. But then it may just be to protect another enemy of their enemy - that would make sense as well.

[Edit: I didn't mean that animals are almost always pack-animals but that mammals are. Clearly snakes, etc. are not.

[Note:... I don't mean to be preachy or forceful in anything. I really love this site and I have learned a great deal from people. I come here to learn. But this had gotten the point I thought something needed to be said. (Still talking about the posts a little while back.) I hope I have done so in a positive if not healthy way, rather than a negative or unhealthy way. I don't think my way is better nor do I think it is m job to sort these things out but I hope I was free to input. I don't mean to put blame on one or another, except for some very personally aggressive and mean comments, but I wished to say no one is an extremist... and all are free and welcome to common sense, it is the property of all. I know it might seem like I am going on so incredibly long and if my post bothers you I apologize, just don't read it, but if we have missed such an incredibly obvious point as - we don't know each other personally, so it is very wrong to judge someone as an extremist or anything else, like incompepetent, etc.; then I don't mind going to lengths to explain the simple idea. So it's uncalled for to call names. We are all good, intelligent people, looking to cultivate the good in ourselves and others. If we can't discuss something for some emotional reason, then just refrain.

And on a more personal opinion, I would not call anyone on this thread or forum bad, first because I have no reason to, and second because I am not in a position or habit of judging. It would be hypocritical to judge, and also, Judge not and be not judged.]

The Atheist, sorry for going back and forth on topics and I hope I didn't write too long of posts on your thread.

Hm, I am afraid or I hope I do not come off as wishing only to talk about myself, LoL!

----------


## NikolaiI

Lastly, do you like extremists - what they have done? Then do not give them a right to existence. When we think of something, it gives it a right of existence. Negative thoughts are negative energy. We might think that it is only a thought, but thinking of it gives it a right of existence, the beginning of formation and existence. Same with suggestion (positive or negative), so please do not call anyone an extremist because no one here is. Please consider.

----------


## Delta40

[QUOTE=

Which reminds me of a very good one on this current derail - dolphins have been recorded as saving human lives, even though we're responsible for killing more of them than any predator.

.[/QUOTE]

Are dolphins altruistic then? Hasn't it been argued that there is no such thing as altruism? I am not a very deep thinker. In fact I posted an article on another website today and was told I am incredibly naive...

I suppose there are no dolphins in hell?

----------


## Delta40

Does that make sense?

----------


## NikolaiI

> Are dolphins altruistic then? Hasn't it been argued that there is no such thing as altruism? I am not a very deep thinker. In fact I posted an article on another website today and was told I am incredibly naive...
> 
> I suppose there are no dolphins in hell?


Hahahaha... well, no, there are no dolphins in hell...
No such thing? No I think there is such thing as altruism.
I think dolphins are amazing but I know I might put too much into it subjectively. Don't forget they might not know of the other dolphins which were killed.

----------


## Delta40

Don't forget there are many dolphins who may have passed up an opportunity to save a human!

----------


## Zee.

> Yes, but when I look at nature, animals, and children, I see that there seems to be a divine form reflected in everything. This leads me to belief in God. I am sorry you had a conflict with a Christian on here. Both Christianity and Buddhism (you said you came from a Buddhist family) preach humbleness, humility, and compassion or love. I wish we would be able to learn from each other here. I studied the Tibetan saint Milarepa fairly indepth, as well as many other Buddhist teachers and a few scriptures and sutras. I have also now been studying "Hindu" scriptures such as Bhagavad-Gita (The Song of our Lord), Srimad Bhagavatam (The beautiful Bhagavata or the story of the Fortunate One), and other scriptures such as in the Vedas Sri Isopanisad and things like this. Yet when I look at nature and when I look inward and outward, I see that things come from a divine soul. This is why that is what I believe. And I have deep faith and respect for Buddha because he taught a great path, and respect for life, compassion toward humans and compassion and ahisma, or non-violence, toward animals.
> 
> I believe in reincarnation rather than hell, and the Bhakti-vedanta philosophy also believes in karma and reincarnation. I don't think we go to hell if we die, although there are hell planets and in Buddhism there is a hell realm. I think we would get reincarnated as a human if we lived a normal life and did not do anything better or worse than normal. If we produced the karma of an animal in this life, or created the consciousness of an animal, we would take an animal's body in our next life, which is suitable for fulfilling our baser desires. (Such as one might become a tiger for the taste of flesh, a bear for the desire to hibernate, or a pigeon for the desire for sex, as pigeons have a body capable of having sex more than a thousand times a day.) As in Buddhism where there is the land of the hungry ghosts -- beings with bodies that have great desire but are unable to satisfy their desire by consuming anything -- in my religion there are beings exactly like this. A friend of mine, Jivananda, was giving class or we were just in a discussion, and he told me he knew about creatures who are very fat, very lazy, and get everything they desire, in fact anything they desire they can produce it and simply consume it, they do nothing but consume all day -- they are hogs.
> 
> I would encourage you to try to foster a spirit of openness and positivity in your next posts. One Buddhist sutra I dearly love and great respect for is the Heart Sutra. This explains the deep wisdom of the Buddha, and you have possibly heard of it or know it. All is interconnected. What this means to me, personally, is that all the forms of the universe are the same, in a way. That is, the form of the whole is also the form of the parts. Since we are all interconnected, all is, in a sense, of the essence of the Buddha. Buddha nature is our nature, and also the entire universe is Buddha. It's been said that all phenomena are the teachings of Buddha. It's also written in scripture that Buddha is equal to the realm of reality, or to the cosmos. Also in the Flower Ornament Heart Sutra it is stated that in every atom of the universe, there are oceans of world systems. All of these scriptural evidences indicate that there is more to all of this than meets the eye. Buddhist scriptures will describe a teaching, and then say if read or hear it and are not afraid, it means you have haerd it from Chenrezig in a past life. I know one is not required to believe any of the teachings of different parts of Buddhism. One idea in Buddhism is not to accept things without thinking, or in other words taking them for granted. I use this and I do not try to convert people for vegetarianism (cow protection) which I am strongly for. It's a cause of mine but I don't try to be forceful about it, for what can I say at best but - I disagree with your actions, which I used to partake in? Vegetarianism is right for me, because I cannot find any reason which would convince me it's okay to partake in eating meat. I believe in non-violence and even compassion toward animals, whom it is not necessary to kill to eat, or even be the healthist you can be..
> 
> So you don't have to believe what any teacher in Buddhism teaches, not Zen, not Pure Land, or any other. You don't have to accept dakinis, ghosts, or Bodhisattvas, although I believe they all exist and have their place.
> 
> Yogi Milarepa was a great saint, and I believe, an authentic yogi. I believe he could live in the mountain in very cold temperatures with only a cloth garment (which is what his name means) - I believe he could fly, as well as manifest the blissful Buddha-body (though this is in a way far beyond my conception). I believe he could fly as well. All of these yogic perfections are also part of Vedic knowledge and history, but they are not considered the ultimate goal. For instance there is a planet called Siddha-loka, and the Siddhas have achieved the eight kinds of materialistic, or yogic perfections. But these perfections even though they are great, do not result in the end of birth and death. In the higher planets of the spiritual worlds, the demigods have completely pure karma and many benedictions and enjoyments; but this is our main reason for being within the material universe, of birth and death, in the first place; our desire to enjoy, or enjoy separately from the Lord.
> ...



I really enjoyed reading that, and realize i probably did come off a little strong with many of the things i said. I realize that her beliefs are her own, even though they may seem very strange to me. I have never been able to fully accept certain things about Christianity - I don't think I ever will. But, that aside, I don't want to come off as someone who sounds very ignorant - because i'm not, far from it. Sometimes i can't express myself quite as clearly as id like to when it comes to matters like these - particulary in matters close to my heart.
What i loved about buddhism was the ability to be anything you wanted to be - yet still allow buddhist faith in your life. You could be a christian, and yet be a buddhist in the same light. But..that's an entirely different subject..

Thanks for your comment - much appreciated.

----------


## skasian

> I said that whole religion was flawed. I didn't say I hated it, i barely insulted it. I pointed out a fact.
> It's exremists like you who give it a bad name. You want respect for your religion? you're not going to get it by telling us we're all going to hell.
> 
> Your whole faith that you have built up is dependant on a book.


First Christianity is not all built up by the Bible, as there are spiritual encounters we have with God that help us live in the way we want.

Saying a system as holy as religion and remarking it is flawed is insult. I tolded you before that it is the same as remarking God is flawed. Do you understand this?

I told you this before yet I have to repeat myself. I never directly told you are going to hell, I just shared Christian aspect about Christian hell. If you commit yourself to engage in a discussion in the thread "The CHristian Hell" then why are you angst about the true aspects and rules Christian follow? If you want to discuss about it, you should be ready to hear the hard reality that Christians believe about their hell.

----------


## skasian

> Ha, what a joker. Someone with bizarre, hateful, and selfish beliefs like yours has no call talking about common sense. If you want common sense: Any Creator who thinks it's okay to torment his children for eternity is an insane sadistic monster. I know you think if I understood I would realize that God has zero responsibility for torturing his kids. So I guess you think somebody's making Him do that. God the omnipotent has no choice. He created the entire universe for goodness sake. Hell was optional. Sheesh, very kooky, way beyond not common sense. 
> 
> Thanks for not quoting the Bible though, that was nice of you, and a considerable relief. The reason I thought this was your thread was because you were complaining so much about people not saying what you wanted.
> 
> You say who anybody who disagrees with you just doesn't understand. Please explain to me and help me understand why the creator of this magnificent universe is insane and sadistic, not to mention dumb as a stump.
> 
> You have no intellectual or emotional access to how horrible your hateful religion makes other people feel. Your religion disrespects others, but they are not free to disrespect it. I know you are really proud of yourself for believing the torture-tale. Enjoy.
> 
> And don't worry about Hell. That's just baloney.


I never complained about what people thought, I was trying to give them the true insight what the Christian rule with afterlife was. Yes, most people here who disagrees with the idea of hell are simply misunderstood. If you want to know why, then read my previous posts in page 1~2. Like THe Atheist has pointed out, I think I am repeating the same thing to different people too much. If you have further enquires after reading my previous posts, feel free to discuss.

----------


## skasian

> That's a fairly sad admission really - that you put a doctrine above yourself. If you have a look at history, it's an attitude which has led to some pretty awful problems. 
> 
> Seriously, I've spent over thirty years debating christians - my uncle was a Canon in the Anglican church - and the enormous majority of people I've spoken to haven't been hurt at all by attacks on their religion. If faith is strong, it should be water off a duck's back.
> 
> If your god is omnipotent and taking notes according to the bible, then why would it bother you if someone attacks the god? Obviously, the god itself can't be hurt by it, and the only result can be an everlasting death and torture for whoever does that.
> 
> I can understand your defence of the religion, but demanding respect for religion always seems a bit of a cop out to me.
> 
> 
> ...


The question I have to ask is why are people here frustrated as they hear the true aspects and rule Christian have about afterlife? If people are interested to engage into this thread "the CHristian THread" then arent they suppose to be ready to hear the hard values that Christians have? Even if it was the any other religious hell we were talking about, it will trigger the same response, because some religions follow the rule that if you dont believe in their god, they dont get accepted to heaven. I thought people were more accepting to hear some values that seems unnatural for them, I thought people were able to turn a blind eye at these aspects. Clearly they arent.

Thank you for suggesting that I should think for myself than regurgitating what the pastor said. But as a Christian, what else should I think if the values of Christianity is identical to my thoughts?

It is true that God will punish the ones that insult Him and that He doesnt need His followers to stand up for him, however as His follower, I want the prevention of such punishment to other people. I have said this before, I think the disagreement is occuring because of lack of understandings of the Christian rule. Something doesnt make sense to them, they oppose straight away without perceiving the whole information first. I like to point out that I am fine with people that oppose the religion with full knowledge of Christianity. I am not against this.

This is the Christian reality: If you dont believe in Jesus, you dont get accepted to heaven. Most Christians believe in this as well so we believe in the same line. Pascal's Wager or not, as most Christians know this, they keep to this and this is why Christians go on Missions to spread the word about Jesus, that people can be saved by the Saviour. I know this line here is causing people troblem or disagreement, if you need further explanation, please read my previous posts in page1~2, I do not intend to repeat myself.

Why do you think the Words of the bible is meaningless? Please elaborate, I would like to hear your views.

The analogy you have called, is a fine example that is answered by my previous post in page one, I will quote it for you. 




> Yes, I always thought it was "unfair" for thoes evil doers that do believe in Jesus in the final hours that can go to heaven while the good doers that do not believe in Jesus go to hell. However in God's terms, accepting your one and true God as Jesus outweighs whatever you do in Earth. I am not a pastor, and I am not an experienced preacher or any kind, therefore I cannot be certain on how God weighs our values in order to go to heaven. However I am sure that you must accept Jesus in order to go to heaven because that is the most important thing in ourlives. Think about it this way, if you do not hand in a research paper for school in the due date but have constructed the most ingenious paper that could earn you a place in Harvard, you dont get a chance to get in because you havent done the most vital thing. Hand in the paper by the due date.

----------


## Pendragon

I have been monitoring this thread with some interest, and I note that many feel that they are too good to go to hell, as they are not murderes or anything. So what are you? Perfect? I think not.

You see. there are more things mentioned for going to hell than murder. Even lying in the last chapter of revelations. Let us look at your life, shall we?

Don't even try to convince me you never told a lie or even that you didn't today. A lie is any thing that obscures the truth. So that makes you a liar, doesn't it?

Did you ever take what wasn't yours? That is stealing. Let me guess, it went something like this: You found something and felt "finders keepers", hum? Or perhaps they gave you the wrong amount at the store or in the bank. You kept it, rationalizing "their loss". Un huh. If it had been your loss you wouild have marched right back in. So you are a theif.

Jesus taught that to look with lustful eyes was adultery. I am human enough to know that has happened. So now you are an adulterer as well as a theif and liar. 

Don't covet says the commandment, but you say "Must be nice!" Coveter!

Should I go on? We need God, He doesn't need us. We need the help He provides to live any kind of "good life." Maybe no one ever pointed out this way to you before. Now, someone has.

God Bless

Pen

----------


## Son of Tiamat

> Your assumption is proved wrong, there are books that provides as fact that Jesus did live. Google and you get some.
> Nope. No possible way. He suicided. No matter how he can ask for forgiveness, as he killed himself, there is no way he can enter the Kingdom of God.
> Kingdom of God holds perfection, and it always will.


hi im new to the forums, but i was just wondering if you were to kill yourself to save others do you not become a martyr. but from what i know if you kill yourself you automatically go to hell in the christian belief

----------


## The Atheist

> ... you may consider this garbage for the reason I have not met dolphins, and if you do that is valid although I hope you aren't cruel about it; but I would guess that it is more than just sharing a common enemy.


First off, I'd never give you a hard time; while we disagree on many things, your views are honest & heartfelt, and I have no trouble with people holding views which are different or opposite from mine.

I hope you get to play with some dolphins some day, because I'd guarantee that it would confirm for you that they are cognitively smart.

I just wish we could figure out how to communicate with them. And you're right about mammals - most of them are indeed social animals.




> The Atheist, sorry for going back and forth on topics and I hope I didn't write too long of posts on your thread.
> 
> Hm, I am afraid or I hope I do not come off as wishing only to talk about myself, LoL!


Just on the border of long enough

 :Biggrin: 

And no, your posts don't come over as self-centred in any way. Like most people with zen-like persuasions, I find your attitude commendable and I've said on many occasions that the world would be a much better place if everyone were Buddhist. I believe that's true, because I admire the non-violent, conciliatory inclusiveness of Buddhism.

I just could never get by without steak.

 :Smile: 




> Are dolphins altruistic then? Hasn't it been argued that there is no such thing as altruism? I am not a very deep thinker. In fact I posted an article on another website today and was told I am incredibly naive...


Wasn't me was it?

 :FRlol:  :FRlol:  :FRlol: 

I said that to a couple of people yesterday.

Quite seriously, the whole theism/atheism debate is one where a little naivete is a good thing. Every single person on the planet has their own doctrine and every one of them is based on personal experience, so why should you take notice of anyone else's doctrine.

One of the smartest blokes ever, Bertrand Russell, said we should question all philosophies, even our own. Well, if you're naive, you sure haven't been tainted by someone else's doctrine, and that's got to be good.

Are dolphins atruistic? We can't say for certain, but based upon quite extensive evidence from studies in the wild, it seems that they are. Altruism exists alright - the disagreement is about *why* it exists. I say evolution, theists say god... 




> I suppose there are no dolphins in hell?


Depends who you talk to. Some sects say there will be animals in heaven, and in the bible, Jesus himself says that not a sparrow farts without his old man knowing about it.

(Or words to that effect  :Wink:  )




> The question I have to ask is why are people here frustrated as they hear the true aspects and rule Christian have about afterlife?


They aren't frustrated by that alone. You have - as I showed - repeated the same line about non-believers going to hell several times. That's what gets people upset. I accept that you're just speaking your mind, but is anything served by repeating it? 

When it is repeated several times, it can look insulting.

It doesn't bother me; I've had my spot as Satan's right hand man picked out for years. That's why I'm The Atheist and not some other kind of atheist.

 :Biggrin: 




> I thought people were more accepting to hear some values that seems unnatural for them, I thought people were able to turn a blind eye at these aspects. Clearly they arent.


Well. some can and some can't. I think you should at least try to see how someone repeating that they will be tortured eternally for not believing in your god can be hurtful, though. What you're doing is describing a religion which lives on fear - fear of being sent to hell if we don't act the prescribed way.




> Thank you for suggesting that I should think for myself than regurgitating what the pastor said. But as a Christian, what else should I think if the values of Christianity is identical to my thoughts?


You talk about the values of christianity as being identical to your thoughts, but there is no agreed "values of christianity". Heaven is certainly about 100% belief among christians, but hell is viewed very differently by sects, so you can't say that your views agree with wider christianity. I'm not saying either one is better than another, just different, but if your personal view matches your church's view, then that's good.




> It is true that God will punish the ones that insult Him and that He doesnt need His followers to stand up for him, however as His follower, I want the prevention of such punishment to other people.


That's an admirable attitude, but you need to understand that to non-theists, your view of your god, heaven and hell is the least attractive version of christianity. A god who punishes people eternally - for whatever reason - isn't all that appealing. 

I've been talking to atheists for decades and I'm 100% certain that today's militant atheism was spawned by yesterday's rise of fundamental christianity.




> I have said this before, I think the disagreement is occuring because of lack of understandings of the Christian rule. Something doesnt make sense to them, they oppose straight away without perceiving the whole information first. I like to point out that I am fine with people that oppose the religion with full knowledge of Christianity. I am not against this.


I'm interested to know what constitutes "full christian knowledge" and why that's important, because so far, the only reason you've advanced is that god says so, so it must be true. Given that no evidence exists other than what the bible says, regarding hell, there's little else to know. Plus, I must reiterate that the bible is read very differently between differing sects.

Based on that, and allowing that you're not even the millionth person to repeat god's rules in that way, it's actually quite easy to understand why people dismiss it without going any further.




> Why do you think the Words of the bible is meaningless? Please elaborate, I would like to hear your views.


I'm not going to get too involved in this because it calls for a history of religion lesson. Suffice to say that there isn't *anything* in the christian religion which hasn't been borrowed from elsewhere - virgin birth, resurrection, miraculous happenings, god-on-earth.... all of them have earlier origins. To me, and many atheists, the bible is a collection of just-so stories of little or no value.

Once we get through that, I'd have to list the inconsistencies and oturight contradictions of the bible, of which there are hundreds. Do you eat shellfish or pork? Do men in your church shave their beards? These things are expressly prohibited in the bible, and in the very same chapters I've heard used in sermons against homosexuality at fundamental churches. And that's just the tip of the iceberg... the she-bears, the iron chariots... there are just so many that I find it impossible to accept that anyone can interpret it consistently.

It is a mockery to then insist that the book is infallibly right.




> The analogy you have called, is a fine example that is answered by my previous post in page one, I will quote it for you.


Not what I meant, I'd seen that post, but no problem.

----------


## Maletbon

> ....calling someone's views "Bizarre and hateful" at least in this case -- is FLATOUT personal aggression, in this case _as far as I can tell_ completely a wrong judgement; and it is nearing demonization....[/I]


Well, I was done, but have to respond to this, since telling the truth is not personal aggression. Telling people that if they don't agree with you they will be tortured by their creator is personal aggression. Unlike those types of believers, I don't believe in torment as a good attribute of The Divine, even for people who disagree with me. Not sure I understand the free pass people who believe things apparently have earned. Since someone believes something, if you use strong words to tell them the truth, that's aggression. I don't get that.

I defy anyone to find any concept ever created by the mind of man that is more bizarre than the idea the All-Powerful Lord of the Universe burns his children in fire for ALL ETERNITY. You can't do it. George Bush is really an alien? Nope. Up is green? Nope. North is south? Nope. It's impossible. That belief is the most bizarre thing on the planet, flat out. Please tell me something more bizarre than that, if you can.

And hateful. Hateful? Ha, you thought it was hateful that I called their belief hateful? You do know that I'm fighting infinity here, and all I have is words. So to you saying "hateful" is more hate-filled than thinking everyone who doesn't like your favorite scriptures will be tormented by his creator ETERNALLY? That is the definition of hate.

Nothing has ever been invented by the mind of man more painful that the punishment that is dealt out to disbelievers in Christianity. It is impossible to create anything more painful than Hell. Try it. You can't. Fundie Christians have cornered the market on pain and saved it for people who disagree with them. How could I be truthful and say that that was anything other than hateful? It's inhuman in its callousness, and frankly despicable.

But it's okay, since it's a belief, and has been around a long time. Hate and Pain is really God's Love.

When people worship a punishing God, they become surrogate punishers. Sure worked for Inquisitors and Crusaders. We're just doing God's work. Punishing.

How is that not hateful and bizarre?

No need to respond, since this is the last time I come to this page. I have better things to do than get all riled up about book-worshipers. And I know if I even look in here again once, I am doomed to whining for all eternity.

Nikolai, I know you just want me to be nice to people, and believe it or not, I usually am, since unlike fundamentalists of any religion, not just Christianity, I think people are good and don't deserve to be punished, especially not forever, which is so utterly ridiculous and silly that I'm crazy to even argue against it. Thank you for not believing in Hell.

----------


## NikolaiI

> Well, I was done, but have to respond to this, since telling the truth is not personal aggression. Telling people that if they don't agree with you they will be tortured by their creator is personal aggression. Unlike those types of believers, I don't believe in torment as a good attribute of The Divine, even for people who disagree with me. Not sure I understand the free pass people who believe things apparently have earned. Since someone believes something, if you use strong words to tell them the truth, that's aggression. I don't get that.
> 
> I defy anyone to find any concept ever created by the mind of man that is more bizarre than the idea the All-Powerful Lord of the Universe burns his children in fire for ALL ETERNITY. You can't do it. George Bush is really an alien? Nope. Up is green? Nope. North is south? Nope. It's impossible. That belief is the most bizarre thing on the planet, flat out. Please tell me something more bizarre than that, if you can.
> 
> And hateful. Hateful? Ha, you thought it was hateful that I called their belief hateful? You do know that I'm fighting infinity here, and all I have is words. So to you saying "hateful" is more hate-filled than thinking everyone who doesn't like your favorite scriptures will be tormented by his creator ETERNALLY? That is the definition of hate.
> 
> Nothing has ever been invented by the mind of man more painful that the punishment that is dealt out to disbelievers in Christianity. It is impossible to create anything more painful than Hell. Try it. You can't. Fundie Christians have cornered the market on pain and saved it for people who disagree with them. How could I be truthful and say that that was anything other than hateful? It's inhuman in its callousness, and frankly despicable.
> 
> But it's okay, since it's a belief, and has been around a long time. Hate and Pain is really God's Love.
> ...


The only thing I can think of is that since the subject matter of the forum thread, it is entirely valid to state a religious view on it. The Atheist is obvioulsy a good person, and he did not create this thread solely or at all to create bad feeling. Therefore there is not a good reason why we cannot have all views expressed - those that say that they believe in Christ but not hell, as well as those that believe Christ is saving us from damnation. I think you are going much to far in saying that someone is hateful for having this view. It is true crimes have been done in the name of every religion, and also God. But I have read some of Skasian's posts and to me she is intelligent, kind, and her posts are valuable and insightful. I disagree with her on points such as hell, and vegetarianism, but our exchanges have been pleasant and respectful. But even if this were not the case, it is not the right tactic or strategy to write the way you did. 

Even if the concept of hell is something that is disturbing to you, there is no reason to blow skasian's posts out of porportion. As I quoted on another post, "if you view the world as hostile you create it that way," the same is true for people. If you treat someone as hostile, as mean or as stupid, then you will gradually have that effect on them - this is much more noticable in children, especially the differenc has been discovered between much love and positive encouragement (read: _belief_ and _faith_ in the child) - in other words, treat them with the implicit understanding that they are a valuable human being who is capable, competent and intelligent - then they will develop these qualities with confidence. Treat them with neglect and they will not reach their potential. So if you act like it is hopeless for someone - your position is not so insightful, it is not so great, and you are only giving a negatve assertion, suggestion, and opinion, which immediately creates bad feeling and comes back to you. Lastly if the idea of hell bothers you so much, then do not come here, but don't call people extremist and worse. Please and thank you.

----------


## Delta40

Wow! I want to swim with the dolphins atm. Perhaps they know......the altruistic ones that is.

----------


## NikolaiI

Hm I wanted to say, I don't really like to have, figuratively, my mouth full of all I've been saying lately. I don't judge because I don't know you. But I just wanted to point out that it's probably wrong to judge another, because you don't know them. And since it was getting so touchy and defensive, that is why I wrote so much... although I probably did write too much... anyway I will get off it for a while, since it wound down anyway.

----------


## Zee.

> Saying a system as holy as religion and remarking it is flawed is insult. I tolded you before that it is the same as remarking God is flawed. Do you understand this?



You believe that religion is not flawed?

okay i can't be bothered wasting any more time talking to delusionals.


You follow blindly, Skasian..



That'll be the last post from me. This thread gives me a headache.

----------


## NikolaiI

> Hm I wanted to say, I don't really like to have, figuratively, my mouth full of all I've been saying lately. I don't judge because I don't know you. But I just wanted to point out that it's probably wrong to judge another, because you don't know them. And since it was getting so touchy and defensive, that is why I wrote so much... although I probably did write too much... anyway I will get off it for a while, since it wound down anyway.





> I really enjoyed reading that, and realize i probably did come off a little strong with many of the things i said. I realize that her beliefs are her own, even though they may seem very strange to me. I have never been able to fully accept certain things about Christianity - I don't think I ever will. But, that aside, I don't want to come off as someone who sounds very ignorant - because i'm not, far from it. Sometimes i can't express myself quite as clearly as id like to when it comes to matters like these - particulary in matters close to my heart.
> What i loved about buddhism was the ability to be anything you wanted to be - yet still allow buddhist faith in your life. You could be a christian, and yet be a buddhist in the same light. But..that's an entirely different subject..
> 
> Thanks for your comment - much appreciated.


Thank you Limajean, I appreciate it, but I probably wrote too much. 

Regardless I am much more comfortable studying and discussing things other than that..... heh. But thank you, and I am glad you are on the forum and giving your input. Communication I know can be difficult, I've been visiting this forum for over a year and also writing different things... both happiness and sadness or any kind of thought or emotion can be difficult to express at times. One reason for this is that we are always forgetting those moments when we have some special thought or realization.

----------


## NikolaiI

Okay, so much for that. Well I don't feel so bad about writing so much about it since it failed (ha, is that ironic?) to have any effect. Skasian is not delusional, limajean. Nor are you not able to debate (I think I saw someone say that..?). This is an instance where I am going to walk away not taking anyone very seriously. 

*takes delta's cue and leaves quietly*

----------


## Zee.

Well I guess that's a matter of opinion. But to me, anyone who believes our creator will burn us all in hell because we're not bending at the knees is slightly delusional, not as a person, but in their beliefs. I'm sick of the politically correct nonsense we have to stick to these days. No one can say what they really feel or what everyone is thinking because it's not "right" to do so. Things would be solved a lot quicker if people didn't tip toe. I don't tip toe. It may offend you but atleast i play it straight, i see no point in adding a silver lining.

Damn - okay that there, really is my last post..

----------


## Delta40

I think as an ongoing interlocutor, the purpose of discussion is the exchange of viewpoints and ideas, rather than to convince anyone. Don't underestimate your ability to have an effect, though. Sometimes people get insight just from the experience of being on this thread.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Well I guess that's a matter of opinion. But to me, anyone who believes our creator will burn us all in hell because we're not bending at the knees is slightly delusional, not as a person, but in their beliefs.


A colossal misunderstanding of God on the highest order. Have you even read the Bible? Hell is a _chosen_ destination - it is God's acknowledgement of humanity's prerogative to reject Him and His provision of a place for them away from His presence - which is what they desire; for those who wish only to serve themselves, heaven would be "hell" for them. By the way, Hell may not necessarily be a place of "burning" - at least in the physical sense we think.

As well, what qualifies you to decide that others are "delusional" in their beliefs? Your inability or unwillingness to understand their beliefs equals _them_ having the problem? Perhaps it is _you_ who are delusional by pretending that all that is around you simply came into being on its own. That strikes me as the epitome of delusional, wishful thinking.




> I'm sick of the politically correct nonsense we have to stick to these days. No one can say what they really feel or what everyone is thinking because it's not "right" to do so. Things would be solved a lot quicker if people didn't tip toe. I don't tip toe. It may offend you but atleast i play it straight, i see no point in adding a silver lining.


Feel better, having vented away? Most people who support being "brutally honest" are generally more interested in brutality than honesty.




> Damn - okay that there, really is my last post..


Your withdrawal is accepted.

----------


## Zee.

> Feel better, having vented away? Most people who support being "brutally honest" are generally more interested in brutality than honesty.



And there's nothing brutal about telling people they're going to Hell, right?

I really don't care what people say to try and soften it up or try and justify it.
Creator of all of us sends us to hell because we dont believe in him?
i'm not buying that. It's a ridiculous concept. Would you burn your own children simply because they didnt agree with you? it's unnatural and it's sick.

----------


## Zee.

I'm not talking in fact.

I find their beliefs delusional, like im sure some find mine. End of story.

----------


## Delta40

I think brutally honest is when you have no concern about what impact your statements will have upon another person. It's where you take no personal responsibility for what you say. It's a buck passing strategy. 

Heaps of people cloak themselves this way. 

Consider the following example:

'You're going to burn in Hell if you don't accept God as your saviour. By the way, I am not responsible for the hurt, fear and distrust that I invoke through my statements.....but I will (coz I'm doing the Lord's work, afterall) if you turn to God and accept him'

----------


## Redzeppelin

> And there's nothing brutal about telling people they're going to Hell, right?


Depends: if I am placing myself in the judgment seat by deciding that I think you'll be in hell, then that is wrong; only God can determine that. However, if I tell you that the logical consequences of rejecting God lead to hell, I'm doing the same thing that a pack of cigarettes does by telling you that smoking leads to cancer.




> I really don't care what people say to try and soften it up or try and justify it.


OK - you've already established your intent to speak as you wish.




> Creator of all of us sends us to hell because we dont believe in him?
> i'm not buying that. It's a ridiculous concept. Would you burn your own children simply because they didnt agree with you? it's unnatural and it's sick.


Hell is a _chosen_ destination. God doesn't "send" people there - they choose to go there by default in their rejection of God. It's not about agreement; it's about choosing death over life. The Bible makes clear that God is the source of all Life in the universe; if you reject Him, you choose death - just as if you choose not to eat, you starve. Hell isn't an arbitrary punishment - it is the logical end for those who choose to serve themselves instead of God.

Again, you should read the Bible if you intend to attack the theology contained within it.

----------


## Rush_of_Blood

> And there's nothing brutal about telling people they're going to Hell, right?
> 
> I really don't care what people say to try and soften it up or try and justify it.
> Creator of all of us sends us to hell because we dont believe in him?
> i'm not buying that. It's a ridiculous concept. Would you burn your own children simply because they didnt agree with you? it's unnatural and it's sick.



i have said it before but i will definitely say it again:

we are all *NOT* God's children. we are all his *creation*.

----------


## Zee.

> Depends: if I am placing myself in the judgment seat by deciding that I think you'll be in hell, then that is wrong; only God can determine that. However, if I tell you that the logical consequences of rejecting God lead to hell, I'm doing the same thing that a pack of cigarettes does by telling you that smoking leads to cancer.
> 
> 
> 
> OK - you've already established your intent to speak as you wish.
> 
> 
> 
> Hell is a _chosen_ destination. God doesn't "send" people there - they choose to go there by default in their rejection of God. It's not about agreement; it's about choosing death over life. The Bible makes clear that God is the source of all Life in the universe; if you reject Him, you choose death - just as if you choose not to eat, you starve. Hell isn't an arbitrary punishment - it is the logical end for those who choose to serve themselves instead of God.
> ...



How is it a logical consequence that not accepting leads to Hell? How is that logical at all - you have not one ounce of proof, with the exception of what, the bible?
That's like me saying that wizards are real because i have Harry Potter to prove it.


You're assuming i haven't read the Bible. At no point have i ever stated that i haven't.

----------


## Zee.

> i have said it before but i will definitely say it again:
> 
> we are all *NOT* God's children. we are all his *creation*.



Yet again someone who speaks as if this is fact.
You are no closer to God than i am, my friend.

----------


## Rush_of_Blood

> How is it a logical consequence that not accepting leads to Hell? How is that logical at all - you have not one ounce of proof, with the exception of what, the bible?
> That's like me saying that wizards are real because i have Harry Potter to prove it.
> 
> 
> You're assuming i haven't read the Bible. At no point have i ever stated that i haven't.



have you read it?

----------


## Rush_of_Blood

> Yet again someone who speaks as if this is fact.
> You are no closer to God than i am, my friend.


closer in what sense?

----------


## Rush_of_Blood

> First off, I'd never give you a hard time; while we disagree on many things, your views are honest & heartfelt, and I have no trouble with people holding views which are different or opposite from mine.
> 
> I hope you get to play with some dolphins some day, because I'd guarantee that it would confirm for you that they are cognitively smart.
> 
> I just wish we could figure out how to communicate with them. And you're right about mammals - most of them are indeed social animals.
> 
> 
> 
> Just on the border of long enough
> ...




You are taking things waaay too far out of context.


1)you said:
"Depends who you talk to. Some sects say there will be animals in heaven, and in the bible, Jesus himself says that not a sparrow farts without his old man knowing about it."

Jesus is not talking about heaven at all! he is talking about love!

Here is the passage you are talking about**:

Matthew 10: 29-31
Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father. And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. So don't be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows. 

In Jesus' day, sparrows were the most worthless kind of bird you could get. But Jesus shows that he loves those sparrows so much, how much more so humans! So this is not about heaven whatsoever. it is about love.


2) have you ever thought that history "stole" from the bible, and not the other way around? 

You said:
"I'm interested to know what constitutes "full christian knowledge" and why that's important, because so far, the only reason you've advanced is that god says so, so it must be true. Given that no evidence exists other than what the bible says, regarding hell, there's little else to know. Plus, I must reiterate that the bible is read very differently between differing sects."


3) 
point 1)of course there's no way evidence that exists outside of the bible of hell! it's something outside of this world, this universe. 

point 2) this is where much misunderstanding happens. you have to look at the bible yourself. not compare it to how others interpret it. many sects strongly go against biblical doctrine, i completely agree. Mormonism, Jehovah's Witness, and Penecostals all have things to address because of very different interpretations, just to name a few. But look at the Bible *yourself*. have you read it in your free time at all? i can not emphasize this point enough!



4)

You said:
"Once we get through that, I'd have to list the inconsistencies and oturight contradictions of the bible, of which there are hundreds. Do you eat shellfish or pork? Do men in your church shave their beards? These things are expressly prohibited in the bible, and in the very same chapters I've heard used in sermons against homosexuality at fundamental churches. And that's just the tip of the iceberg... the she-bears, the iron chariots... there are just so many that I find it impossible to accept that anyone can interpret it consistently.

It is a mockery to then insist that the book is infallibly right."

i'd have to look specifically at what contradictions there are that you are talking about (if you'd like to send them to me, please do) but this again has somewhat to do with interpretation. the "do you eat shellfish or pork?" question i can answer for you right now. let's look at the two references:

To see the whole list of what was restricted in the Old Testament, go to biblegateway.com and look up Leviticus 11.

Then:


Jesus addresses this issue in Mark 7: 18-20:
"Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'? For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.")

He went on: "What comes out of a man is what makes him 'unclean.' For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and make a man 'unclean.' "



Talking about the apostle peter:

He [peter] saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. Then a voice told him, "Get up, Peter. Kill and eat."

"Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. "I have never eaten anything impure or unclean."

The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean."

This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven. 


The Jews were trying to justify themselves because they were following the food codes given in the Old Testament, but Jesus is saying that that is not what is important. It is the internal that is important, not the external. There are a few other reasons, but this is one of the main ones.

----------


## NikolaiI

> Well I guess that's a matter of opinion. But to me, anyone who believes our creator will burn us all in hell because we're not bending at the knees is slightly delusional, not as a person, but in their beliefs. I'm sick of the politically correct nonsense we have to stick to these days. No one can say what they really feel or what everyone is thinking because it's not "right" to do so. Things would be solved a lot quicker if people didn't tip toe. I don't tip toe. It may offend you but atleast i play it straight, i see no point in adding a silver lining.
> 
> Damn - okay that there, really is my last post..


You say you have come from a Buddhist family - now this doesn't necessarily mean you are Buddhist but if you are, I'd remind you of something the Buddha said in the dhammapada- that only by loving kindness can hate be defeated.

Damnit I always post in reply to something I thought was the last reply but then there's a awhole new page of posts.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> How is it a logical consequence that not accepting leads to Hell? How is that logical at all - you have not one ounce of proof, with the exception of what, the bible?
> That's like me saying that wizards are real because i have Harry Potter to prove it.


One of the fundamental problems that many nonbelievers struggle with is the idea that God's character defines good and bad, right and wrong; He does not arbitrarily arrive at the definitions of those two things. As such, God could not make sin "good" - sin is contrary to the nature of God. As such, because God is the source of all creation and all life, and He is the sustainor of all creation and all life, to reject Him is to reject life itself. Just because the person doesn't immediately die doesn't mean what I've said isn't true - God continues to sustain the lives of those who don't believe in Him because it takes a sustained rejection of God over time for Him to finally let the sinner have his/her way. Hell is the only logical destination for those who ultimately and finally reject God - the rest of the universe is filled with His presence - for those who reject Him, His presence would be sheer torture. Hell provides a place for those who reject God to live in eternity out of His presence. But - since God is love, and the source of all goodness, hell won't be very pleasant - not necessarily in a Dantean way, but a way best described by sheer emptiness, and nothingness.

Second, the Bible has to be the authority, because without it we have no stable "ground" upon which to make statements about God; your attack upon Him is largely made based upon what the Bible says (or you _think_ it says) - you can't discredit the source of your argument - that's contradictory.





> You're assuming i haven't read the Bible. At no point have i ever stated that i haven't.


I am assuming - just as I would assume you'd not read the instructions for assembling something if you put that something together wrongly.

----------


## The Atheist

> I think brutally honest is when you have no concern about what impact your statements will have upon another person. It's where you take no personal responsibility for what you say. It's a buck passing strategy. 
> 
> Heaps of people cloak themselves this way. 
> 
> Consider the following example:
> 
> 'You're going to burn in Hell if you don't accept God as your saviour. By the way, I am not responsible for the hurt, fear and distrust that I invoke through my statements.....but I will (coz I'm doing the Lord's work, afterall) if you turn to God and accept him'


That's very good!




> Jesus is not talking about heaven at all! he is talking about love!


I was making a light-hearted response - I know exactly what it says. Despite that, there are lots of christians who believe animals have a soul and go to heaven when they die.




> 2) have you ever thought that history "stole" from the bible, and not the other way around?


 :FRlol:  :FRlol:  :FRlol:  :FRlol:  :FRlol: 

No. There are several myths which *pre-date* the bible. It's not possible for them to have stolen ideas from the bible.

Nice try, but Egyptian gods didn't exist long before the christian and Jewish ones failed to exist.




> 3) 
> point 1)of course there's no way evidence that exists outside of the bible of hell! it's something outside of this world, this universe.


Yes, which confirms my point - hell exists in a book. So does Magrathea, but I don't believe that exists either. 




> have you read it in your free time at all? i can not emphasize this point enough!


I've read the bible several times in several different versions.




> i'd have to look specifically at what contradictions there are that you are talking about (if you'd like to send them to me, please do) but this again has somewhat to do with interpretation. the "do you eat shellfish or pork?" question i can answer for you right now. let's look at the two references:


Which confirms the contradiction. One part of the bible specifically says some food is unclean, Jesus says it isn't. That's what a contradiction is - the same book saying two opposed things.

If you want other inconsistencies, read the book yourself, but keep both eyes open. Here's a good place to start: Internet Infidels' list. As I said, there are literally hundreds.

----------


## NikolaiI

> First off, I'd never give you a hard time; while we disagree on many things, your views are honest & heartfelt, and I have no trouble with people holding views which are different or opposite from mine.
> 
> I hope you get to play with some dolphins some day, because I'd guarantee that it would confirm for you that they are cognitively smart.
> 
> I just wish we could figure out how to communicate with them. And you're right about mammals - most of them are indeed social animals.
> 
> 
> 
> Just on the border of long enough
> ...


I respect your opinions as well. I don't share your enthusiasm for Bertrand Russell though I haven't read anything completely by him yet. Sometimes you can find literature to be better than philosophy.

I was an atheist until I was around 17. At some point I began to read Bhagavad-Gita, Song of our Lord. Bhagavad-Gita, or Gitopanisad, is a 700 verse, 18 chapter song, which is spoken by Krsna to Arjuna on the battlefield of Kurukshestra. It covers the topics of jiva, the living entity; karma, activities; time; prakriti, nature; and isvara, the supreme controller. Nature is part of the inferior energy of isvara, the supreme controller, and the living entity is part of the superior energy. The jiva is part of the superior energy because it is transcendental. All jivas are part of the supreme, the isvara. So the natural position of a jiva is fulfilling the function of the supreme. Isvara is Bhagavan, and it is the root of existence. Just like as a hand which is separated from the body may resemble a hand but does not carry out the functions of a hand, if a person is separated from Krsna, who is the root of existence, then he ceases to function as well. Or if you do not succeed in acting for Krsna, then your actions do not matter at all. You only matter insofar as you matter to the root of existence. But the flip side - the good part - is that you do matter. You are infinite, since you are an eternal servant of the supreme. You are not meant to try to become God in this life, but rather to try to serve him and do everything for him.

----------


## jon1jt

> the issue seems to be a peculiar one to me, because it says that all sin is equitable - no matter whether I'm a child-eating murderer or simply an atheist, I'm going to hell. It would be a strange contradiction that a god, variously described as compassionate, loving and caring for humans would inflict identical suffering.
> 
> Opinions?


 :FRlol:  :FRlol: Now this man knows what he's talking about!

----------


## skasian

> hi im new to the forums, but i was just wondering if you were to kill yourself to save others do you not become a martyr. but from what i know if you kill yourself you automatically go to hell in the christian belief


Yes, if you kill yourself for self hatred or thinking the world is unfit for yourself, you end up going to hell because we Christian believe that our bodies are like the holy temple as it was constructed in the image of God.

Killing yourself in order to save others is not suicide, it is called sacrifice, and therefore different.

----------


## Pendragon

Question: Do unbelievers bound for hell have eternal life? Eternal life is promised to believers, not to those steeped in sin. So then, how is hell eternal? In Revelation we read: "And death and hell were cast into the Lake of Fire which is the second death." Jesus said "Fear God who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." Destruction means that at some point something no longer exists. To burn in hell eternally would require eternal existence. Forever and ever then becomes a long space of time, but it will end. The word eternal is not used in the Bible to describe hell. Just a thought.

----------


## skasian

> You believe that religion is not flawed?
> 
> okay i can't be bothered wasting any more time talking to delusionals.
> 
> 
> You follow blindly, Skasian..
> 
> 
> 
> That'll be the last post from me. This thread gives me a headache.


Solving a problem that causes headache implies you are struggling.
I do not consider myself following blindly when the person who is struggling seems to be you.

----------


## skasian

> They aren't frustrated by that alone. You have - as I showed - repeated the same line about non-believers going to hell several times. That's what gets people upset. I accept that you're just speaking your mind, but is anything served by repeating it? 
> 
> When it is repeated several times, it can look insulting.
> 
> It doesn't bother me; I've had my spot as Satan's right hand man picked out for years. That's why I'm The Atheist and not some other kind of atheist.
> 
> 
> Well. some can and some can't. I think you should at least try to see how someone repeating that they will be tortured eternally for not believing in your god can be hurtful, though. What you're doing is describing a religion which lives on fear - fear of being sent to hell if we don't act the prescribed way.
> 
> ...


Me repeating the lines of who goes to hell, if it caused so much anger, then from now on I will not emphasise this line. However isnt it true that if any one that is prepared to discuss The Christian Hell, they should be ready to hear about the true values and aspects Christian believe about their Hell?

If some one thought that Christianity lives their life in fear,then I would like to let them know in some aspects yes, but mostly no. God is capable of anything so it is true that if we commit sin, then yes, we fear God will punish us in unexpected ways. However for going to hell, I think not. I believe and most Christians believe that if you believe Jesus as our saviour, then there is no reason for us to worry about going to hell.

I have never met a Christian that did not believe in heaven but may be there is that small number of Christians that do. But if you become a Christian and believer of God, it is very likely that you will understand God created heaven and hell in the first few pages of Genesis.

Yes, I agree that for most atheists, the Christian view of who goes to heaven or hell is unappealing, and I dont blame them to think this way. All some people need is more elaborated explaining that will help them understand it is not "unfair" or "stupid".

Now let me tell you that before Christ there were prophesies about his comings and there were false prophesies too that talked about false Christ and false saviours therefore may of made up the earlier origins that clearly was untrue.

I know there will be much incredulousness, however let me share with you something that can answer some views about Christian hell and heaven that isnt accountable from the bible. Bible may be the recordings of God's Words however as I told you before, the Bible is not the only method to interact with God. There are prayers and spiritual encounters. Miracles and supernatural events that cannot be explained by science. Many skeptics say this can be explained by psychology but in reality, it cannot. I have been to a church that practised anointing, and many people who had incurable diseases such as tumour, people who were paralysed were all healed. Talking in tongues and prophesising occured, and hearing the voice of God all occured. People began to see angels and demons, and their body began to move to praise God by the spirit. Our voices were raised and sang praises that we were unfamiliar of. As some people were anointed, their minds and spiritual being were transfered, heaven and hell. The Pastor asked the people who experienced the journey to heaven and hell individually and all of them seem to describe or draw the scene exactly the same. It was the same realms they were explaining. One child encountered a vision, where she was to eat a golden scroll taste of honey, when she came back to reality, gold dust appeared around her mouth, and many people saw gold dust forming in their own palms. Some people's palms had oil, a spiritual oil that helped cure an incurable disease. Some people began to read other people's mind and troubles, and they began to help these troubled people by communicating with God directly. There was a person who was possessed by the devil and it was the most frightning thing, where people had to lay their hands and ask God to remove such spirit. The miracles kept on coming, and I know that this church is only one of the many churches that God had come to help his people. 
Incredulous or not, I just wanted to point out that Christian hell and heaven does exist no matter what other Christians may think.

"Do you eat shellfish or pork? Do men in your church shave their beards? These things are expressly prohibited in the bible,"

These lines come from the old testiment, where the Jews still follow today. Christians do not follow these lines as Jesus had come to sacrifice his own blood and these old rules are not to be carried out since Him. Same with sacrifising animals to God. Jesus had removed these systems just for us.

----------


## The Atheist

> I have been to a church that practised anointing, and many people who had incurable diseases such as tumour, people who were paralysed were all healed.


How do you know tumours were cured? Could you see the tumour then see it gone?

You may think you've seen those things happen, but it's factual that not one single instance of miraculous divine cure has been recorded in the entirety of medical history.

The other side of the coin is that if your god is able to cure people on earth, then why does he let so many children die? Did their parents not pray hard enough?

You live in NZ - we have a couple of famous cases of parents being prosecuted & convicted for neglect because they tried, and failed, to get their god to cure their child instead of taking it to the doctor. Did those people not pray hard enough, or does your god need more martyrs?




> Incredulous or not, I just wanted to point out that Christian hell and heaven does exist no matter what other Christians may think.


Yes, you know, isn't it funny how each different sect of christianity thinks their one is right and the others wrong? Almost two billion christians would disagree with you on hell, but your sect is right, of course.




> These lines come from the old testiment, where the Jews still follow today. Christians do not follow these lines as Jesus had come to sacrifice his own blood and these old rules are not to be carried out since Him. Same with sacrifising animals to God. Jesus had removed these systems just for us.


This is quite funny - denying it because it's in the OT. Do you also deny the myths of creation, the great flood, Moses & Jonah and the thousand other lies in the OT?

If the OT is just a Jewish book, how come the prophecies of Jesus' coming are in it?

----------


## skasian

> How do you know tumours were cured? Could you see the tumour then see it gone?
> 
> You may think you've seen those things happen, but it's factual that not one single instance of miraculous divine cure has been recorded in the entirety of medical history.
> 
> The other side of the coin is that if your god is able to cure people on earth, then why does he let so many children die? Did their parents not pray hard enough?
> 
> You live in NZ - we have a couple of famous cases of parents being prosecuted & convicted for neglect because they tried, and failed, to get their god to cure their child instead of taking it to the doctor. Did those people not pray hard enough, or does your god need more martyrs?
> 
> 
> ...



As tumors being cured, someone who was praying for that person heard God speak that that person was cured. To check, that person went to the doctors for an examination, and it was true there was nothing there. There are actually many cases like this, such as extreme cases of Arthritis being cured the moment people pray for them.

I am quite unsure why not there have been medical history about this, all I know that doctor dismiss people that have been miaculously cured with no further recording. That is an interesting fact which should be investigated.

About children dying, this is completely up to God where He is in control who may be saved and who wouldnt. In fact, it is just one of the aspects that we humans cannot understand about God. I must admit that I was confused why God seem to make someone be born in such places where death seems imminent without the chance to know God. I have decided that this was our responsibility, dividing people by their level of wealth and our greed. I believe that it is our responsibility to go on missions to give an opportunity to such people that they have a choice to believe in God. What happends for them afterlife I do not know as it is not their fault that they do not know God.

I did hear some news in NZ about letting people die or attempting a dead person arise from the dead. I believe that is wrong because I heard that these people claimed that they were the messiah and proving other people they have the power. This is sin, and against the Will of God. The people who got cured in the church I went to were people that even the doctors couldnt help and so it was an act of asking God for His miracle and mercy to happen, not the other way around.

No no you misunderstood about the old testiment. What you were talking about (such as not eating pig and no beards) were Laws of Moses, the laws that God sent down that included the sacrificing of animals. When Jesus sacrificed Himself, the Laws of Moses were broken, and there was no need of these Laws. I believe that the ten commandments were the only law that were to be kept. I never said the old testiment was a Jewish book and I do not know whether they believe in the whole book of the old testiment. You should ask a Jewish person whether they leave out the books that contain the prophecies about the coming of Messiah.

"Yes, you know, isn't it funny how each different sect of christianity thinks their one is right and the others wrong? Almost two billion christians would disagree with you on hell, but your sect is right, of course."
Could you please elaborate? I am unfamiliar about this especially the billions of Christian that disagree about hell, as hell is in the bible, I dont see why not they do not believe in hell.

----------


## Zee.

Skasian every point you're making is not only flawed - but seems to be trying to stitch up the holes in what you believe to be "facts".

"Incredulous or not, I just wanted to point out that Christian hell and heaven does exist no matter what other Christians may think."

In that statement you even admit that other Christians have alternative beliefs. What makes you right? of all the billions of people in the world why should we believe you?
You speak as if from fact.
It seems to me that you're taking Hell and Heaven too literally - if such a thing does in fact exist. Perhaps Hell is only a state of mind - a "place" that is without God.
Though the world seems to be without God today - so maybe we're already there.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Skasian every point you're making is not only flawed - but seems to be trying to stitch up the holes in what you believe to be "facts".


It's one thing to _tell_ someone his/her points are "flawed" and quite another thing to _show_ how this is so.

For Christians, heaven and hell ARE facts.




> You speak as if from fact.


See above.




> It seems to me that you're taking Hell and Heaven too literally - if such a thing does in fact exist. Perhaps Hell is only a state of mind - a "place" that is without God.
> Though the world seems to be without God today - so maybe we're already there.


So if we take it "somewhat literally" that's OK? How do you take something "too literally"? Can something be partially literal, partially metaphoric? 

The world _seems_ to be without God - good, you have qualified correctly.

This world isn't hell - God has not withdrawn His presence from it - hell is defined as the place God is not; right now, He is still here - we still have beauty, we still have love, compassion, mercy, justice (to a certain extent), generosity, etc. Without God's presence, none of these things would exist because our ability to enact them even in our most mitigated ways comes from HIM.

----------


## The Atheist

> As tumors being cured, someone who was praying for that person heard God speak that that person was cured. To check, that person went to the doctors for an examination, and it was true there was nothing there. There are actually many cases like this, such as extreme cases of Arthritis being cured the moment people pray for them.


So, you never saw the tumours, but have believed that they existed. Accordingly, what you saw was nothing, but you have been told a story which you chose to believe.




> I am quite unsure why not there have been medical history about this, all I know that doctor dismiss people that have been miaculously cured with no further recording. That is an interesting fact which should be investigated.


These things *have* been investigated, yet not a single instance of miraculous cure has ever been recorded. That is despite 3/4 of all medical doctors in USA being christians. You'd think some of them would be quite keen to see a real miracle recoreded, wouldn't you, yet it does not happen.

I guess the thought that you're being lied to isn't a possibility?




> I did hear some news in NZ about letting people die or attempting a dead person arise from the dead. I believe that is wrong because I heard that these people claimed that they were the messiah and proving other people they have the power. This is sin, and against the Will of God. The people who got cured in the church I went to were people that even the doctors couldnt help and so it was an act of asking God for His miracle and mercy to happen, not the other way around.


You clearly missed the point with the NZ couples, because nobody claimed to *be* the messiah - but both couples prayed to their god instead of going to the doctor.

Did they not pary hard enough?

As to the people "cured" in your church, Benny Hinn does exactly the same thing, yet he's been labelled a charlatan by even the Southern Baptist Convention.

Don't you find it funny that the identical things are carried out by frauds?

To check the real details of the "miracle cures" I would need to see notarised statements from doctors confirming both the existence of the disease and the cure.

Isn't it odd that none of them ever do that, despite a genuine miracle being something which would actually impress the unbelievers?




> Could you please elaborate? I am unfamiliar about this especially the billions of Christian that disagree about hell, as hell is in the bible, I dont see why not they do not believe in hell.


There are over a billion Catholics in the world for starters and their official doctrine doesn't include a hell. Given the thousands of theologists in the employ of the RCC over many centuries, I think their view is considered by most to be the best interpretation of the bible, yet you dismiss it, saying that your theology is right! How long has your church been in existence? How many biblical scholars have devoted their lives to reading and translating the original Greek, Hebrew, Amhharic and Latin texts?

Here are details of the different branches of christianity.

Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican and many other sects do not believe in hell, accounting for over 80% of christians.

Maybe you should check what some other branches think.

----------


## Zee.

Love, compassion, mercy and justice are exercised by us. Because such things exist does not mean God is right here with us right now, it means that as his creations, we are sharing and showing them and all of them to me, are a matter of choice ( with the exception of love )

It does not mean he is here, it just means that we are "living".

----------


## Zee.

We're really not going very far with this discussion. Perhaps i should just accept that i'm going to Hell and take my leave.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Love, compassion, mercy and justice are exercised by us. Because such things exist does not mean God is right here with us right now, it means that as his creations, we are sharing and showing them and all of them to me, are a matter of choice ( with the exception of love )


If you've read the Bible, Paul makes it clear in the NT that all good comes from God - any goodness we have comes from His presence in our heart. 




> It does not mean he is here, it just means that we are "living".


In your opinion. I give you what the Bible says.




> We're really not going very far with this discussion. Perhaps i should just accept that i'm going to Hell and take my leave.


What makes you think that's your final destination? Are you really so certain that your life has finished with all its growth, all its changes? I wouldn't be so sure about that if I were you. God is in the business of changing "sinners" into "saints." It is not His desire that any perish - but His respect of our freedom to choose means that for some, He will have to allow them to choose hell instead of Him. Such a reality grieves God, but He won't take our freedom away. That's called "love" by the way.

----------


## The Atheist

> We're really not going very far with this discussion. Perhaps i should just accept that i'm going to Hell and take my leave.


See you there!

I always thought hell sounds just like my kind of place - full of atheists, not a christian in sight, all-night parties and loads of S & M. And Satan has such a great sense of humour.




> And the Lord said to him: Whence comest thou? And he answered and said: I have gone round about the earth, and walked through it.


What more could you need?

----------


## Redzeppelin

Check Revelation: Satan won't be attending that party. Not sure who the host will be.

----------


## Zee.

> What makes you think that's your final destination? Are you really so certain that your life has finished with all its growth, all its changes? I wouldn't be so sure about that if I were you. God is in the business of changing "sinners" into "saints." It is not His desire that any perish - but His respect of our freedom to choose means that for some, He will have to allow them to choose hell instead of Him. Such a reality grieves God, but He won't take our freedom away. That's called "love" by the way.


I am being saracastic. Christianity does not fit into my realm of beliefs. So no, i dont believe im going to hell, because i dont believe in it.

----------


## Zee.

I know what love is like. That is not love.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> I am being saracastic. Christianity does not fit into my realm of beliefs. So no, i dont believe im going to hell, because i dont believe in it.


Well, you're free to believe so. Of course, simply choosing not to believe in something doesn't make it not true; that only works if the thing being denied isn't real. If you're wrong?




> I know what love is like. That is not love.


What's not love - to allow humanity the freedom of choice where to spend eternity? I don't get it - people complain that God is some sort of tyrant, but He gives us the freedom to choose our destiny - how is that not loving?

----------


## dzebra

> it's factual that not one single instance of miraculous divine cure has been recorded in the entirety of medical history.


There is no way that any human could know what you claim. You have not read all medical records. I believe that you've never heard of any case like that, though.




> This is quite funny - denying it because it's in the OT. Do you also deny the myths of creation, the great flood, Moses & Jonah and the thousand other lies in the OT?


The Old Testament has different parts, a couple of which are history and law. The laws described in the Old Testament were established for the Jews that lived before Jesus. When Jesus arrived, he told everybody that the way of life in the Old Testament serves as a physical example of what God wants people to do spiritually. The laws of the OT were changed, but the history in the OT was not. That is not a contradiction, it is using the change as a storytelling device.




> If the OT is just a Jewish book, how come the prophecies of Jesus' coming are in it?


Because the Jews were supposed to follow Jesus when he came.

----------


## Zee.

" What's not love - to allow humanity the freedom of choice where to spend eternity? I don't get it - people complain that God is some sort of tyrant, but He gives us the freedom to choose our destiny - how is that not loving? "

Being presented with option A and option B, and telling me that if i dont choose option A, i go to Hell, is not freedom.

Freedom is absolute.
And freedom should not be built on the basis of fear.

If God truly loved his creations, he would appreciate the beauty of the ability they have to choose their own paths. With, or without him.

You know, i know in my heart, that i am a good person. I have done many great things in my lifetime, and i have helped many people. I have made my mistakes, and i take responsibility for them.So why must i go to hell? because i dont believe or accept? so be it.

If God indeed does send his creatins to hell, simply because they dont accept or believe - he is not worthy of either his title, or his place in the hearts of people. And in my opinion, is no better than a murderer.

You think that accepting God simply frees you from your mistakes?
I am a good person. Perhaps someone who has done more good than many christians. But what's the difference? i dont need to accept God, to know i am a good person. And if indeed such a heaven and hell do exist, i will not simply turn around and "accept" god, to save myself from eternal damnation - that would be false, a cop out, a lie. Perhaps that makes me more of a person, and i believe it does. If you want forgiveness for your sins, your HUMAN mistakes, because that indeed, is what you are. It is not God you should turn to, but the person, the people, yourself who you have wronged. It is their forgiveness you should put energy into obtaining, because you dont get off that easily. You cant bring pain and suffering and expect to be forgiven because you "accept" jesus christ. Why should i, a person who has committed good - made yes, mistakes, but takes responsibility for them, be damned to hell? over say, a person who has done so much wrong, but simply accepts and believes? If indeed, god gave me freewill, i have exercised it, and i have exercised it well, i do not see why he would punish me for it.

You can not give a creature the ability to choose, and find their own path, and then punish them. People who exercise their free will to find their own beliefs, to live a good life, with or without jesus and god,..and whatever else may exist, should be celebrated not frowned upon.

If god is willing to send innocent people to hell because they dont believe in his existance, than he is not worthy of neither his title, or his place in the hearts of others.

Nothing is deserved, it is earned. And if a divine place, or a state of perfect existance is out there, beyond this life, than i deserve to be there.
How dare anyone tell a person who has earned their keep, their place - that they are not worthy of a state of peace, or a place of peace, because they dont believe or accept Jesus, God..or bigfoot.

----------


## The Atheist

> There is no way that any human could know what you claim. You have not read all medical records. I believe that you've never heard of any case like that, though.


Yep, and I believe that medicine is a pretty honest science, by and large and if such a thing had ever been recorded, it would have been published in medical journals.

Yet, that's never happened, although maybe the _Medical Journal of Outer Mongolia_ might try it on. Make that *reputable* medical journals have never reported such a case.

Quite a few claims have been made, but not once has a miracle been established. I don't think I need to know all of medical history to know that.




> That is not a contradiction, it is using the change as a storytelling device.


Yes, quite.

The problem comes in when some of those stories are still used. For instance, if a fundie is adamant the world was created 6013 years ago and that Noah's flood carved the grand canyon in a week, he/she is adamant because the bible says so.

When it contradicts itself, it contradicts itself.

You did note that I provided a link to literally hundreds of contradictions and inconsistencies? Quite a few of them are in the NT as well.




> Because the Jews were supposed to follow Jesus when he came.



Hmm, but they didn't did they?

Oh, that's right, they're wrong and christianity is right. Odd how they think the same thing, only vice-versa.

----------


## The Atheist

> Nothing is deserved, it is earned. And if a divine place, or a state of perfect existance is out there, beyond this life, than i deserve to be there.
> How dare anyone tell a person who has earned their keep, their place - that they are not worthy of a state of peace, or a place of peace, because they dont believe or accept Jesus, God..or bigfoot.


See, this is what I don't get.

That fits in completely with all of Jesus' alleged parables and wisdom - except for loving his dad.

Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, would agree with you 100%, and despite what anyone else may say, he *is* one of the leading theologians on the planet. More degrees than a thermometer. I'm pretty sure Herr RatZZinger's church would also agree with the broad premise of what you say. 

It really is only biblical fundies who don't accept that a good life is a reason for someone to go to heaven, and all logic suggests that an intelligence capable of creating humans would indeed see it the same way. Jesus himself is alleged to have said something about "Judge not lest ye be judged", but clearly that rule doesn't apply to his old man. That's a contradiction for you.

So where is the attraction in the belief that you will go to hell, regardless of how pious or altruistic your life is, because you didn't bow down to an invisble deity? I really believe only misanthropy can create that kind of god.

And I'd turn down the opportunity to meet with the thing which makes those rules.

----------


## Zee.

Oh this is classic...

god:
numbered killings: 2,391,421
estimated total killings: 33 million

satan:
number killings: 10
estimated total killings: 10

Don't believe me? you should - these results have been tallied from the Bible. And considering we all know how reliable it is - i guess we have to accept the above as rock solid truth.

Ref: http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot....an-or-god.html 

Confirmed by endless sources.

----------


## skasian

> Skasian every point you're making is not only flawed - but seems to be trying to stitch up the holes in what you believe to be "facts".
> 
> "Incredulous or not, I just wanted to point out that Christian hell and heaven does exist no matter what other Christians may think."
> 
> In that statement you even admit that other Christians have alternative beliefs. What makes you right? of all the billions of people in the world why should we believe you?
> You speak as if from fact.
> It seems to me that you're taking Hell and Heaven too literally - if such a thing does in fact exist. Perhaps Hell is only a state of mind - a "place" that is without God.
> Though the world seems to be without God today - so maybe we're already there.


If you read THe Atheist post, I was referring to his/her post. The Atheist pointed out that billions of Christians do not believe in hell, so in reference to his jargon, I stated what I believed in. 
Look, what you believe in, I respect and dont take it too seriously as I believe in my own sets of values. The problem you have is, if you have your own sets of beliefs and values, why do you care what other peoples belief and values are like? If you dont believe in Jesus, you dont have to believe in our Hell or what I believe in. How can you be mad about maybe ending up in Christian Hell when clearly you are not Christian? It is up to you what you believe in but dont come to me and say I seem to have all the "facts" when it is my strong opinions about my faith. If you have strong values of Buddhism, such Christian values should not affect you. Hold on to your Buddhism faith or philosophy and dont let other religion let you down if you choose not to believe them. I am speaking out as a person, religious or not, and I want to help you stop thinking that I have all the facts but that I have a strong belief.

----------


## Delta40

You spoke eloquently then Skasian.

----------


## skasian

> We're really not going very far with this discussion. Perhaps i should just accept that i'm going to Hell and take my leave.


Are you even Buddhist? If you have your belief and philosophy, then stick to it, without being hindered with other religious values. What I want to say is either believe in Christianity or dont. Therefore believe in Christian hell or dont. You cant be in the middle therefore dont let yourself down thinking you are going to hell when clearly you dont believe in Christianity. All religions must point this out: live your life to the fullest with spreading the good over the bad as much as possible.

----------


## skasian

> So, you never saw the tumours, but have believed that they existed. Accordingly, what you saw was nothing, but you have been told a story which you chose to believe.
> 
> 
> 
> These things *have* been investigated, yet not a single instance of miraculous cure has ever been recorded. That is despite 3/4 of all medical doctors in USA being christians. You'd think some of them would be quite keen to see a real miracle recoreded, wouldn't you, yet it does not happen.
> 
> I guess the thought that you're being lied to isn't a possibility?
> 
> 
> ...


It is not a story to believe. It was someone that was clearly dying from a tumor, and been declared that the doctors cannot save him. He was going to spend a couple of months waiting to die. After he got healed, we got a report back from the doctor it was just a miracle. 
If it is evidence what I saw with my eyes, then I saw an old lady that was paralysed, stuck in a wheelchair for most of her life, and when she got healed by God, she starting running around praising God. Her family starting crying and praising with her. Do you think that was fake? And how could I have been lied to when I have experienced my self of see it with my own two eyes? It is actually sad that God have to provide with miracles that can be perceived with our eyes. The truth is it implies lack of faith and belief. People are thinking because they cant see with their physical eyes, God doesnt exist. What about love, we cant see it but we can feel love being poured from someone even in long distances. God is Love, our physical eyes cannot see God but by our hearts and spiritual eye, He is inexplicable for us to imagine. I have to ask you, do you think love from your friends and family may be fake just because you cant see it?

Precisely maybe that is the reason why miracles are not reported by medical doctors, as you have suspected: frauds. People of today are becoming more and more skeptic no matter what seems to be miracles they repudiate saying its fake. Maybe having a religious aspect in a scientific, medical area causes issues again like what you are suspecting now: fake and frauds. Skeptics are stubborn, and they refuse to believe in anything else then what is in reality. This echoes in some scenes in the bible, when Jesus came to earth, some people thought and rebuked he was an anti Christ and that he was fake even though mircales were happening in from of their noses. It is a sad reality and maybe this is the reason why there is limited amount of "evidence"

And please dont suggest what I said was "fake". For me it was not fake as I experienced my shoulder joints moving and clicking in correct places as I felt intensive heat while praying. I dont mind if you dont believe in what I say but dont accuse me that I am fake, just move on if you suspect falseness.

Christians that rebuke Christians like you have said about Benny Hinn is not uncommon. Christians are still human, and they may act as same as any other non believers. Some Christians believe that we should not practise anointing like Benny Hinn which scares them, as it is out of the ordinary. The same went for the church that I went to that practised this. Other churches whispered to each other and started to rebuke. That is reality of followers in churches, we are often corrupt, against Gods Will. That is why Christians must open their eyes from this and truely focus on God.

The branches you were talking about, I apologise I wasnt accounting every branch of Christianity, such as Catholic, Orthodox.. But the people that claim as Christian, not Catholic or Orthodox, do believe in Hell as in the bible there are many verses that God talked about Hell. Now why would there be now hell when God Himself talked about it?

----------


## Zee.

Yes i agree with Delta, you spoke well.

My problem is, i get winded up in an argument - and end up arguing when i really dont need to.
Then again - if i hadnt been told that me personally - was going to hell, i probably would have backed off from the start.

----------


## skasian

> Yes i agree with Delta, you spoke well.
> 
> My problem is, i get winded up in an argument - and end up arguing when i really dont need to.
> Then again - if i hadnt been told that me personally - was going to hell, i probably would have backed off from the start.


Ah, thank you to both of you :Smile: 

If you had taken in my belief personally and affected you as a person, I apologise, I hate it when I make someone feel bad in any kind of way. I never intended to upset or anger anyone when I was stating the belief Christianity had about hell. In a way, I didnt realise such aspect would hurt any one. This is because I thought that as all people had their fixed values, such belief such as mine wouldnt affect them. It seems I was wrong, however I still would like you to strengthen up your own belief and values no matter how contrasting others may be with yours and therefore grow more powerful as a religious or philosophical person.

----------


## Zee.

No apology needed.

I got fired up.I just want you to understand that none of my posts were intended to be hurtful to you.

You're good to debate with - i guess i gave my all

----------


## skasian

> No apology needed.
> 
> I got fired up.I just want you to understand that none of my posts were intended to be hurtful to you.
> 
> You're good to debate with - i guess i gave my all


No no none of your posts were hurtful, it actually gave me an insight about the human response system. Thank you for debating, it gets the brain exercising.

But doesnt firing up induce you to give up your all into a discussion? I dont see any harm in giving all of yourself. The words you write is a representation of yourself, your personality, your belief. The better you write, the better you can represent yourself. Isnt that a good exercise? 

I believe that being fired up is same as a stimuli that triggers a motivation and urge to use your communication skill to express your perspectives. Its beneficial to other people too since it gives so much insight on how people can see in so many different angles even though we are positioned in one plane or context.

----------


## dzebra

> Yet, that's never happened, although maybe the _Medical Journal of Outer Mongolia_ might try it on. Make that *reputable* medical journals have never reported such a case.
> 
> Quite a few claims have been made, but not once has a miracle been established.


I guess that could depend on one of two things:

-What makes something reputable? Wouldn't a medical journal lose reputation if it claims to not know something? Therefore it would be impossible for a reputable journal to claim miracles on a frequent basis, no matter if they were true or not. People who don't believe in miracles are common enough that a medical journal would not be reputable if it claimed a miracle.

-What constitutes a miracle? Is a normal act with perfect timing ever considered a miracle? When the odds are against survival, but then surgery goes well with none of the expected complications, is that considered a miracle? When someone needs a new liver and none are in stock, but one arrives the day before the person would die, is that considered a miracle? Sure, these things can be explained, but they are also pretty miraculous.

----------


## Zee.

Oh yes of course it is, but when it gets to the point where im arguing that oranges are apples, it gets a bit ridiculous.

----------


## Zee.

Also, this isnt the thread to say this, but i see youre from NZ
me too  :Smile:

----------


## skasian

> Oh yes of course it is, but when it gets to the point where im arguing that oranges are apples, it gets a bit ridiculous.


May be oranges are apples. If you account that all fruits are the same or objects that grow on trees and produce seeds are the same or objects that start with a vowel are the same. :Smile:

----------


## skasian

> Also, this isnt the thread to say this, but i see youre from NZ
> me too


Eh? Your location is Aussie, or are you just born here in NZ?
There are actually more NZers here using this site than I thought. Great stuff kiwis :Biggrin:

----------


## Zee.

Born and raised in NZ, moved to aus

----------


## skasian

Are you pakeha? I never met a pakeha or any NZer that have a Buddhist background. Interesting.

----------


## Zee.

Indeed i am :] - i posted photos of me in the general chat forum, the photoalbum section.
But yes i am.
When i was much younger, both my mother and i used to go to teachings just outside of auckland. As ive gotten older, ive sort of..been a bit slack. Its part of my resolutions to pick it up.

----------


## skasian

Some one said that you were a "he" and I got confused since your avatar was a photo of a girl and at first I suspected it was you. Nice photos, I didnt know people uploaded pictures of themselves here. 

I think you should continue building and developing your spiritual state as a Buddhist no matter what, as I believe there is nothing better in the world then being a strong, pure spirit.

----------


## Zee.

I do the same, i instantly assume many people on this board are males, i have no idea why :\ i even thought you were, despite the fact your avatar was a girl too.

I guess its the way many people express themselves - can be quite strong, not meaning to sound sexist or anything.
Lord, i just dug a hole..


Thank you  :Smile:

----------


## skasian

It is really strange how people first assume a user talking to them is a male..Did you know that there is a significant statistics in this forum that there are more females than males? And that in every country females outperform males in literacy, reading comprehension, and I am not being sexist either :FRlol: 

Could I ask you how old you are? I also assumed that people aged more than 30 used this site but it looks like most are around 16~25, accounding to the polls.

----------


## The Atheist

> Do you think that was fake?


Yes, I do.

It's been shown time and time again that "miracles" in church are fake, while none have been shown to be true.

In the lack of reputable evidence to the contrary, I must presume fakery.




> And how could I have been lied to when I have experienced my self of see it with my own two eyes?


I believe you've been tricked or lied to, but I will also note that people are awful eyewitnesses. This is nothing against you personally, but it's again demonstrable that people seeing exactly the same event will report it vastly differently to each other.




> I have to ask you, do you think love from your friends and family may be fake just because you cant see it?


But it can be seen.

The parts of the brain which work to create what we call love are well known and it can be seen working in scans of the brain, so I'm quite comfortable with it being a human construct based upon existeing instinctual traits.




> And please dont suggest what I said was "fake". For me it was not fake as I experienced my shoulder joints moving and clicking in correct places as I felt intensive heat while praying. I dont mind if you dont believe in what I say but dont accuse me that I am fake, just move on if you suspect falseness.


I"m quite sure you're not faking personally, because I know what the human brain is capable of. I'm quite sure it's very real to you.




> Some Christians believe that we should not practise anointing like Benny Hinn which scares them, as it is out of the ordinary.


You missed the point - it's not what Benny Hinn does from a religious perspective, it's because he's a proven fraud.

His act is carried out with people with pretend illnesses and paid volunteers who pretend to go into a trance. 




> The branches you were talking about, I apologise I wasnt accounting every branch of Christianity, such as Catholic, Orthodox.. But the people that claim as Christian, not Catholic or Orthodox, do believe in Hell as in the bible there are many verses that God talked about Hell.


My point was that your church, which will be of relatively recent formation, believes in something which the vast majority of christianity do not. I find it odd that organisations which arose in the past few decades still use theology which was renounced by that vast majority many years ago.

It's quite obvious that some people *want* to believe in eternal punishment.




> I guess that could depend on one of two things:
> 
> -What makes something reputable?


In the case of medical journals, respectabuility is gained by the quality of its writing, the depth of its checking and the reliability of the organisation which runs it. In this way we have magazines like _Lancet_ and the _New England Medical Journal_ which are internationally accepted as being at the peak of medical science.




> Wouldn't a medical journal lose reputation if it claims to not know something?


Nope; exactly the opposite, in fact.

It is because some things were unknown that we now have cures for those diseases. If a doctor discovers a new ailment, the journal will draw attantion to the fact that we don't know, and other doctors will be able to watch for and study the ailment.

That is one of the prime tasks of medical journals - to let people know about the unknowns.




> Therefore it would be impossible for a reputable journal to claim miracles on a frequent basis, no matter if they were true or not. People who don't believe in miracles are common enough that a medical journal would not be reputable if it claimed a miracle.


Wrong again, sorry.

The thing is, medical miracles would be so easy to prove, because doctors keep very precise records.

If what we are told about church miracles was true, there would be a flood of cases every week going to their doctor and shouting "I'm cured!"

Where are they?

Isn't it just odd how those cured people will stand up and tell their church congregation they're cured, but they never tell their doctors?




> -What constitutes a miracle? Is a normal act with perfect timing ever considered a miracle?


No. With seven billion people on the planet - that's 7,000,000,000, some 15 times the population of USA, or 300 times Australia's - the occasional coincidence is bound to happen.




> When the odds are against survival, but then surgery goes well with none of the expected complications, is that considered a miracle?


No.

See the above numbers - if 1 in 1000 survives an operation and 10,000 operations take place annually, around 10 will survive.

Pure chance, nothing more.




> When someone needs a new liver and none are in stock, but one arrives the day before the person would die, is that considered a miracle? Sure, these things can be explained, but they are also pretty miraculous.


I'd have to ask the family of the dead donor if they thought it was a miracle designed to save someone else's life before I answered that.




> Are you pakeha? I never met a pakeha or any NZer that have a Buddhist background. Interesting.


You should attend a Buddhist temple at some stage - there are thousands of palagi Buddhists in NZ. 

Please don't take offence, but you are clearly lacking in perspective on other religions - your entire knowledge seems to be someone else's interpretation of one book.

----------


## skasian

> Yes, I do.
> 
> It's been shown time and time again that "miracles" in church are fake, while none have been shown to be true.
> 
> In the lack of reputable evidence to the contrary, I must presume fakery.
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you've been tricked or lied to, but I will also note that people are awful eyewitnesses. This is nothing against you personally, but it's again demonstrable that people seeing exactly the same event will report it vastly differently to each other.
> ...


I dont mind if you do think it is fake, but when you feel and see it for yourself, you can never describe it as fake. You may hear from me and think it is fake, but personally, as I encountered myself, as the miracles or supernatural happened to me, to my body, it is impossible for me to say it is fake. When something else controlling me and my speech, and having life of its own, I cant see it as fake. It is like saying to myself I am fake, which I know is impossible. Yes I have heard from many non believers that its part of psychology and that the brain can trick our emotions and body functions. But what I saw my own open wound being closed in matter of seconds is not psychology or trickery of the brain. Gold dusts forming from my palm was not psychology as it is impossible for our body substances to make gold. Some one said people around the world have been across similar miracles, where rubies start forming on palms and head, I seen some in youtube, and because I can relate, I cant see it as fake. Benny Hinn or people uploading videos on youtube, as they are spreading the Word of Jesus, I cant say anything about that, fake or not, let God take judgement on them. God blesses the truthful people that work hard for Him whereas punishes thoes who are fake and full of trickery. That is what I believe in. I dont want to accuse people of fakery, I just want God to deal with them individually.

About other sectors of Christianity that doesnt not believe in hell, I believe that believing whether hell exists or not is unimportant for Christians. This is because Christians believe that when we believe and love Jesus, we will be accepted to Heaven, therefore Hell should be no factor for us therefore whether it exists or doesnt, it doesnt matter. However methodist or psbyterian, I believe that a realm of Hell does exist that does punish people that doesnt love God. The point is, believing in hell or not, it does not affect our belief in God.

Actually, being active in this forum, I have been learning and gaining perspectives of other religions and finding it intriguing. My knowledge of Christianity is not overall built by the bible, as it is also built on daily experiences and spiritual encounters with God. Some life issues and problems have made me closer to God and it helped me to understand Him better.

----------


## Rozzy

Whether someone else believes in your miracle has no bearing on the reality if it is real or not, the facts would still be truth whether or not a single person believes them. Facts are funny things, they are what they are whether we agree with them or not.
I have both experienced miracles and seen them for others, so in my mind it is settled based on experience. 
Hell is actually an easy concept to understand, it is judgement and justice at a level much higher than the realm we are answerable to now. This life we now live is finite but it is regulated by the infinite so that whatever we choose to believe here now will not change the course set by the infinite. God is infinite, I am finite, so I realise He sets the rules and I abide by them. 
Simple beyond belief really :Cool:

----------


## skasian

> Whether someone else believes in your miracle has no bearing on the reality if it is real or not, the facts would still be truth whether or not a single person believes them. Facts are funny things, they are what they are whether we agree with them or not.
> I have both experienced miracles and seen them for others, so in my mind it is settled based on experience. 
> Hell is actually an easy concept to understand, it is judgement and justice at a level much higher than the realm we are answerable to now. This life we now live is finite but it is regulated by the infinite so that whatever we choose to believe here now will not change the course set by the infinite. God is infinite, I am finite, so I realise He sets the rules and I abide by them. 
> Simple beyond belief really


Hey I am so happy someone appreciates God's almighty power :Smile: 
And thank you for your views in hell, I completely concur with you.

----------


## The Atheist

> I dont mind if you do think it is fake, but when you feel and see it for yourself, you can never describe it as fake.


I've seen exactly what you've seen, up close and personal, several times.

Seen nothing to impress me so far. A stage-hypnotist show, nothing more.




> When something else controlling me and my speech, and having life of its own, I cant see it as fake.


As I have said many times, the human brain is a fascinating thing and it's easy to be tricked into thinking you're experiencing external stimuli when you are not. I'm sure it's all quite real, but not quite the same reality that you see.




> Gold dusts forming from my palm was not psychology as it is impossible for our body substances to make gold.


No irony in your god making gold dust as a miracle for you while he lets children die in agony....




> Whether someone else believes in your miracle has no bearing on the reality if it is real or not, the facts would still be truth whether or not a single person believes them. Facts are funny things, they are what they are whether we agree with them or not.


Quite right.

It's just quite funny that some people will claim things as factual when they are clearly not.

----------


## Rozzy

Doubled

----------


## Rozzy

> Quite right.
> 
> It's just quite funny that some people will claim things as factual when they are clearly not.


It is quite funny some will discredit the claims of others without any basis at all other than they do not believe it. Which you are free to do because it does not undo the healing that has already taken place. If I believe and am healed what do I care if someone else does not believe it, I am still healed and not injured by your unbelief.


Hey I am so happy someone appreciates God's almighty power
And thank you for your views in hell, I completely concur with you.

tzohorayeem toveem

God is good,
Rozzy

----------


## bazarov

> I don't mean to personally attack you for your beliefs, but the whole notion of accepting Jesus as being the only way to the afterlife doesn't make any sense to me. If I'm a child rapist and I accept Jesus in my final hours, I can go to heaven. But if I'm a generous, selfless and moral human being who doesn't accept Jesus I suffer for eternity because of it.


No. Everyone first goes to ''court'' - no matter is it Hitler, Stalin, Mother Theresa or Karol Wojtyla. Everyone will be judged by his acts and won't be dealed equally.




> Hitler regarded himself as a diehard Christian and there are still too many who think they are Christians. Once we do not divide ourselves between Christians and Jews, the same children we can come closer to truth.


Wrong. Hitler used religion to fool fools and he made it. Humans will generally stand stronger behind something what is blessed and he used it.





> Stalin then. He died of nice, natural causes and was another childhood theist. Mao, Pol Pot, any despot, is able to beg forgiveness before death and will be received in your heaven.


But in what part of heaven?




> It's like believing that someone who has murdered, raped, and done terrible things deserves a place in heaven if they "just believe" whereas a good person, someone who has yeah, made mistakes - probably made some huge ones, but all in all has been a decent HUMAN being will burn in hell if they don't accept Jesus.


Where did you read that? Good people won't go to hell. Why would lousy Christian be better then good Muslim or Jew? 




> That is not only so morally backwards but, simply stupid. And i highly doubt a God that could create such beauty and mystery in our world, could be so stupid and cruel.


He gave us free will; we made the rest. And we made it pretty bad, I guess.





> I dont understand how someone can proclaim that they respect and understand other peoples beliefs ...yet, tell them they're going to hell because they don't follow Jesus.


Who said that? If some Christian said it to you, he is wrong.




> and yet - we supposedly get punished for exercising that free will? that's something else that just DOES NOT MAKE SENSE. 
> Why doesn't it make sense? because in my opinion, the evidence is too overwhelming, to ever believe in such a place as Hell.
> 
> Why would a God punish me for using the tools he supposedly gave me?
> 
> Anyway i'm done with all of this, it's a waste of energy and time. I really don't want to hear about the millions of ways im going to Hell for not believing in a fairytale.


You're not punished for using it; you will be punished for using it in wrong purposes.





> hi im new to the forums, but i was just wondering if you were to kill yourself to save others do you not become a martyr. but from what i know if you kill yourself you automatically go to hell in the christian belief


No, that's not true.




> Which confirms the contradiction. One part of the bible specifically says some food is unclean, Jesus says it isn't. That's what a contradiction is - the same book saying two opposed things.


First part is quoted from OT, and second from NT. And Christians believe in NT because Jesus corrected OT in more then few occasions. Jews live by OT, not Christians.




> How do you know tumours were cured? Could you see the tumour then see it gone?
> 
> You may think you've seen those things happen, but it's factual that not one single instance of miraculous divine cure has been recorded in the entirety of medical history.


Doctors saw it, and then they just disappeared. I am not a doctor so I can't say how did it happen, but it did happen. Problem is probably that doctors aren't sure what happened, so what can they say? And why would necessary science have an answer for everything?




> This is quite funny - denying it because it's in the OT. Do you also deny the myths of creation, the great flood, Moses & Jonah and the thousand other lies in the OT?
> 
> If the OT is just a Jewish book, how come the prophecies of Jesus' coming are in it?


Nobody should deny it. Jesus didn't deny it, he just corrected some issues.




> Yes, I do.
> 
> It's been shown time and time again that "miracles" in church are fake, while none have been shown to be true.
> 
> In the lack of reputable evidence to the contrary, I must presume fakery.
> 
> Isn't it just odd how those cured people will stand up and tell their church congregation they're cured, but they never tell their doctors?


Evidence means we know what happened. How can we prove something or explain it if we don't know what happened?


--------------------------------------

Tolstoy said: To be able to say that something unreasonable is unreasonable, you have to be very familiar and know a lot about that unreasonable issue. 
Looks like a lot of doesn't know too much. Sorry.

----------


## Delta40

Hmmmm. so much to mull over here. Are God's values the same as His children's the ones with free will? The reason I ask is because we spend a lifetime trying to understand God based on a book.

----------


## NikolaiI

The thing to keep in mind, importantly, is what does being Christian mean? It means to accept Christ as one's spiritual master, more, as one's savior. Now nothing more than this needs to be said and it doesn't help to say it more. Then the only thing that matters is to live it in your life, that is, go to Christ as often as you are able. This is just my view of it. And what did Christ teach? The most important thing, he said, was to love God. The second most important thing is to love your neighbour. Now Jesus was a Jew, and so when he calls God "My Father" he is indeed talking about the God of the day, the Jewish God. Studying Judaism or Kabbalah would improve one's understanding of Christianity, I would believe. 

Now back to Jesus' commandment - to love God? What on Earth does this mean? Isn't that unaccessible? Well, for me, actually, God is more accessible than Christ. God who is not just on earth but everywhere in the universe, God who does not just contian the dreams of humanity, but contains dreams and loves to an infinite extent and beauty. THAT is the God I worship. Nowadays for many people the reaction against God is the same as if someone said they were God. Now THAT is something only a rascal will do. It's the cheating propensity at work. Just as the selling of mantras or secrets about God for money is also the cheating propensity. 

All of these things are actually being arranged and maintained by Maya. Maya is God's illusory potency. It keeps us unawares of God, God's name, form, qualities; heck, it even keeps us unaware of anything spiriutal at all - the soul, the spiritual realm, and all the knowledge and bliss which comes from the soul. We are not even sure if this world is a friendly or a hostile place. Well it is a quickly changing one; but truths such as Light, God, Truth are eternal and do not change from one time to another. It is said that Maya is not a bad thing, actually it is a good thing, keeping would-be devotees away from God unless they are pure.




> First off, I'd never give you a hard time; while we disagree on many things, your views are honest & heartfelt, and I have no trouble with people holding views which are different or opposite from mine.
> 
> I hope you get to play with some dolphins some day, because I'd guarantee that it would confirm for you that they are cognitively smart.
> 
> I just wish we could figure out how to communicate with them. And you're right about mammals - most of them are indeed social animals.
> 
> Just on the border of long enough
> 
> And no, your posts don't come over as self-centred in any way. Like most people with zen-like persuasions, I find your attitude commendable and I've said on many occasions that the world would be a much better place if everyone were Buddhist. I believe that's true, because I admire the non-violent, conciliatory inclusiveness of Buddhism.
> ...


I am glad to hear you say this. I am of the opinion that in this situation, since you and I are both operating respectfully and in a friendly manner, the best success which could be asked for is achieved. As another said if we all agreed it would be boring. My ideas are zen-like in certain aspects, but I also moved toward a sort of blending of Pure Land Buddhism, Vajrayana Buddhism as well as different aspects about it as a whole. But as you know my beliefs are not only about Buddha. I think that Buddha, or God, whatever you call it, is the nature of the universe, which is complete bliss, knowledge, and also that it is eternal. While Buddha is an acceptable name, actually I believe that Visnu is the supreme personality of Godhead. Visnu is laying in the causal ocean, etc., etc., and the entire cosmic manifestation is not created just once but it is created and destroyed unlimitedly. All of this occurs in the breathing of Visnu. I wouldn't say all of this to just anyone, but I will say it to you. 

As for Christ, remember that God said in the Bible, "Be still, and know that I am God." 

This indicates that God is _beyond_ stillness. God is beyond eternity. The only way we can know God is to come to know what eternity is. We must be still first. And also Christ is accepted as God. So Christ is beyond stillness, Christ is the peace beyond all peace. Just as in Buddhism, where the greatest enlightenment is considered to be gone, completely gone beyond all else.

I am speaking to you yes I am speaking to you of things such as the nature of Christ, and buddha-nature. The only reason you never accepted it before was because it did not make sense to you. But this is the nature of the divine, it is inconceivable. It can only make sense to you when your own existence completely makes sense to you. It only makes sense to you when you realize your nature, your true nature, is _entirely_ peaceful! In fact, it is peaceful, blissful, it is aware, and it is eternal. This is a truth of life, and the only reason we shy away from it is because it has been misused more than any. In fact, it is only a corrupting of this truth that anything is in existence at all except for that truth. So it is inconceivable; Buddhists fall back on the idea that their religion requires no faith. I have even had a great discussion about this with Geche Dorje, an assistant to the Dalai Lama. He said, "if there is anything inconceivable, that is when I give up my robes," saying he would quit the path of the monk. But then one doesnt need to look any further than The Great Flower Ornament Sutra: "In every atom of the universe, there are oceans of world systems." What is it? It is inconceivable.

I have seen people say that Buddhists don't have a necessary idea of creation, whether it is evolution or something else; or some even say that Buddhists basically believe in evolution. They don't care about what happened in the past, only about the now. Well the thing is, some people are very interested in what is the source of all else. Yes, it may be remoted, mysterious, but it is attractive non-theless. What is it, can we know anything about it, and what is our source to it?

In my view the source of all material and spiritually worlds is the all-attractive Lord Hari. As I've explained, being the source of all, all the forms are within the source- Hari. In this case, or in my limited understanding, all are created and destroyed within the breath of the Lord. As Kabir said, God is the breath behind breath. As we breathe in air, similarly, Lord Visnu, the Supreme Lord, breathes in and out the entire cosmic manifestation, thus cyclicly annihlating and recreating it.

[edit: I just rememberd actually, I have a book of Thomas Clearly's translations and one of the books is "Entry into the Inconceivable"! So if you ever find Geche Dorje, tell him about this book and he will most likely be very pleased.]

----------


## The Atheist

> But in what part of heaven?


Are there different bits?




> Doctors saw it, and then they just disappeared. I am not a doctor so I can't say how did it happen, but it did happen. Problem is probably that doctors aren't sure what happened, so what can they say? And why would necessary science have an answer for everything?


Many cases have been investigated and lots of frauds have been found. On the other hand, no miracles have been noted, so I just go with the evidence. I find it amusing that claims of miraculous cure are made weekly by many fundie churches, but no evidence is ever forthcoming.

I have this weird idea that if any of it were actually real, we'd hear about it ver quickly, so I ignore them all until some better standards of evidence are brought through.




> Evidence means we know what happened. How can we prove something or explain it if we don't know what happened?


See above - no explanation is needed, just amedical doctor who will say, "Yesterdaym this person had a squamous cell carcinoma of the larynx. Today he does not.

Pretty simple stuff, if these cures are actually happening.

----------


## NikolaiI

> I have this weird idea that if any of it were actually real, we'd hear about it ver quickly, so I ignore them all until some better standards of evidence are brought through.
> 
> See above - no explanation is needed, just amedical doctor who will say, "Yesterdaym this person had a squamous cell carcinoma of the larynx. Today he does not.
> 
> Pretty simple stuff, if these cures are actually happening.


Well, just consider whether you really would hear about it. For instance there used to be electric cars, but there's a video about how the government stopped it... of course I don't wish to add conspiracy paranoia to the mix, but the example is possibly valid..

But actually I saw a video of four Taoist masters chanting around someone with a tumor, which was on monitor, and you could see the tumor visibly decrease in size until it actually vanished. Of course this could have been invented and I never got to investigating it more but it struck me as possible.

(And I apologize for without a doubt taking the thread at least some way away from topic...)

----------


## The Atheist

> Well, just consider whether you really would hear about it. For instance there used to be electric cars, but there's a video about how the government stopped it... of course I don't wish to add conspiracy paranoia to the mix, but the example is possibly valid..


And almost certainly not, since we know that electric cars are still not able to be built with our present technology.

As to whether we'd hear about genuine miracle cures, I'm confident we would, because claims are occasionally made. The bad news is, they've all been found to be mistaken or false.

I've been involved with several investigations - as an observer; I'm nobody's doctor - and it's fascinating to watch the zealots be shown where they've gone wrong. One case involved a girl whose fillings had miraculously disappeared! Amazingly enough, when the dental records of her fillings were found, it turns out that all her fillings were in her milk teeth, which had all been replaces by shiny adult ones! Problem solved, no miracle.

Like I said, I'm open to evidence being provided of miraculous cures, but anything which starts with "I saw..." isn't going to make the grade.

----------


## skasian

> I've seen exactly what you've seen, up close and personal, several times.
> 
> Seen nothing to impress me so far. A stage-hypnotist show, nothing more.
> 
> 
> 
> As I have said many times, the human brain is a fascinating thing and it's easy to be tricked into thinking you're experiencing external stimuli when you are not. I'm sure it's all quite real, but not quite the same reality that you see.
> 
> 
> ...


I must say there is no point of me explaining my beliefs and experiences to alter your perspectives about miracles or religion. Atheists like yourself needs personal experience in order to believe even though clear things of the impossible may be happening in front of their eyes. I think that atheists like yourself are skilled at finding an excuse or a supporting statement that helps them understand what they dont want to believe or not believe is false. But who wants to understand and take in things in heart the things that they dont want to believe in. No matter what people say that is obvious and true to them, the skeptic will always wiggle their way out of making sense that the obvious is unreal, untrue, or fake. Overall I think this is the ultimate difference between the religious and atheists.

----------


## bazarov

> Are there different bits?


You've mentioned Dante before; so you surely know there are three parts of Heaven.





> Many cases have been investigated and lots of frauds have been found. On the other hand, no miracles have been noted, so I just go with the evidence. I find it amusing that claims of miraculous cure are made weekly by many fundie churches, but no evidence is ever forthcoming.


So if science can't explain it it just didn't happen or it is fraud? No other possibilities?





> See above - no explanation is needed, just amedical doctor who will say, "Yesterdaym this person had a squamous cell carcinoma of the larynx. Today he does not.


We know each other for long time  :Biggrin:  I also think that sometimes nature does it, maybe some men is just stronger then cancer or something (it's not all on God, I guess); but there were some really unexplainable cures which happened in the moment when some priest or group of people prayed for them, like NikolaiI mentioned; and there are numerous cases like that. How to explain them? You can't blame people for blaming God; who else could they blame? 




> And almost certainly not, since we know that electric cars are still not able to be built with our present technology.


What?!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_car

----------


## skasian

> Hmmmm. so much to mull over here. Are God's values the same as His children's the ones with free will? The reason I ask is because we spend a lifetime trying to understand God based on a book.


I think you have the wrong idea. God is not based on a book, as God is not based on His Words. God is God and His Words are there for our spiritual food. We try to follow and be like Jesus which is what we spend a lifetime achieving. His Words therefore the Bible are like guidelines that will help us to achieve our goals, not the other way around.

----------


## Delta40

You may be right. Let me put this another way. Are God's values the same as His children's, the ones with free will? The reason I ask is because we spend a lifetime trying to understand God.

----------


## skasian

> The thing to keep in mind, importantly, is what does being Christian mean? It means to accept Christ as one's spiritual master, more, as one's savior. Now nothing more than this needs to be said and it doesn't help to say it more. Then the only thing that matters is to live it in your life, that is, go to Christ as often as you are able. This is just my view of it. And what did Christ teach? The most important thing, he said, was to love God. The second most important thing is to love your neighbour. Now Jesus was a Jew, and so when he calls God "My Father" he is indeed talking about the God of the day, the Jewish God. Studying Judaism or Kabbalah would improve one's understanding of Christianity, I would believe. 
> 
> Now back to Jesus' commandment - to love God? What on Earth does this mean? Isn't that unaccessible? Well, for me, actually, God is more accessible than Christ. God who is not just on earth but everywhere in the universe, God who does not just contian the dreams of humanity, but contains dreams and loves to an infinite extent and beauty. THAT is the God I worship. Nowadays for many people the reaction against God is the same as if someone said they were God. Now THAT is something only a rascal will do. It's the cheating propensity at work. Just as the selling of mantras or secrets about God for money is also the cheating propensity. 
> 
> All of these things are actually being arranged and maintained by Maya. Maya is God's illusory potency. It keeps us unawares of God, God's name, form, qualities; heck, it even keeps us unaware of anything spiriutal at all - the soul, the spiritual realm, and all the knowledge and bliss which comes from the soul. We are not even sure if this world is a friendly or a hostile place. Well it is a quickly changing one; but truths such as Light, God, Truth are eternal and do not change from one time to another. It is said that Maya is not a bad thing, actually it is a good thing, keeping would-be devotees away from God unless they are pure.
> 
> 
> 
> I am glad to hear you say this. I am of the opinion that in this situation, since you and I are both operating respectfully and in a friendly manner, the best success which could be asked for is achieved. As another said if we all agreed it would be boring. My ideas are zen-like in certain aspects, but I also moved toward a sort of blending of Pure Land Buddhism, Vajrayana Buddhism as well as different aspects about it as a whole. But as you know my beliefs are not only about Buddha. I think that Buddha, or God, whatever you call it, is the nature of the universe, which is complete bliss, knowledge, and also that it is eternal. While Buddha is an acceptable name, actually I believe that Visnu is the supreme personality of Godhead. Visnu is laying in the causal ocean, etc., etc., and the entire cosmic manifestation is not created just once but it is created and destroyed unlimitedly. All of this occurs in the breathing of Visnu. I wouldn't say all of this to just anyone, but I will say it to you. 
> ...



Wow, it is intriguing how you have combined all religion aspects to one, and simplified this and outlining that it is your belief. 
As you said that source of all material, spiritually worlds are the all-attractive Lord Hari, would this mean Lord Hari is a different being from Lord Visnu? Or is Lord Hari included in the Supreme Lord, therefore one?

----------


## skasian

> You may be right. Let me put this another way. Are God's values the same as His children's, the ones with free will? The reason I ask is because we spend a lifetime trying to understand God.


First, I want to point out that I am not sure if every mankind is considered as His Children, but I however think we all are as we were created by Him.
Now God's values are perfect, all truthful and flawless. However as mankind is the opposite, and all mankind are unique therefore I think the sets of values are vastly diverse. So I think that mankind has different values from God as all of our values are able to be contaminated by evil. However a devoted follower of God I believe will have same values of Him because this devoted follower has the knowledge of Gods value and they will do everything in their power to maintain the same values that God has. 
I think every one has freewill because every decisions are made by us. The word destiny can contradict this, but I think that destiny exists because God already knows what we are going to choose in life.
It is true that we spend a lifetime trying to understand God, I believe this is because we have a innate sense of belonging, a yearning to be loved by a higher power, the creator of our beings. Its like the innate response of an adopted child, when she or he feels the urge to find their true, biological parents. I think, deep in our spirits, we are all born with that innate response or feeling that there is a Heavenly Father that looks over us and love us. Of course it would depend on the person on how these innate response effects their belief in religion, but I do believe that is the reason why people search for God even if it means spending a lifetime to find and understand Him.

----------


## bazarov

> First, I want to point out that I am not sure if every mankind is considered as His Children, but I however think we all are as we were created by Him.


If we are all created by Him, then probably we all are His Children. Right?  :Smile: 
That's not matter of my opinion; merely rational conclusion.

----------


## The Atheist

> Atheists like yourself needs personal experience in order to believe even though clear things of the impossible may be happening in front of their eyes.


Yes, well as I frequently tell people, I walk around with both eyes open all the time.

The downside to that is that I have to look for evidence and proof and never just accept what those eyes tell me.

When something impossible happens, I'm quite sure I'll hear about it.





> You've mentioned Dante before; so you surely know there are three parts of Heaven.


Yeah, but it depends whose theology you use.




> So if science can't explain it it just didn't happen or it is fraud? No other possibilities?


Of course - the other possibility is a genuine miracle.

The things which are usually held up [by fundies] as miraculous things inside their church are:

Speaking in tongues
Laying of hands
Curing the sick.

All of these things have been studied by thousands of scientists over many years.

Speaking in tongues is a bad joke. Ask a linguist. 

Laying of hands. Now, this one's quite a lot of fun, because the people are "possessed" and the demonds flee at the laying of hands. Impossibly subjective and easy to act. We know religious delusion exists - and I do mean the psychiatric illness rather than believing in god/s - and it's not too long a stretch to think that a delusional believer might actually benefit from thinking his/her demons had been excised.

Curing the sick. Where's the evidence? If the people are sick, you'd expect they've been to the doctor, right? Where are the doctors? Even in NZ, dozens of people are allegedly cured of ailments at churches every single week.

Where the hell are they?

Along with that, the identical methods and results are obtained by Benny Hinn and stage hypnotists. But the fundie church ones are real...

Yeah, right.

No evidence, clear evidence of fraud. Not much decision required. 

At least the RCC are a bit more robust, with a recognised dozen or so miracles from Lourdes out of hundreds of thousands of claims. I don't trust their methodology, because it doesn't account for spontaneous remission or blinding of results, but I will at least have some respect for an organisation which uses some form of transparency in its claims of miraculous cure.

I'd like the fundies to consider the RC processes for a start. They have to include doctors' reports, it takes years for verification and recognition as a miracle has to be approved by several different people/groups before approval and admission. Fundie churches, on the other hand, do miracles every Sunday morning & afternoon and occasionally on Wednesdays.




> We know each other for long time  I also think that sometimes nature does it, maybe some men is just stronger then cancer or something (it's not all on God, I guess); but there were some really unexplainable cures which happened in the moment when some priest or group of people prayed for them, like NikolaiI mentioned; and there are numerous cases like that. How to explain them? You can't blame people for blaming God; who else could they blame?


Hell, it's human nature to look for reasons for things, which is why religion is so damned ingrained into people.

Without details, I wouldn't try to say exactly what did happen, but the closest analogy I have is that often in tragedies - earthquakes, fires, etc - survivors attribute their survival to their god. Do the families of the dead victims blame god for it? The hell they do - they sit and say "Oh, god moves in mysterious ways." God must have a great PR guy, because he gets it both ways! 

As I said earlier, I've personally attended sessions where miracle cures were alleged, but it looked like cheap chicanery to me. People should go to more magic shows - much more realistic than some hacks on an altar.

In the end, this thread's a good example of claims of miracle cures by god/s - loads of claims of miraculous cures, but not one single shred of evidence. 




> What?!
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_car


 :FRlol:  :FRlol:  :FRlol: 

Sorry, I know they exist - there have been electric vehicles & milk carts for decades.

What I meant was an electric car of any use to anyone.

They have very limited range, take forever to charge, and are very expensive. 

The technology needs a jump. The proponents were hoping that lithium batteries was it, but it's still not enough and as all there is left are refinements to technology which isn't good enough, I think we're going to need someone to invent a new battery or charging process for it to ever happen.

----------


## dzebra

> If the people are sick, you'd expect they've been to the doctor, right? Where are the doctors? Even in NZ, dozens of people are allegedly cured of ailments at churches every single week.
> 
> Where the hell are they?


If they were planning on going to the church to be cured, they would not need to go to the doctor. The doctor wouldn't know.



There are several different definitions of miracles, and I think you are using a definition like _"an event that can't be explained scientifically or logically."_

I have a different definition of miracle, but I can't put it into words just yet.

I do agree with you that in the present time, I have not seen any miracles by your definition, where we disagree is you seem to be saying they never happen, and I only say that I have never seen any.

----------


## The Atheist

> If they were planning on going to the church to be cured, they would not need to go to the doctor. The doctor wouldn't know.


If that's the case, that would be disturbing for two reasons:

One - if they're not sick enough to go to the doctor, how do we know they're sick to begin with? It also doesn't gel with people who are dying. One would presume that if someone is dying, they have probably been seen by a doctor first.

Second thing is that I would be extremely concerned if people were going to church instead of the doctor. We live in a quite sophisticated country with top-class doctors and this would be a return to witch-doctoring and as I already noted, people have been convicted for failing to provide medical care by trying prayer instead of medicine.




> There are several different definitions of miracles, and I think you are using a definition like _"an event that can't be explained scientifically or logically."_


Well, that's the only description which matters. Certainly, there are medical miracles and miraculous escapes, but if we're talking about divine miracles, then they must be outside of science by their very nature.




> I have a different definition of miracle, but I can't put it into words just yet.


Let me know how you get on!




> I do agree with you that in the present time, I have not seen any miracles by your definition, where we disagree is you seem to be saying they never happen, and I only say that I have never seen any.


Yep, I'm quite happy to say that they've never happened. Given that the best evidence we have of divine miracles is some flawed research and conclusions from the RCC, I will keep that opinion until some evidence is provided.

I won't say it's impossible - as with the existence of god/s - but I will go with vanishingly unlikely. A googolplex to one against is how I normally express it.

----------


## Pendragon

Anyone who has any sense goes to the doctor. This doesn't negiate that miracles can and do happen. I have seen this personally, but the proof would be harder to produce. Proof is a difficult thing to find in miracles. 

In the case I'm thinking of, I saw a broken hand, verified by the doctor as broken that day healed. The man did go back for his check-up next day, after removing his arm restraints in my presence (his idea, not mine, I can believe in something, but I'm never foolish enough to suggest such radical matters). The doctor said the hand was healed, the doctor being unsure just how. But then some would say maybe the x-ray was misread or something of that sort, that perhaps the hand wasn't that badly injured. So proof becomes a matter or what I myself believe and the man who was healed. 

I pray for people, but I don't advise them not to see a doctor. The act of healing, whether natural, medical, or by prayer could all be considered a miracle.

----------


## bazarov

> Yeah, but it depends whose theology you use.


RCC(Roman Catholic Church, I guess)?





> Fundie churches, on the other hand, do miracles every Sunday morning & afternoon and occasionally on Wednesdays.


Mulder and Scully once investigated similar case  :FRlol:  :FRlol:  It was fraud, lucky you..






> Without details, I wouldn't try to say exactly what did happen, but the closest analogy I have is that often in tragedies - earthquakes, fires, etc - survivors attribute their survival to their god. Do the families of the dead victims blame god for it? The hell they do - they sit and say "Oh, god moves in mysterious ways." God must have a great PR guy, because he gets it both ways! 
> 
> In the end, this thread's a good example of claims of miracle cures by god/s - loads of claims of miraculous cures, but not one single shred of evidence.


Agree, first part still bugs me; it just ain't right. Second; miracles have no proofs, otherwise they wouldn't be considered as miracle, more like an unusual happening (aurora borealis, eclipse etc for example).




> If that's the case, that would be disturbing for two reasons:
> 
> One - if they're not sick enough to go to the doctor, how do we know they're sick to begin with? It also doesn't gel with people who are dying. One would presume that if someone is dying, they have probably been seen by a doctor first.
> 
> Second thing is that I would be extremely concerned if people were going to church instead of the doctor. We live in a quite sophisticated country with top-class doctors and this would be a return to witch-doctoring and as I already noted, people have been convicted for failing to provide medical care by trying prayer instead of medicine.


You misunderstood dzebra. Those people, sick or dying; had visit doctors but doctors couldn't help them. So they tried with church. And after that, some were cured. So, first doctors and science, and after that church and God. Where else could they go?




> Anyone who has any sense goes to the doctor. This doesn't negiate that miracles can and do happen. I have seen this personally, but the proof would be harder to produce. Proof is a difficult thing to find in miracles. 
> 
> In the case I'm thinking of, I saw a broken hand, verified by the doctor as broken that day healed. The man did go back for his check-up next day, after removing his arm restraints in my presence (his idea, not mine, I can believe in something, but I'm never foolish enough to suggest such radical matters). The doctor said the hand was healed, the doctor being unsure just how. But then some would say maybe the x-ray was misread or something of that sort, that perhaps the hand wasn't that badly injured. So proof becomes a matter or what I myself believe and the man who was healed. 
> 
> I pray for people, but I don't advise them not to see a doctor. The act of healing, whether natural, medical, or by prayer could all be considered a miracle.


Excellent Pen!

----------


## Rush_of_Blood

> If we are all created by Him, then probably we all are His Children. Right? 
> That's not matter of my opinion; merely rational conclusion.


Not necessarily.....

John 8:31-47



So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed in him, "If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." They answered him, "We are offspring of Abraham and have never been enslaved to anyone. How is it that you say, 'You will become free'?"

Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. I know that you are offspring of Abraham; yet you seek to kill me because my word finds no place in you. I speak of what I have seen with my Father, and you do what you have heard from your father."

They answered him, "Abraham is our father." Jesus said to them, "If you were Abrahams children, you would be doing the works Abraham did, but now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. This is not what Abraham did. You are doing the works your father did." They said to him,"We were not born of sexual immorality. We have one Fathereven God." Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I came not of my own accord, but he sent me. Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your fathers desires. He was a er from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies. But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me. Which one of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me? Whoever is of God hears the words of God.The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God."

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Being presented with option A and option B, and telling me that if i dont choose option A, i go to Hell, is not freedom.


"Freedom" does not mean three or more choices, and it doesn't mean you have to like either choice; it simply means you have a _choice_.




> Freedom is absolute.


Says who? Have you read Plato? Are you familiar with how our legal system works? Nobody has absolute, total freedom. All of us have limited freedom in order to live peaceably among each other. 




> And freedom should not be built on the basis of fear.


I have bad news for you: human beings are generally consequence-driven creatures. We are capable of altruism, but we also tend to do as we wish if there are no real consequences for our actions. As such, all of us - including you - make decisions based upon potential consequences. Many people don't smoke because they fear cancer. Many people avoid crime because they're afraid of jail. Don't expect me to believe that you think the world could operate in some way where criminals will not commit crime because of altruism. Your life is not devoid of decisions based upon consequences.





> If God truly loved his creations, he would appreciate the beauty of the ability they have to choose their own paths. With, or without him.


Translation: "God should let me live in whatever way I please without consequence." If that cannot happen here on earth, why should God make it so in the afterlife? God cannot change reality from what it is: hell is not created as a place of hellfire and agony - it is a place that honors your choice to not live in God's presence - annihilating sinners does the opposite. So, ironically, God - in creating hell - honors your freedom to reject Him. But if you reject Him - and the universe is filled with Him (because He created it) then where can He put you to honor your wish to live without Him except by "quarantining" you in hell? God can't change the fact that without Him is only darkness, emptiness, bitterness, regret.




> You know, i know in my heart, that i am a good person. I have done many great things in my lifetime, and i have helped many people. I have made my mistakes, and i take responsibility for them.So why must i go to hell? because i dont believe or accept? so be it.


But according to the Bible, our "good deeds" are like "filthy rags" when placed next to the utter perfection of holiness that is God. We cannot "earn" our way into God's graces by being "good." We attain salvation by accepting the gift of eternal life that Christ purchased through his death for all of us. Hell is not a destination for those who did bad things as much as it is the _chosen_ location for those who do not wish to submit their lives to God's will. 




> If God indeed does send his creatins to hell, simply because they dont accept or believe - he is not worthy of either his title, or his place in the hearts of people. And in my opinion, is no better than a murderer.


I assume your sentence up above intended the word "creatures"?

It is not merely "not accepting" or "not believing" - it is the sustained and persistent refusal to acknowledge the Holy Spirit's conviction on our hearts that God is our creator. He created us - therefore He has a right to call his creations to Him; refusing to honor that call is like a child who refuses to acknowledge the authority of his/her parents. Again: God doesn't "send" people to hell - THEY CHOOSE IT BECAUSE THEY DO NOT WISH TO SERVE GOD; they wish - as you have expressed here - to live according to their will instead of God's. That choice gives God no choice but to honor that wish by quarantining the sinners into the only place in the universe that they can escape from the Being they wished to avoid. You can't see the logic in that?




> You think that accepting God simply frees you from your mistakes?


No, it doesn't. Accepting God does, however, offer me forgiveness and to start anew, because all offenses are - ultimately -against God.




> I am a good person.


Why do you insist on repeating this? How does it matter? Hell isn't about being "good" or "bad" - it's about whom you choose to serve in this life; that choice is either God, or yourself. Period.




> Perhaps someone who has done more good than many christians. But what's the difference? i dont need to accept God, to know i am a good person.


According to the Bible and Jesus both, nobody but God is good. And I would never brag that I thought I was a better person than "many nonbelievers" or "many Moslems," or "many anybody." Why do you do that?

And "goodness" in you is there because of God's presence in your heart.




> And if indeed such a heaven and hell do exist, i will not simply turn around and "accept" god, to save myself from eternal damnation - that would be false, a cop out, a lie.


To an extent, you're right; as such, the fear of hell converts nobody in any permanent way - just as the warnings on cigarette packs don't deter all people from choosing to smoke. But for some people, that warning is the catalyst that points them in a new direction. The fear of hell can't sustain you, but it may make you think a bit harder.




> Perhaps that makes me more of a person, and i believe it does. If you want forgiveness for your sins, your HUMAN mistakes, because that indeed, is what you are. It is not God you should turn to, but the person, the people, yourself who you have wronged.


Those we have wronged deserve our apologies and restitution - but all offenses, all sins, all crimes are ultimately against God. We do need His forgiveness because His forgiveness is the only one that actually "rights" or "restores" wrongs. Our human forgiveness cannot do that.





> It is their forgiveness you should put energy into obtaining, because you dont get off that easily. You cant bring pain and suffering and expect to be forgiven because you "accept" jesus christ.


God's forgiveness does not relieve us of the consequences of our actions. He may forgive us for killing that person while driving drunk, but He still lets us go to jail.




> Why should i, a person who has committed good - made yes, mistakes, but takes responsibility for them, be damned to hell?


There you go again with that "good" comment - 




> over say, a person who has done so much wrong, but simply accepts and believes? If indeed, god gave me freewill, i have exercised it, and i have exercised it well, i do not see why he would punish me for it.


Once again: heaven and hell are not about behavior. They're about who you choose to serve.




> You can not give a creature the ability to choose, and find their own path, and then punish them. People who exercise their free will to find their own beliefs, to live a good life, with or without jesus and god,..and whatever else may exist, should be celebrated not frowned upon.


But if God created the universe and is the author of reality and He tells us the consequences, why are you so bugged about them? Your argument is based upon the idea that God could just let you reject Him and continue to have a good life; but without God there is NO good life because all goodness, all beauty, all love, all that is worthy - COMES FROM HIM. He can't give you things if you reject Him when the things you want come from Him.




> If god is willing to send innocent people to hell because they dont believe in his existance, than he is not worthy of neither his title, or his place in the hearts of others.


Nobody is completely innocent - even "good" people like you. It is not believing in God that's the problem - it is the persistent and sustained refusal to believe despite the evidence that God gives you.




> Nothing is deserved, it is earned. And if a divine place, or a state of perfect existance is out there, beyond this life, than i deserve to be there.


If God worked off that principal, we'd all be condemned to hell. Luckily, since God is love, He sacrifices Himself - in the person of Christ - to pay the penalty of sin we all owe, so that we are forgiven and can inherit eternal life simply by accepting that God is our rightful master. You want justice, but not applied to YOU.

What makes you deserving of anything? As a sinner (like me), you deserve death (like me). Christ's sacrifice allows you and me both to live eternally in the presence of God if we so choose.




> How dare anyone tell a person who has earned their keep, their place - that they are not worthy of a state of peace, or a place of peace, because they dont believe or accept Jesus, God..or bigfoot.


That's the problem. The Bible makes it clear that our own efforts at goodness are insufficient to "earn" our way into heaven. Nobody gets there because she/he "deserves" to be there - they are there because God has extended a magnificent, and free, gift. But you don't have to take it if you don't want to.

The "bigfoot" comment was disrespectful and unnecessary.

----------


## billyjack

> The "bigfoot" comment was disrespectful and unnecessary.


it was neither. her comparison is quite right. many happen to worship big foot. and they got news for you...if you don't choose him, you can be sure you'll spend eternal damnation as one of the provokers who's messin with Sasquatch in the jack links commercials. rather than a book to prove their beliefs, they have film evidence: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tXEE...eature=related

----------


## CeeJay

> In fact it is not just Jesus, there are others too the Buddha, Krishna, Mohamed and the like.
> 
> This idea that one's God is the only one that can be a savior and the rest are not leads to or led to all acts of Violence. We must have a wider perspective to love others' gods, beliefs. This idea is close to fanatics, fundamentalists.
> 
> I love Krishna, the Buddha, Jesus on an equal footing. I do not weigh up their significance as saviors incarcerated by narrow sentiments, geographical, racial or cultures. I can enter Guru Dwara, the Buddhist monastery, the Church and Masjid with the same feelings and warmth. Do you still consider me as an atheist by your standards or definitions.


hey, Blaze. Good to hear your opinions. You are not an atheist. Even the dictionary can tell you that. You are a Theist, though I do not know whether you are a monotheist or Polytheist. The difference is belief. You love Krishna, Buddha and Jesus all the same, right. And you refuse to believe that there is a difference. Well, it sounds like nothing we tell you here may persuade you, except you have concrete proof. Go ahead and try the three religions, maybe one for each week or one for each month, and tell the difference yourself. Then you will know which one is true. I am confident that if you will try this little experiment, you will be amazed wt what you will discover.

But also realize that Hebrews 11 says: "faith is the ...evidence of things not seen" and "without faith it is impossible to please [God], for he who comes to God must first believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of those that diligently seek him". This is because God is not seen [at least not with human eyes], and you need faith to believe in God. You do not need to believe in something you already see; in that case, there is no need to believe. So when people tell you about God and Jesus, it takes faith to understand it.

Love,
C.J.

----------


## CeeJay

*Skasian:* We are all God's creation, but not all God's Children. Check out Romans 8.

*The Atheist:* When a blind man who has been certified totally blind by the doctor, is prayed for and starts seeing there and then, what do you call that? Oh, and By the way, Jesus who healed people said that those who believed in him WILL Do greater works than HE did...Check out John 14.

*The Atheist:* Speaking in tongues will be a joke to a linguist or to you simply because you do not understand it. Its easy for people to simply say, everything in Christianity is false...and worse still, they go to great lengths to prove it (thinking that they are being enlightened), but its funny how scientists try to prove that the Creation is a myth. A famous musician said :"The earth is a masterpiece; Somebody had to paint this"...Unless you believe that you evolved from monkeys and chimps, which I absolutely do not believe. First, I am more intelligent than any Chimp.Second, say I evolved. Of all the 6000 or so years that man has spent on earth, is he not supposed to evolve to something else? It has pretty much been the same since. 

Getting back to the subject, speaking in tongues is a direct communication to God. Your mind does not understand it because it is a pray that comes directly from your spirit, and neither will any one else understand it. You can only give the interpretation of it, and that gift is given by the Holy Spirit. Simple. Linguist explain the language of the earth. Have you read in the Book of revelation about people or Jesus having a name that no one understood? Even John did not understand it. There you go. That's part of it.

Curing the sick? Who said anything about curing? Curing is basically using drugs to make someone better. Healing is the more appropriate term. Haven't you read in Mark 16:15-18. where Jesus said "And these signs shall follow them that believe: ...they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover?" I have been a witness to the truth in those words. You either believe it or not. But that does not change the truth: people do get healed, and miracles happen.

*Red Zeppelin:* Excellent Job on the dissection of the word! I enjoyed reading your thesis and reply to _Limajean_. permit me to add something. Accepting God is more than just about going to hell or Heaven for me, but Its about getting to know the God who made me and to enjoy his love for me, while I show my love for him in the ways I know possible. Its more than just about heaven or hell, because heaven is a given for any Child of God. Let your motivation be to get to Know God. If it is your motivation,m Heaven is the least of the bliss you'll get to enjoy.

----------


## The Atheist

> *The Atheist:* When a blind man who has been certified totally blind by the doctor, is prayed for and starts seeing there and then, what do you call that?


If it happened, I'd gladly call it a miracle, but as they say in Missouri, Show me.

 :Wink: 

Stories are easy to tell.




> Oh, and By the way, Jesus who healed people said that those who believed in him WILL Do greater works than HE did...Check out John 14.


Another story.




> *The Atheist:* Speaking in tongues will be a joke to a linguist or to you simply because you do not understand it.


No, and that's the whole point, linguists do indeed understand it. This is the best part - the people doing the tongue don't realise how easily they are sprung. Linguists have studied many examples of tongue-speak and wouldn't ya know it, every time, the results show repeated gibberish in a recognisable pattern.

Too easy.

(Of course, the ones studied by linguists probably weren't "real" tongue. Probably tongue-in-cheek, or tonsil.)




> [Its easy for people to simply say, everything in Christianity is false...


No, not at all, and I don't even try when it comes to things like people who have daily conversations with a god. I have no desire to pry into people's heads. But when claims of physicalism by their god come through, I like to explore the evidence.

Lots of stories.




> [and worse still, they go to great lengths to prove it (thinking that they are being enlightened), but its funny how scientists try to prove that the Creation is a myth.


Now, this is palpably false.

Please name one scientist who tries to prove that creation is a myth.

There have certainly been scientists argue against creationism when some silly attempts have been made to teach it in schools, but no serious scientist is even remotely interested in "proving" that a demonstrable myth is a myth. 

Dawkins doesn't bother even debating creationists for the obvious reason that it's not worth debating. The myth is that science has any interest in creation at all.

It just doesn't.




> [A famous musician said :"The earth is a masterpiece; Somebody had to paint this"...Unless you believe that you evolved from monkeys and chimps, which I absolutely do not believe.


Damn right, and nor should you. Anyone who claims that humans evolved from monkeys and chimps is just out of touch with reality.




> [First, I am more intelligent than any Chimp.Second, say I evolved. Of all the 6000 or so years that man has spent on earth, is he not supposed to evolve to something else? It has pretty much been the same since.


 :FRlol:  :FRlol:  :FRlol:  :FRlol:  :FRlol:  :FRlol: 

Evolution takes hundreds of thousands or millions of years - 6000 years is insufficient time frame for a mammal species to show evolutionary signs.

I won't bother mentioning glaciers, fossils, antarctica, trees, coal or any of the other millions of reasons why the idea that the earth is 6013 years old is just beyond laughable.

There are plants older than that, for goodness sake!




> Getting back to the subject, speaking in tongues is a direct communication to God.


God, it must be boring to be god. Tongue is a repetition of half a dozen pieces of gibberish. Lots more boring than the Hare Krishna chant, for starters.




> Your mind does not understand it because it is a pray that comes directly from your spirit, and neither will any one else understand it. You can only give the interpretation of it, and that gift is given by the Holy Spirit. Simple. Linguist explain the language of the earth. Have you read in the Book of revelation about people or Jesus having a name that no one understood? Even John did not understand it. There you go. That's part of it.


Ah, yes. the "It's in the bible, so it must be true" argument.




> Curing the sick? Who said anything about curing? Curing is basically using drugs to make someone better. Healing is the more appropriate term. Haven't you read in Mark 16:15-18. where Jesus said "And these signs shall follow them that believe: ...they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover?" I have been a witness to the truth in those words. You either believe it or not. But that does not change the truth: people do get healed, and miracles happen.


It's just such a damn shame that not one single person who has been healed/cured - call it what you wish - goes to their doctor afterwards for confirmation.

----------


## skasian

> Yes, well as I frequently tell people, I walk around with both eyes open all the time.
> 
> The downside to that is that I have to look for evidence and proof and never just accept what those eyes tell me.
> 
> When something impossible happens, I'm quite sure I'll hear about it.


So you are telling me that you need proof of everything? The reason why God sends us miracles are because He wants people to have stronger faith in Him, simply, as a proof that He is with us all the time. I heavily doubt that your eyes will tell you that God exists even though miracles, impossible visual proofs occur before them. So are you telling me that you need more proofs? To what extent exactly do you need further proof to tell yourself it is time to believe in God? I fear to know your answer. Let me ask you, wouldnt this be your reaction, to tell yourself you are having metal malfunctioning if one day you have a vision of Jesus crying in front of you, asking why you reject Him. 
The reality is, even with the impossible happening, atheists like you wont ever accept God. I bet that even with new evidences to proofs, it just wont ever be sufficient.

----------


## skasian

Rush of Blood and CJ thanks for providing extracts to confirm that some people are not God's Children.

----------


## skasian

I see some are discussing about speaking tongues, and it is just an incredible experience, when someone is speaking in tongues, they cannot understand what they are saying however a person originating from the nationality the other person is speaking can understand everything perfectly. There is another gift from God: when someone is speaking in tongues, this person can interpret everything regardless what language the person is speaking.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> it was neither. her comparison is quite right. many happen to worship big foot. and they got news for you...if you don't choose him, you can be sure you'll spend eternal damnation as one of the provokers who's messin with Sasquatch in the jack links commercials. rather than a book to prove their beliefs, they have film evidence: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tXEE...eature=related


Hi billy - I get to call it as I see it; she expressed her opinion, and I evaluated her opinion. I get to do that. Her comparison only has validity if an equality between God and bigfoot can be established. Bigfoot has not given us a revelation establishing himself as the creator of the universe. That people "worship" him/her/it does not establish him/her/it as a divine being. I notice that there are virtually no forums threads here discussing the theology of Bigfoot (except or course, this one).

As if video cannot be manipulated relentlessly. Got Photoshop?




> *Red Zeppelin:* Excellent Job on the dissection of the word! I enjoyed reading your thesis and reply to _Limajean_. permit me to add something. Accepting God is more than just about going to hell or Heaven for me, but Its about getting to know the God who made me and to enjoy his love for me, while I show my love for him in the ways I know possible. Its more than just about heaven or hell, because heaven is a given for any Child of God. Let your motivation be to get to Know God. If it is your motivation,m Heaven is the least of the bliss you'll get to enjoy.


Thank you for your kind words. I like your responses as well and agree with your comments. You are absolutely right about knowing God - I left that out in the interest of being concise and refuting limajean's vision of hell as a destination based upon works.

----------


## The Atheist

> So you are telling me that you need proof of everything?


Nope, in fact, I don't need proof of anything, which is why I'm not into solipsism at all.

It's always interesting to me that theists worry about science/proof/truth, and often try to cast aspersions at science regarding the level of "truth" or "proof" required, because science is just observation. A scientist will kick back and go, "wonder what happens if I run 1,000,000 amps through this mixture of DNA and toenail clippings", then he flicks the switch and watches what happens. (This is why Mary Shelley wrote _Frankenstein_.)

Science isn't concerned with a search for truth, that kind of thing is best left to theologians and philosophers.

By constant repetition, we come to accept that many things science has observed are true - in the legal sense of the word.

And that's pretty much where I stand - show me something and *then* tell me about it.

You have stories about the successes of your god and your religion. That's fine, because you believe in it. On the other hand, I'll list just a few of the subjects where people defend non-material things, and use _exactly_ the same language, arguments, assertions and aspertions that evangelical christianity does:

homeopathy
psychics
astrologers
dowsers
telepaths
telekinetics

(and I repeat, that is just a few of the types)

Now, your religion will exclude some of those as complete rubbish, or work of the devil. I'd be the first to point out that they cannot all be true, and science pretty much guarantees that they cannot. They all work on exactly the same principle - 100% anecdotal stories, with no evidence whatsoever.

When I'm faced with a choice between accepting magic as real or not, I take the simple option, "Show me".

49 years, 10 months and counting....

Is it so much to ask to believe in miracles that someone show me something, anything? ........beyond a book written several thousand years ago?

I don't think that's demanding proof.




> The reason why God sends us miracles are because He wants people to have stronger faith in Him, simply, as a proof that He is with us all the time.


On the basis of that claim, then my request for "show me" is going to be a piece of cake!




> I heavily doubt that your eyes will tell you that God exists even though miracles, impossible visual proofs occur before them.


Nah, like I said, I keep both eyes wide open, and I proved yesterday that they're as good as they ever were, because I could read signs at a greater distance than my kids when we were checking yesterday.

Show me, and I'll believe it. You will only have to satisfy that niggly part of my brain which insists on checking a few minor details.




> So are you telling me that you need more proofs? To what extent exactly do you need further proof to tell yourself it is time to believe in God? I fear to know your answer.


Why?

What's to fear?

Honestly, have a talk to your pastor and tell him about this bloke who wants to believe in your miracles, but wants to see it with his own eyes, make recordings of them, talk to a few people and find out whather these miracles are true. If he agrees, I will come and do just that!

Hell, if there's a church anywhere which can cure diseases through belief, then I'm a believer! I'm at an age where medical advantages like that would be worth a bit, too. A mate of mine who was (damn, I still wrote "is") three months younger than me croaked last week. 

Fear? I'd love what you say to be true! Sheesh, you don't need to hard-sell health benefits at my age.

 :Biggrin: 

Honestly - talk to your pastor. Get him to come online. Wherever you are in NZ, I can be there. (And I'm pretty well known, in business and media, and you can find links to it all if you check my profile - I'm not some crazy stalker - so your pastor can even check me out first, how fair is that?)




> Let me ask you, wouldnt this be your reaction, to tell yourself you are having metal malfunctioning if one day you have a vision of Jesus crying in front of you, asking why you reject Him.


It ould depend on a couple of things. If it looked like Jesus would have - rather than the absurd icon every christian church I've ever seen use - and he asked a question along those lines, "Why won't you believe in me" or very close to it, then yes, I would believe immediately, offering to shake his hand and helping him up. No question at all.

If, however, I have a vision of a blond, or fair-ish Jesus, I will be off to the nut-farm immediately.




> The reality is, even with the impossible happening, atheists like you wont ever accept God. I bet that even with new evidences to proofs, it just wont ever be sufficient.


Wronger than the wrongest thing ever.

I guess, of all the things said to rationalists, this is the worst mistake you can make - to accuse one, whose only position is "show me", of being closed-minded (which is what you've done), while you yourself believe in magic and miracles.




> There is another gift from God: when someone is speaking in tongues, this person can interpret everything regardless what language the person is speaking.


Try going to a stage hypnotism show at some stage and you will see the identical thing done. At least then, it's funny.

----------


## Pendragon

> Science isn't concerned with a search for truth, that kind of thing is best left to theologians and philosophers.


If this is true, then every science class I ever took was a waste of time and religion should be taught in school, as at least they try to search for the truth, or their interpretation of it. 

I like to think I came out of my science classes with something to cling to as truth, anyway.

----------


## The Atheist

> If this is true, then every science class I ever took was a waste of time and religion should be taught in school, as at least they try to search for the truth, or their interpretation of it. 
> 
> I like to think I came out of my science classes with something to cling to as truth, anyway.


Now, that's a little unfair without the next sentence:




> By constant repetition, we come to accept that many things science has observed are true - in the legal sense of the word.


Once you add that in, the point of those science classes becomes clear.

----------


## Zee.

> "Freedom" does not mean three or more choices, and it doesn't mean you have to like either choice; it simply means you have a _choice_.
> 
> 
> 
> Says who? Have you read Plato? Are you familiar with how our legal system works? Nobody has absolute, total freedom. All of us have limited freedom in order to live peaceably among each other. 
> 
> 
> 
> I have bad news for you: human beings are generally consequence-driven creatures. We are capable of altruism, but we also tend to do as we wish if there are no real consequences for our actions. As such, all of us - including you - make decisions based upon potential consequences. Many people don't smoke because they fear cancer. Many people avoid crime because they're afraid of jail. Don't expect me to believe that you think the world could operate in some way where criminals will not commit crime because of altruism. Your life is not devoid of decisions based upon consequences.
> ...


Yes I am aware and know quite a lot about the legal system - infact I want to be a lawyer.

and i think you misunderstood my comment..

To me, you can't be a little ..free. To me, freedom, true freedom, must be absolute. The freedom you're talking about, is the "freedom" that is "governed", distributed. You know the freedom that is presented to you.

Look - reading over what you said, great, good on you, but none of that applies to me. 

Christianity, Jesus.. with all due respect, I don't believe in any of it.
So how can I possibly debate it with someone when proof that there is a Hell or there is a this or that, doesn't exist, furthermore making it easier for me to not believe in any of it.


I focus on buddhism, i care little for the rest.

----------


## Zee.

We can debate it and debate it again and again but none of us will know until the day we're hit by a bus. So buckle up and enjoy the ride because know matter how certain you think you are, you have no clue whatsoever.

The bigfoot comment was just as about disrespectful as the constant "you're going to hell" crap i've heard one two many times.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Yes I am aware and know quite a lot about the legal system - infact I want to be a lawyer.
> 
> and i think you misunderstood my comment..
> 
> To me, you can't be a little ..free. To me, freedom, true freedom, must be absolute. The freedom you're talking about, is the "freedom" that is "governed", distributed. You know the freedom that is presented to you.


Then surely you get the reality that unconstrained freedom creates tyranny. If everybody desires "absolute freedom" to do as they wish, liberties are bound to collide; that's the function of law - it allows us to have liberty that does not infringe substantially on the liberty of others. The existentialists understood that absolute freedom was utterly terrifying. Sorry - you live in a universe with laws - physcial laws, and moral laws. If you try to act with absolute freedom here on earth, you'll trample others.




> Look - reading over what you said, great, good on you, but none of that applies to me. 
> 
> Christianity, Jesus.. with all due respect, I don't believe in any of it.
> So how can I possibly debate it with someone when proof that there is a Hell or there is a this or that, doesn't exist, furthermore making it easier for me to not believe in any of it.
> 
> 
> I focus on buddhism, i care little for the rest.


Then why did you bother entering into the discussion in the first place if you're just going to turn tail and run now, claiming "Well I don't believe any of this anyway"? You made comments about the unfairness of God and hell and now that I've answered your charges you're just going to bow out by dismissing the whole thing? So that's how you work: lay out a challenge, then wait for your opponent to answer and then you just crumple the entire thing up into a ball, toss it in the trashcan and say "I don't feel like playing anymore"?

I already addressed earlier the mistaken notion that the only things that exist are those that we can "prove." Buddhism isn't much about empiricism either if I recall correctly.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> We can debate it and debate it again and again but none of us will know until the day we're hit by a bus. So buckle up and enjoy the ride because know matter how certain you think you are, you have no clue whatsoever.


Oh, I have a clue; I may not know all the details, but I've been given a pretty good idea.




> The bigfoot comment was just as about disrespectful as the constant "you're going to hell" crap i've heard one two many times.


A cheap excuse - because you're justifying a comment towards me based upon something I never said to you. Let's not engage in transference if we can avoid it.

----------


## Zee.

> Then surely you get the reality that unconstrained freedom creates tyranny. If everybody desires "absolute freedom" to do as they wish, liberties are bound to collide; that's the function of law - it allows us to have liberty that does not infringe substantially on the liberty of others. The existentialists understood that absolute freedom was utterly terrifying. Sorry - you live in a universe with laws - physcial laws, and moral laws. If you try to act with absolute freedom here on earth, you'll trample others.
> 
> 
> 
> Then why did you bother entering into the discussion in the first place if you're just going to turn tail and run now, claiming "Well I don't believe any of this anyway"? You made comments about the unfairness of God and hell and now that I've answered your charges you're just going to bow out by dismissing the whole thing? So that's how you work: lay out a challenge, then wait for your opponent to answer and then you just crumple the entire thing up into a ball, toss it in the trashcan and say "I don't feel like playing anymore"?
> 
> I already addressed earlier the mistaken notion that the only things that exist are those that we can "prove." Buddhism isn't much about empiricism either if I recall correctly.


I didn't say that freedom wouldn't create chaos - i said that the word freedom in my opinion, should only be applied when it is absolute.



No no, i stopped playing a long time ago.

----------


## Zee.

You know, this talk of "proving" things. I'm not silly, I understand and believe that not everything can be proven, of course it can't. It doesn't have to be before our eyes for it to exist.
But when we're dealing with something serious like telling others they're going to hell - why should i nod my head and say "so be it?", i wont.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> I didn't say that freedom wouldn't create chaos - i said that the word freedom in my opinion, should only be applied when it is absolute.


"Absolute" meaning what? That you get choices you like? You have the freedom to do whatever you want in this life - but there are _consequences_. That is how all of reality works - it's called "cause-effect." We live in a causal universe - all actions, all choices, no matter how freely made, attach to consequences. Sorry you don't like the consequences.






> No no, i stopped playing a long time ago.


Well, I don't enter into debate to "play" - I enter to learn something or to answer something. If you're not going to follow your charges out to the end, why make them in the first place?

----------


## Zee.

I didnt say i didn't "like" the consequences.
You're getting pretty personal now and obviously not understanding what i'm telling you.

The "play" comment - was a comment I made going off of what YOU said, when you assumed how I work, because you know me so well and everything.

And I did follow them out to the end - and it ended with both Skasian and I respecting both each other's beliefs and views, even though we fought to the death at the beginning, and that's enough for me.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> You know, this talk of "proving" things. I'm not silly, I understand and believe that not everything can be proven, of course it can't. It doesn't have to be before our eyes for it to exist.
> But when we're dealing with something serious like telling others they're going to hell - why should i nod my head and say "so be it?", i wont.


You don't have to do any head-nodding or "so be it-ing" - but I think it interesting that you pick and choose when you wish to play the "there's no evidence" card. Since it deals with the spiritual realm, you cannot "prove" it exists anymore than you can prove God exists - both exist in a realm immune to our ability to perceive and measure.

----------


## Zee.

I'll admit, i do pick and choose. I can be quite on and off during a debate/discussion.

I'll give you that.
1 point to you.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> I didnt say i didn't "like" the consequences.
> You're getting pretty personal now and obviously not understanding what i'm telling you.
> 
> The "play" comment - was a comment I made going off of what YOU said, when you assumed how I work, because you know me so well and everything.
> 
> And I did follow them out to the end - and it ended with both Skasian and I respecting both each other's beliefs and views, even though we fought to the death at the beginning, and that's enough for me.


When someone lays out the charges you did, and I take the time to answer them and then you simply say "well, I don't believe any of this anyway" instead of dealing with my counterarguments, that strikes me as one of two things:

a) I have refuted my opponent's position and s/he has no counter-argument
b) my opponent really didn't intend to prove his/her position - he/she was merely baiting me to see what I'd say. 

If I'm wrong, fine - but that's how I took your response. It has nothing to do with how well I know you - it has to do with how discussion/debate/argument works. It's called the "burden of rejoiner" (or something like that) which means that once your opponent answers you, you carry the burden of moving the argument forward. You decided you weren't going to do that.

You may have followed your argument with skasian, but not me. You need not do so, but walking away with a "well I don't believe this anyway" makes your initial arguments seem merely baiting.

Anyway, if you're done, fine - not a big deal. But I'm disappointed you didn't address any of my refutation of your position. I'm curious how you respond.

----------


## Zee.

I don't think i can respond to that.

You sorta took me out with your response, considering i thought my big heartfelt post would knock some people off their feet.
Guess not, hey?

----------


## skasian

> Nope, in fact, I don't need proof of anything, which is why I'm not into solipsism at all.
> 
> It's always interesting to me that theists worry about science/proof/truth, and often try to cast aspersions at science regarding the level of "truth" or "proof" required, because science is just observation. A scientist will kick back and go, "wonder what happens if I run 1,000,000 amps through this mixture of DNA and toenail clippings", then he flicks the switch and watches what happens. (This is why Mary Shelley wrote _Frankenstein_.)
> 
> Science isn't concerned with a search for truth, that kind of thing is best left to theologians and philosophers.
> 
> By constant repetition, we come to accept that many things science has observed are true - in the legal sense of the word.
> 
> And that's pretty much where I stand - show me something and *then* tell me about it.
> ...


Science is observation? Observation of what? Isnt it to confirm belief and satisfying all equations and theories? Obervation to check if their theory is right I assume. But that is no different to atheists believing in miracles. Miracles is observation. Because people cant believe in God because He is invisible, miracles happen because they are visible to the naked eye, therefore used to confirm belief and help people understand God is really watching. What is the difference? My point is even miracles can be observed atheists just dont simply believe in this, even though it is same as science minus the equations. 
Science searches for agreement in relations to many other aspects, evolution theories searches for valid proofs to make the theory "true". Science does search for the truth in things, by understanding the world's matter and functions that are yet to be discovered. Accepting religion is also searching for the truth, ie God, because God is all truth.

Show you something? Couple of posts back you said that you yourself have seen miracles, havent you seen enough to believe or is it your sense of not wanting to believe making you blind from seeing the truth of God?

----------


## The Atheist

> Science is observation?


Yep, observation and replication - if we observe the result once means nothing. If every time an experiment is done, we get the same result, it becomes accepted.




> Observation of what?


The results.




> Isnt it to confirm belief and satisfying all equations and theories? Obervation to check if their theory is right I assume.


As is usually the case with assumptions, yours is wrong. Theories arise from observation, in the main. The days of having a theory, then try to make it work went out with alchemy.




> But that is no different to atheists believing in miracles. Miracles is observation. Because people cant believe in God because He is invisible, miracles happen because they are visible to the naked eye, therefore used to confirm belief and help people understand God is really watching. What is the difference? My point is even miracles can be observed atheists just dont simply believe in this, even though it is same as science minus the equations.


Woefully wrong, sorry.

Observation is not a miracle, nor is it a miracle when something conforms to what we understand natural law to be, stuff like gravity not working in reverse, electricity making machines work, that kind of thing.

As I pointed out to you earlier, if miracles exist, they will demonstrably miraculous and not some shabby, set-up charlatan tricks as used in manufacturing miracles for the credulous.




> Show you something? Couple of posts back you said that you yourself have seen miracles, havent you seen enough to believe or is it your sense of not wanting to believe making you blind from seeing the truth of God?


No, and this is a silly argument. Talk to your pastor and get me along to record and investigate the miraculous happenings. 

If it's a god's truth, it's not likely to be fraud, so what harm is there to you and your church. If the miracles are real, that will be apparent, just as it will be if it's fraud.

----------


## Zee.

Like a previous poster stated, there is a difference between faith and knowledge

----------


## Redzeppelin

> I don't think i can respond to that.
> 
> You sorta took me out with your response, considering i thought my big heartfelt post would knock some people off their feet.
> Guess not, hey?



Ah, well - perhaps it's just me being bothersome. I appreciate your strong feelings and I'll let it go. No need for me to try and twist your arm to finish an argument. Bad form - sorry.

----------


## Zee.

Don't be sorry, you did nothing wrong.

----------


## skasian

> Yep, observation and replication - if we observe the result once means nothing. If every time an experiment is done, we get the same result, it becomes accepted.
> 
> 
> 
> The results.
> 
> 
> 
> As is usually the case with assumptions, yours is wrong. Theories arise from observation, in the main. The days of having a theory, then try to make it work went out with alchemy.
> ...


Science is not all observation and replication. There are correction,alteration and improvements as science is never 100% certain and ever developing. When a law or theory of science is broken by a new discovery, the previous recordings of observation and replication are lost into the trash bin, replaced by the corrected alterations. Science is such a broad field that cannot be confined as observation, as in modern day, it is more taken over by abstract thinking by manipulating the old and acceptance through debates and agreements through previous proofs and evidences. Bottom line, observations that agree with theories and ideas becomes proof and evidences, which are what science is backed up by.

As people needs observations, proofs in science, they also need these to believe in miracles to confirm that they arent mentally disturbed. People need proof and evidence that gives them sense of truth and relief from thinking they are tricked or fooled. As you put it, avoid believing in fakes and frauds. Whats so funny about proof and evidence is that miracles itself is a proof or evidence of God. If God appears in a vision, they think they are going mentally gaga. What should God do? With all these infinite excuses, what good is it for the incredulous?
I have to admit I do believe that it is very difficult for an atheist to believe in God after seeing a miracle as there are such things as you said: psychics telepaths hypnosis. With all these happening around, how would atheists believe that miracles are visual signs that God sent? I think this is why God is not using miracles to make the non believer believe in God. It just seems sadly futile.

"As I pointed out to you earlier, if miracles exist, they will demonstrably miraculous and not some shabby, set-up charlatan tricks as used in manufacturing miracles for the credulous."

So what do you have in mind? Demonstrably miraculous, to what extent exactly?




> I've seen exactly what you've seen, up close and personal, several times.
> 
> Seen nothing to impress me so far. A stage-hypnotist show, nothing more.


How would a written statement by a random doctor or pastor improve your belief in miracles or God? It is same as hearing a "story" from someone else as you mentioned. I heavily doubt that even if a miracle happens to you, such as open wounds healing suddenly, it wont ever improve your belief in God as you have your explanations and excuses.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Don't be sorry, you did nothing wrong.


Maybe - I'm prone to get caught up in the argument and have been gently been reminded by some of my friends that sometimes (perhaps most of the time) I can be obnoxious. I'm working on that.

Anyway -

----------


## BienvenuJDC

How can there be a discussion about such a narrow subject as Christian Hell, if nothing is established as being truth? If one wants to question the existence of God, then that needs to be its own thread. Much of the discussion here has been completely futile.

If we were to have a discussion about the biological characteristics of dragons, then those who do not believe that dragons ever existed should not impose their beliefs in the discussion.

BTW, would anyone like to discuss this topic? If so, it's not for discussion in this thread.

----------


## skasian

> How can there be a discussion about such a narrow subject as Christian Hell, if nothing is established as being truth? If one wants to question the existence of God, then that needs to be its own thread. Much of the discussion here has been completely futile.
> 
> If we were to have a discussion about the biological characteristics of dragons, then those who do not believe that dragons ever existed should not impose their beliefs in the discussion.
> 
> BTW, would anyone like to discuss this topic? If so, it's not for discussion in this thread.


I completely agree that questioning of the existence of God should be in a new thread. The reason why discussion of Christian Hell drifted to whether Hell existed then whether God existed at all. 

Dragons, I actually do think that they existed, but I think they were turned into snakes during the Fall of Man as God said serpents (or dragons I think) will craw through their bellies, it must mean they had legs and maybe even wings. I also think dragons existed because of the Chinese zodiac or horoscopes, where the 12th animal/zodiac is a dragon and Chinese characters actually bibical references which I found very scary. Each Chinese character contains this story from the bible, especially from Genesis. I seem to be drifting off subjects however yes, I do think that dragons existed. :Smile: 

Back to Christian Hell topic, as it is true nothing have been accorded fact in the afterlife, it all depends on individual faith and belief about afterlife that counts as much as facts.

----------


## Redzeppelin

Theologian J.P. Moreland - in Lee Strobel's book _The Case for Faith_ discusses hell and the many objections many Christians and nonbelievers pose.

According to Moreland, hell is punishment, but not _punishing_ - there's a difference. The "hellfire" is metaphorical - it is not the Dantean nightmare that the medieval church would have us believe. It is purely separation from God - the most beautiful, loving Being in the universe. If love and kindness and compassion and beauty are so desireable in this world, why wouldn't it make sense that being separated from the very source of these things would be torture enough? Hell is absolute emptiness - it is the place where those who chose to follow their wills instead of submit to God's can be out of the presence of God. Heaven would be "hell" for anybody who chooses to not serve God - they would be miserable there. At least in hell, their desire to make their will supreme is honored by God; He gives us the choice of who we'll serve, and then honors that choice. If you don't wish to serve God, he'll still grant you eternal life - but not in His presence - but: since His presence fills the entire universe, hell becomes necessary as the "quarantine" location that those who reject God can live without His presence.

That, in a short form, is Moreland's argument.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> Dragons, I actually do think that they existed, but I think they were turned into snakes during the Fall of Man as God said serpents (or dragons I think) will craw through their bellies, it must mean they had legs and maybe even wings. I also think dragons existed because of the Chinese zodiac or horoscopes, where the 12th animal/zodiac is a dragon and Chinese characters actually bibical references which I found very scary. Each Chinese character contains this story from the bible, especially from Genesis. I seem to be drifting off subjects however yes, I do think that dragons existed.


Shame on you Skasian...did I not say that this is a discussion for another thread? :Wink:

----------


## skasian

> Shame on you Skasian...did I not say that this is a discussion for another thread?


Sorry, I couldnt resist! Well at least I finished it off with being back to the subject of Christian Hell..

----------


## blp

> Now when he saw the crowds, he went up on a mountainside and sat down. His disciples came to him, and he began to teach them saying:
> "Blessed are the poor in spirit,
> for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
> Blessed are those who mourn,
> for they will be comforted.
> Blessed are the meek,
> for they will inherit the earth.
> Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
> for they will be filled.
> ...


And, sorry, but shouldn't it also say, in accordance with the beliefs of believers expressed in this thread and others, blessed are those who aren't any of these things and are actually pretty rotten as long as they repent and accept Jesus into their hearts before they die, for they shall go to heaven anyway. 

This is the fundamental contradiction in Christian morality. Good works are supposed to be important and, in fact, according to the sermon on the mount, they will actually, somehow, be repaid in kind. However, we're also told that the only way to get to heaven is to accept Christ as your saviour and that it will work for anyone who does it - which seems to render good works rather irrelevant.

----------


## The Atheist

> There are correction,alteration and improvements as science is never 100% certain and ever developing.


That's excellent - this is one of the points I've been trying to get through: science is constantly updated and refined.




> When a law or theory of science is broken by a new discovery, the previous recordings of observation and replication are lost into the trash bin, replaced by the corrected alterations.


This is not quite right. Science is hardly ever proven wrong to the extent that prior knowledge is thrown out. As above, science is refined rather than changed. Galileo, Pythagoras, Newton, Einstein, Rutherford, Curie, Pasteur.... I'm working through all of the dead scientists trying to find something which has been disproven, but I can't find anything. Refinement, yes, contravention, no.




> Science is such a broad field that cannot be confined as observation, as in modern day, it is more taken over by abstract thinking by manipulating the old and acceptance through debates and agreements through previous proofs and evidences. Bottom line, observations that agree with theories and ideas becomes proof and evidences, which are what science is backed up by.


You have this all completely wrong. Maybe you should discuss this with a science teacher or scientist.




> I have to admit I do believe that it is very difficult for an atheist to believe in God after seeing a miracle as there are such things as you said: psychics telepaths hypnosis.


How can you know what an atheist will believe? You don't even really know what one is!

Note that there are no psychics or telepaths and that hypnotism is a trick. You obviously missed that point rather badly.




> With all these happening around, how would atheists believe that miracles are visual signs that God sent? I think this is why God is not using miracles to make the non believer believe in God. It just seems sadly futile.
> 
> "As I pointed out to you earlier, if miracles exist, they will demonstrably miraculous and not some shabby, set-up charlatan tricks as used in manufacturing miracles for the credulous."
> 
> So what do you have in mind? Demonstrably miraculous, to what extent exactly?
> 
> How would a written statement by a random doctor or pastor improve your belief in miracles or God? It is same as hearing a "story" from someone else as you mentioned. I heavily doubt that even if a miracle happens to you, such as open wounds healing suddenly, it wont ever improve your belief in God as you have your explanations and excuses.


This is looking like a cop-out to me. 

If I see wounds self-healing, I wouldn't even need a doctor's certificate.

As I keep saying, show me.

Statements from doctors would help me believe that a miracle isn't a fraud.

This is why I will bet any amount of money you like your pastor will decline the opportunity of sceptical investigation.




> How can there be a discussion about such a narrow subject as Christian Hell, if nothing is established as being truth?


Goes with the territory.

If you note the OP, it's about christian perception of hell, so it has nothing to do with the existence of it, but all threads with atheists and christians in end up the same way. It's an immutable internet law.

----------


## blp

> Where would we derive morals, if not from God?


Re my post above, you might just as well ask whether God, the Christian god at any rate, is much use at instilling morality anyway. But to go back to the sermon on the mount, nice as it is, it's fairly platitudinous as morality. The things it says will be rewarded are things we already know are good. 

I would say the same about all the morality propounded in the Bible. All it really does is reinforce virtues with the promise that they will be rewarded. That doesn't constitute acting as a source of morality. As I say, we already know those things are good. It seems quite obvious that they are (though one might debate some of them - meekness say, following Nietzsche). 

How do we know? This has been a source of debate in philosophy for over two thousand years. While I wouldn't wish or, realistically, hope to diminish the complexity of those debates, is it really so hard to recognise a good deed when you see one? Kid drops ice-cream scoop from cone, other kid with two scoops gives one to first, now crying, kid. Better yet, first kid is starving and second kid gives it its dinner. 
Do we really need a God to tell us this is a good deed? No and we don't need to be Christians, or Buddhists or adherents of any other belief system, to feel the compassion that drives such an act. The only problems we have with morality are in the realms of the empirical - ethical conflicts and practicability. Other than that, one might debate whether there is anything innately moral in human nature or whether we adopt moral practices in response to the promise of rewards and punishments. Whatever. None of this seems to require the existence of a God and it's not clear how it would be helped by it, except to reassure us that the evil really will be punished, even if they seem to get away with it.

EDIT
Of course, I forgot, the other thing religion does to instill morality is tell us that things we might otherwise deem harmless are immoral - working on the Sabbath, say, or having sex with people of our own gender. Bit of a can of worms really.

----------


## blp

> This is not quite right. Science is hardly ever proven wrong to the extent that prior knowledge is thrown out. As above, science is refined rather than changed. Galileo, Pythagoras, Newton, Einstein, Rutherford, Curie, Pasteur.... I'm working through all of the dead scientists trying to find something which has been disproven, but I can't find anything. Refinement, yes, contravention, no.


I basically agree, but, just to be pedantically precise, weren't notions such as the humours, phlogiston and, in fact, the idea that the sun went 'round the earth formerly accepted by science? The humours were certainly accepted by doctors until about the nineteenth century.

----------


## dzebra

> And, sorry, but shouldn't it also say, in accordance with the beliefs of believers expressed in this thread and others, blessed are those who aren't any of these things and are actually pretty rotten as long as they repent and accept Jesus into their hearts before they die, for they shall go to heaven anyway. 
> 
> This is the fundamental contradiction in Christian morality. Good works are supposed to be important and, in fact, according to the sermon on the mount, they will actually, somehow, be repaid in kind. However, we're also told that the only way to get to heaven is to accept Christ as your saviour and that it will work for anyone who does it - which seems to render good works rather irrelevant.


Amen.

Christians who remove all the instructions about good works are removing most of what Jesus was about.

----------


## The Atheist

> I basically agree, but, just to be pedantically precise, weren't notions such as the humours, phlogiston and, in fact, the idea that the sun went 'round the earth formerly accepted by science? The humours were certainly accepted by doctors until about the nineteenth century.


Partly depends on your definition of science.

Looking at those three, humours and the sun orbit can't really be called science, as they were guesses based on flawed observation. Part of that is that we needed better instrumentation to tell the difference, but any proper observation would have rendered both ridiculous.

The phlogiston is just flawed science, because the conclusion can only be achieved if certain observations are ignored.

I covered in a thread some time why rigour is so important to science - if we don't ensure that flaws are found through blinding and testing, the science isn't rigorous enough to be considered proper science.

This is where replication is so important to science - with actual science, anyone attempting the experiment/observation will get the same result.

----------


## blp

> Partly depends on your definition of science.
> 
> Looking at those three, humours and the sun orbit can't really be called science, as they were guesses based on flawed observation. Part of that is that we needed better instrumentation to tell the difference, but any proper observation would have rendered both ridiculous.
> 
> The phlogiston is just flawed science, because the conclusion can only be achieved if certain observations are ignored.
> 
> I covered in a thread some time why rigour is so important to science - if we don't ensure that flaws are found through blinding and testing, the science isn't rigorous enough to be considered proper science.
> 
> This is where replication is so important to science - with actual science, anyone attempting the experiment/observation will get the same result.


You're right.

----------


## dzebra

> Looking at those three, humours and the sun orbit can't really be called science, as they were guesses based on flawed observation. Part of that is that we needed better instrumentation to tell the difference, but any proper observation would have rendered both ridiculous.


What's to say that some of the current methods of observation are not just as flawed? Humans make tools used to see things they don't understand. What if, due to the lack of understanding of the thing they want to see (or any reason), the tool used to see it can't see it properly? That observation would be considered correct for years until someone discovers the right way to observe. Then, scientists may be posting in an internet forum about something that is false, saying that it has been observed to be true, and they might think that anyone who opposes their views is wrong, when that is not the case.

----------


## Rush_of_Blood

> Re my post above, you might just as well ask whether God, the Christian god at any rate, is much use at instilling morality anyway. But to go back to the sermon on the mount, nice as it is, it's fairly platitudinous as morality. The things it says will be rewarded are things we already know are good. 
> 
> I would say the same about all the morality propounded in the Bible. All it really does is reinforce virtues with the promise that they will be rewarded. That doesn't constitute acting as a source of morality. As I say, we already know those things are good. It seems quite obvious that they are (though one might debate some of them - meekness say, following Nietzsche). 
> 
> How do we know? This has been a source of debate in philosophy for over two thousand years. While I wouldn't wish or, realistically, hope to diminish the complexity of those debates, is it really so hard to recognize a good deed when you see one? Kid drops ice-cream scoop from cone, other kid with two scoops gives one to first, now crying, kid. Better yet, first kid is starving and second kid gives it its dinner. 
> Do we really need a God to tell us this is a good deed? No and we don't need to be Christians, or Buddhists or adherents of any other belief system, to feel the compassion that drives such an act. The only problems we have with morality are in the realms of the empirical - ethical conflicts and practicability. Other than that, one might debate whether there is anything innately moral in human nature or whether we adopt moral practices in response to the promise of rewards and punishments. Whatever. None of this seems to require the existence of a God and it's not clear how it would be helped by it, except to reassure us that the evil really will be punished, even if they seem to get away with it.
> 
> EDIT
> Of course, I forgot, the other thing religion does to instill morality is tell us that things we might otherwise deem harmless are immoral - working on the Sabbath, say, or having sex with people of our own gender. Bit of a can of worms really.



Before i answer your question, i have a two part question for you:

what is the benefit of religion?

what is the benefit of not having religion?

----------


## blp

> Before i answer your question, i have a two part question for you:
> 
> what is the benefit of religion?
> 
> what is the benefit of not having religion?


 :FRlol:  Cheeky. Why do I have to answer a two-part question from you before I can get an answer? I asked you first. Um, oh, except, reading back, I realise I didn't. I didn't ask a question, did I? Perhaps the first thing to sort out is what question you thought I was asking. I know there are a few sentences in the form of questions in my post, but they're rhetorical.

Anyway, wouldn't you, as a religious person, be better placed to suggest what the benefit of religion is? I don't see any benefit in it. The other question is almost meaningless to me, like asking what the benefit of not having Santa Claus is. Atheism isn't something I chose for its greater benefits. It's just what seems to me to be the truth, ergo, I have no choice in the matter.

----------


## The Atheist

> What's to say that some of the current methods of observation are not just as flawed?


Replication.

When different people, using different equipment, get the same result, time after time after time, I'm pretty confident nobody's about to disprove Einstein or Newton.




> Humans make tools used to see things they don't understand.


Completely false.

How can I make a tool if I don't understand what I'm looking for? We make tools to measure things we already have an understanding of, but are unable to observe with the naked eye/ear/etc.




> What if, due to the lack of understanding of the thing they want to see (or any reason), the tool used to see it can't see it properly?


Back to the old drawing board.

Plus, if a scientist knows a tool is flawed, he'll throw it away, not make up a new theory to fit the flawed observation. At least, that's what he'll do if he wishes to preserve his reputation.




> That observation would be considered correct for years until someone discovers the right way to observe. Then, scientists may be posting in an internet forum about something that is false, saying that it has been observed to be true, and they might think that anyone who opposes their views is wrong, when that is not the case.


What you're describing might happen in Fantasyland, but not here.

Your approach is another common one, and I always love it, because the aspersions against science are the same as those against theism, yet theists have no problem that their own system has the very flaws which science doesn't.

----------


## blp

> Your approach is another common one, and I always love it, because the aspersions against science are the same as those against theism, yet theists have no problem that their own system has the very flaws which science doesn't.


That's because those aspersions against science are just an attempt by theists to throw atheistic arguments back at the atheists. They're not just saying 'You can't prove science is right'. They're saying 'You can't prove science is right _either_.'

----------


## dzebra

> How can I make a tool if I don't understand what I'm looking for? We make tools to measure things we already have an understanding of, but are unable to observe with the naked eye/ear/etc.


If you know everything about what you're looking for, why research it? I'm saying that a person knows a little bit about something, so he creates something that he thinks can observe properly so that he can learn more about it.

Bob the scientists thinks that a thing called tinyblocks exists. He makes a tool that measures the light refraction that he's pretty sure tinyblocks creates. He finds that his tool is good at catching that light refraction. All the scientists get a light refraction detector so they can study tinyblocks. They all run tests and they all get the same results. It is now declared to be scientifically true that tinyblocks refracts light.

Three years later, Tim the scientist makes a breakthrough discovery: tinyblocks only refracts light when viewed with specific tools. It turns out that all tinyblocks does is reflects light, and the tools that have been used to study tinyblocks were actually responsible for the refraction.

For the three years between Bob and Tim, scientists all over the world were telling people they were ridiculous if they thought tinyblocks didn't refract light. 





> Plus, if a scientist knows a tool is flawed, he'll throw it away, not make up a new theory to fit the flawed observation. At least, that's what he'll do if he wishes to preserve his reputation.


None of the scientists knew their tools were flawed. Of course they would fix their tools if they _knew_ they were not good. That's common sense.





> What you're describing might happen in Fantasyland, but not here.


I guess the scientific community is just too good to make mistakes in real life, eh? Perhaps you are forgetting the examples used just a few posts ago about things like the Earth revolving around the sun. They thought their observation methods were good.

The scientific community is frequently changing things they they thought were true. When science books have to be updated yearly to keep up with what is currently deemed "true" by the scientific community, what's the use in believing it, since it's likely to be false again within your lifetime. I don't know what percentage of it is because of more accurate observation methods, but I know some is.

I know people say that because of the frequent updating of theories, science is more accurate than it has ever been. How many of those theories are in their final iteration? As people learn more, current "truths" will change to untruths. Scientists prove theories wrong frequently enough that anyone from the future could come to our time and laugh at us for all the lies we believe.




> Your approach is another common one, and I always love it, because the aspersions against science are the same as those against theism, yet theists have no problem that their own system has the very flaws which science doesn't.


My point is: Even if someone rejects spiritual things, that person has to put faith in something. Nothing is known beyond all doubt. The only "flaw" (the term may not even apply here) that religion has is that it cannot be proven beyond all doubt (except maybe to extremists). That is also the case with science.

----------


## blp

> I guess the scientific community is just too good to make mistakes in real life, eh? Perhaps you are forgetting the examples used just a few posts ago about things like the Earth revolving around the sun. They thought their observation methods were good.


I like your earlier tinyblocks example, but I think you're off the mark here. The problem here wasn't with observation methods, it was with scientific knowledge being muddled up with religious belief. Plenty of scientific and philosophical practitioners at the time still started with the idea of God and His works as _a priori_ belief with which others had to fall in line. When Galileo showed that the earth revolved around the sun, it was deemed a heresy because it was supposed that God wouldn't have put the earth anywhere but the centre of the universe. 




> The scientific community is frequently changing things they they thought were true. When science books have to be updated yearly to keep up with what is currently deemed "true" by the scientific community, what's the use in believing it, since it's likely to be false again within your lifetime. I don't know what percentage of it is because of more accurate observation methods, but I know some is.


Whereas, fortunately, religious belief remains fixed and we can continue to believe it for all time. Except it doesn't, as TheAtheist has shown by referring to the changed view of Hell within Catholicism. Does this mean science and religion are equivalent? Nope. The whole point is that nothing at all is taken for granted by science, as your remark above shows. Religion takes something for which there is no testable evidence for granted - the existence of God. And as the example of Galileo shows, this assumption has been actively deleterious to the advance of human knowledge. 




> I know people say that because of the frequent updating of theories, science is more accurate than it has ever been. How many of those theories are in their final iteration? As people learn more, current "truths" will change to untruths. Scientists prove theories wrong frequently enough that anyone from the future could come to our time and laugh at us for all the lies we believe.


Who's to say, eh? But science, in the last hundred or so years, has been more empirically and rationally rigorous than it's ever been precisely thanks to the waning of religion's influence upon it. Darwin held back his theory of evolution because it conflicted with his own religious belief. It's hard to imagine anything like that happening now. It's also hard to imagine a new scientific discovery being held back because it conflicted with an existing scientific belief, held as a matter of strong conviction by a scientist - precisely because science is not dogmatic. Everything you say about the uncertainties pervading science only serves to prove this point - and, in that, the marked difference of science from religion. 




> My point is: Even if someone rejects spiritual things, that person has to put faith in something. Nothing is known beyond all doubt. The only "flaw" (the term may not even apply here) that religion has is that it cannot be proven beyond all doubt (except maybe to extremists). That is also the case with science.


Actually, the point you seem to have made in your prior remarks is precisely the opposite: it makes _no_ sense to put your faith in anything precisely because of the difficulty of being sure of anything. That's why proof is so important to the scientific community. i.e. it takes nothing on faith. 

I think what you mean to say is 'That is also the case with scientific knowledge.' To ask whether science itself can be proven is a nonsensical question. Science isn't a fact or a set of facts, it's a process of acquiring knowledge, one that, by definition, depends on the most rigorous possible testing. 

Perhaps you would like to argue that science's faith is in this activity of testing. To do this, you might want to resort to some old philosophical arguments for the ideality of reality: _everything is an illusion_ and so on. Then you can go read Kant and see him put that one to bed: yes, there may be a reality beyond the one we perceive; Kant even says that there must be; however, he also says that we have absolutely no point of access to it; our reality, for us, is reality; when a phenomenon such as as physical law is observed over and over again within that reality, we can say it's true. 

Other than that, you seem, if I can say this without being insulting, to be arguing for the doubtfulness of a lot of today's scientific knowledge from a position of cheerful ignorance of science in general. Exactly how many real-world examples of your tinbyblocks syndrome can you point to?

----------


## bazarov

> *The Atheist:* Speaking in tongues will be a joke to a linguist or to you simply because you do not understand it. Its easy for people to simply say, everything in Christianity is false...and worse still, they go to great lengths to prove it (thinking that they are being enlightened), but its funny how scientists try to prove that the Creation is a myth. A famous musician said :"The earth is a masterpiece; Somebody had to paint this"...Unless you believe that you evolved from monkeys and chimps, which I absolutely do not believe. First, I am more intelligent than any Chimp.Second, say I evolved. Of all the 6000 or so years that man has spent on earth, is he not supposed to evolve to something else? It has pretty much been the same since.






> Evolution takes hundreds of thousands or millions of years - 6000 years is insufficient time frame for a mammal species to show evolutionary signs.
> 
> I won't bother mentioning glaciers, fossils, antarctica, trees, coal or any of the other millions of reasons why the idea that the earth is 6013 years old is just beyond laughable.
> 
> There are plants older than that, for goodness sake!



You're taking Genesis too seriously. Of course it didn't happen like that.

If Adam and Eve were only humans, and had no daughters; then we are all result of incest and incest is a serious sin. God made Sun on the 3rd day - how do we know it was 3rd day when there was no Sun to determine start or end of day? How long did even that day last? We could go on with this, but I think it's enough.

It's all metaphor, like Greek, Roman or German mythology. Of course evolution made it's work. I am Christian, but please be reasonable.

By the way, OT deals with Jewish history, not history of Earth. And it deals with last 6000 years, it doesn't say that Earth is only 6000 years old.

----------


## skasian

> That's excellent - this is one of the points I've been trying to get through: science is constantly updated and refined.
> 
> 
> 
> This is not quite right. Science is hardly ever proven wrong to the extent that prior knowledge is thrown out. As above, science is refined rather than changed. Galileo, Pythagoras, Newton, Einstein, Rutherford, Curie, Pasteur.... I'm working through all of the dead scientists trying to find something which has been disproven, but I can't find anything. Refinement, yes, contravention, no.
> 
> 
> 
> You have this all completely wrong. Maybe you should discuss this with a science teacher or scientist.
> ...


Disproven theories? In top of my head, I can think of a theory that was disproven. Quite old, but shows what science started off from : In the 1700s two people, Ptolemy and Nicolas Copernicus argued their theories on the positions of the planet and sun in the solarsystem, and Galileo supported Ptomley and wronged Copernicus's theory.

Are you are scientist yourself? I talked to a group of scientist before, and I am sure they explained mordern science in this definition. How creativity and abstract thinking is what sets a great scientist from the rest.

The dictionary sure knows what its talking about when describing an atheist.
Thanks to that I know what I am talking about.

Telepathy and some psychics are rather true, even though they are very few in the world. In my country there are old traditions with psychic people that do supernatural,calling evil spirits. Few years ago, an actor was playing a role around this, and she got possessed and had to be treated in a church. Yes many psychic etc are fake today but there were and are some true ones in the world.

----------


## The Atheist

> Disproven theories? In top of my head, I can think of a theory that was disproven. Quite old, but shows what science started off from : In the 1700s two people, Ptolemy and Nicolas Copernicus argued their theories on the positions of the planet and sun in the solarsystem, and Galileo supported Ptomley and wronged Copernicus's theory.


I take it then that you didn't see what I said about accurate measurements. Shows my point if that's the best you have.




> Are you are scientist yourself?


No.




> I talked to a group of scientist before, and I am sure they explained mordern science in this definition. How creativity and abstract thinking is what sets a great scientist from the rest.


Sure it does. Creativity is knowing what to look for and interpret results and abstract thinking is designing experiments to observe.




> The dictionary sure knows what its talking about when describing an atheist.
> Thanks to that I know what I am talking about.


Well, I'm sure I won't be the last to tell you that dictionaries do not confer meanings.




> Telepathy and some psychics are rather true, even though they are very few in the world.


Nope, sorry. Proven countless times to be fake.




> In my country there are old traditions with psychic people that do supernatural,calling evil spirits. Few years ago, an actor was playing a role around this, and she got possessed and had to be treated in a church.


How convenient.

----------


## bazarov

> Disproven theories? In top of my head, I can think of a theory that was disproven. Quite old, but shows what science started off from : In the 1700s two people, Ptolemy and Nicolas Copernicus argued their theories on the positions of the planet and sun in the solarsystem, and Galileo supported Ptomley and wronged Copernicus's theory.


Totally totally wrong!

Actually, Nicolaus Copernicus lived from 15th to 16th century, Galileo Galilei from 16th to 17th; and Galiliei proved Copernicus theory of heliocentrism. 
They both disagreed with Ptolemy on geocentric system, which was in confrontation with RCC inqusition. If you want, I can find some links to prove my statements.

----------


## dzebra

> Telepathy and some psychics are rather true, even though they are very few in the world.





> Nope, sorry. Proven countless times to be fake.


No. It has never been proven that there are absolutely no psychics or telepaths in the world.

----------


## blp

> No. It has never been proven that there are absolutely no psychics or telepaths in the world.


The Atheist didn't claim that. He/she said telepathy and the like had been proven countless times to be fake, i.e. individual instances had been shown to be false. 

There's a department of Edinburgh University devoted solely to researching the possibilities of telepathy and related capabilities, however notional. Don't you think if they'd turned anything up, we'd have heard about it?

----------


## The Atheist

> No. It has never been proven that there are absolutely no psychics or telepaths in the world.





> There's a department of Edinburgh University devoted solely to researching the possibilities of telepathy and related capabilities, however notional. Don't you think if they'd turned anything up, we'd have heard about it?


There are actually a whole heap of universities studying the field, if I may dignify it with that term. But you're quite right that if there were any truth to the myth, we'd have heard about it, long and loud.

----------


## Jozanny

> There are actually a whole heap of universities studying the field, if I may dignify it with that term. But you're quite right that if there were any truth to the myth, we'd have heard about it, long and loud.


I hate to jump in on this totally ignoring theology (where are those hungry lions of Roman Empire fame when you need them, eh?) but there are studies that show consciousness seems to have subtle effects on our material environment. When I rebelled against my former employer over services, I was left to my own devices, and worried about my power chair failing--and fail it did, to the tune of thousands of dollars for a motor I am hoping I won't be forced to spend, so this study makes sense to me, since the brain/mind dynamic is still not fully understood.

Thinking is still a process, Atheist, and something interesting may happen that we don't fully understand with all those billions of neurons flashing orders continuously, even in minute insect brains.

----------


## blp

I can't believe this discussion is turning into a debate about telepathy. Never seen that in a religious thread before.

----------


## The Atheist

> I hate to jump in on this totally ignoring theology (where are those hungry lions of Roman Empire fame when you need them, eh?) but there are studies that show consciousness seems to have subtle effects on our material environment. When I rebelled against my former employer over services, I was left to my own devices, and worried about my power chair failing--and fail it did, to the tune of thousands of dollars for a motor I am hoping I won't be forced to spend, so this study makes sense to me, since the brain/mind dynamic is still not fully understood.


Nope.

This is just mistaken cause and effect. Check out the Parapsychological Association. They are quite sure that minds do have power, but they think it's only an extremely small amount. They're still wrong, but even proponents of telekinesis wouldn't accept your thoughts breaking an electric wheelchair.




> Thinking is still a process, Atheist, and something interesting may happen that we don't fully understand with all those billions of neurons flashing orders continuously, even in minute insect brains.


I just can't see it. Millions of claims have been made and investigated - result: nada.




> I can't believe this discussion is turning into a debate about telepathy. Never seen that in a religious thread before.


Makes a pleasant change!

----------


## Cat_Brenners

I would like to add to this discussion simply because I believe that God is loving and he gives everyone the chance to accept him or not. It's not his fault if a person goes to hell for their sin of not accepting him. We are given a choice...freely. I do think that hell is a place that will be destroyed along with its followers after Christ comes back (for the people who have accepted him as Lord and Savoir.) The reason I don't believe in someone burning forever is because in Revelation it says that the devil and his followers will be devoured and consumed. What does consume mean? I also think no more sin will be left so when it's consumed it will be gone forever. My take on it.
Cat

----------


## Jozanny

I never said I was in defense of telepathy, and the study I read did not claim to be either, but I can certainly see the process of thought being one day tied to the symmetry of anti-matter, because as far as I know, thought has no physical manifestation, and while we infer its activity through the cellular observation of the brain, thoughts themselves are not matter.

I heard a critique yesterday on the radio by a female author, which I think was fairly valid: Atheists are so busy showing up religions as nonsense that they forget about the wonder of life, and the joy of it just for itself--and I think you lose that here in these forums Atheist. In pushing back against prescriptive moral codes non-believers wind up as equally dogmatic.

In a bone to this topic: Christians co-opted hell from other pagan sources; it was not derived from messianic writings from the time that Jesus started his teaching. Theologians have a great deal of trouble with it, because punishment cannot be *eternal*.

You punish to correct behavior, not to simply change the conditions of existence. So when believers talk about choice, what they really mean is that the soul has two sets of conditions: One involving unification with the creator, and one involving separation and distinction of identity away from it, but the latter is not punishment, because it corrects nothing. Prisoners in a confined environment know that freedom is still a possibility, even if they are on death row, but if the soul cast out from heaven knows there is no possibility to correct the state of separation, then the state of separation is simply the condition the soul is in, and ceases to be in and of itself a corrective measure.

----------


## Cat_Brenners

Some prisoners go too far and do get put to death. They have committed the crime that puts them to death. People who do not accept Christ did so at their own choosing and they are put to death. Sin is then gone through out eternity. Satan will be burned and consumed along with them. That is the punishment. Its called going too far as in our criminal system. And with God, the penalty of sin is death and that sin is NOT accepting him as Lord and Savior. We have choices just like someone who goes out and kill others.
Hugs, Cat

----------


## The Atheist

> I would like to add to this discussion simply because I believe that God is loving and he gives everyone the chance to accept him or not. It's not his fault if a person goes to hell for their sin of not accepting him.


Don't you think it's a bit odd? On one hand, Moses and Jesus both give commandments, but the *only* one which must not be broken is atheism?

You can lie, cheat, commit adultery, rape and even murder, and be forgiven, but failing to believe will bring an eternity of torture.

I do find it extremely odd that you'd accept that sort of god and call it loving.

If he created us, he created the sin, he created the ability for me not to see him, and he created the alternative chocies I can see clearly.

What kind of perverted, insane entity would act like that? Seriously, the bible tells us that Satan is the father of all lies, but it seems to me that the god is far, far worse.




> We are given a choice...freely. I do think that hell is a place that will be destroyed along with its followers after Christ comes back (for the people who have accepted him as Lord and Savoir.) The reason I don't believe in someone burning forever is because in Revelation it says that the devil and his followers will be devoured and consumed. What does consume mean? I also think no more sin will be left so when it's consumed it will be gone forever. My take on it.
> Cat


Ah, so we only get tortured for however many millennia it takes for Jesus to come back?

That's ok then.




> I never said I was in defense of telepathy, and the study I read did not claim to be either, but I can certainly see the process of thought being one day tied to the symmetry of anti-matter, because as far as I know, thought has no physical manifestation, and while we infer its activity through the cellular observation of the brain, thoughts themselves are not matter.


Nor is energy.

I'm pretty comfortable with the notion that the brain is 100% material in the action of thought processes, emotion and delusion. MRI scanning consistently shows the same thoughts producing the same neuronic activity in different people. Give it another decade or two and we'll be able to give you a printout of what you're thinking.




> I heard a critique yesterday on the radio by a female author, which I think was fairly valid: Atheists are so busy showing up religions as nonsense that they forget about the wonder of life, and the joy of it just for itself--and I think you lose that here in these forums Atheist. In pushing back against prescriptive moral codes non-believers wind up as equally dogmatic.


I can only disagree. I don't ever forget the wonder of life, the universe and everything. I go outside most nights just to admire the universe, and walk around with both eyes open all the time.

As to the dogma argument, I really don't care. It seems to be a theist defence and it's certainly defensive as an attitude to suggest it. Christianity has had 2000 years of dominance, so some of us putting some curry into the odd theists' pockets is hardly dogmatic. Have you ever seen an atheist billboard? An atheist evangelical tv program? Atheists singing xmas carols and collecting for their church? Atheists fishing for recruits door-to-door?

Charges of dogma against atheists avoid the blatant fact that christianity - in western countries - is combative, very visible and in most cases, completely repugnant. Honestly, if there were no fundies, I'd take my wife's title and be a copro-agnostic*. I'm more than happy for Anglicans, Protestants and Left-footers to have their Communions and services and go about their charitable works, but when christians start demanding teaching creationism and claiming that kids will go to hell because they don't believe in a stupid, illogical and ultimately idiotic story about a dead Jew and a ghost, then I will go and kick bottoms.

If that's seen as dogmatic, it really doesn't worry me, because the charge can only come from ignorance or bigotry.




> In a bone to this topic: Christians co-opted hell from other pagan sources; it was not derived from messianic writings from the time that Jesus started his teaching. Theologians have a great deal of trouble with it, because punishment cannot be *eternal*.


Luckily, most christians agree with that.

Unluckily, the ones who don't are great experts at being squeaky wheels.




> You punish to correct behavior, not to simply change the conditions of existence. So when believers talk about choice, what they really mean is that the soul has two sets of conditions: One involving unification with the creator, and one involving separation and distinction of identity away from it, but the latter is not punishment, because it corrects nothing. Prisoners in a confined environment know that freedom is still a possibility, even if they are on death row, but if the soul cast out from heaven knows there is no possibility to correct the state of separation, then the state of separation is simply the condition the soul is in, and ceases to be in and of itself a corrective measure.


Yes, that's the logical position, if I can any position logical when discussing gods, but as you can see above, it's refuted simply in the minds of wanna-believers, because the bible says so.

*Doesn't know, doesn't give a ..... crap?

 :Biggrin:

----------


## The Atheist

> We have choices just like someone who goes out and kill others.


Again, a god who equates murder with unbelief wouldn't be much of a god. And that's for murderers who don't repent, because those who do, escape divine retribution.

Cute story, really; I bet it keeps the kids believing. The bogeyman in the closet is mild by comparison, he can only eat you once, but a god who can torture for thousands of years, now that's scary.

----------


## Cat_Brenners

("Ah, so we only get tortured for however many millennia it takes for Jesus to come back?

That's ok then.")

I did not mention anything about a millennia now did I? I believe when God comes back the disbelievers and satan will be destroyed. That's how and why I call Him a loving God. They had their whole life to accept or not.

("If he created us, he created the sin, he created the ability for me not to see him, and he created the alternative chocies I can see clearly.

What kind of perverted, insane entity would act like that? Seriously, the bible tells us that Satan is the father of all lies, but it seems to me that the god is far, far worse.")

God created us to live a wonderful life..one free of sin. Man chose to sin and Satan was the creator. He knows he is going to die by fire and he is trying to get as many people taken down with him as he can. He is mad and angry and wants others to suffer so he decieves us if we let him. God is not the creator of sin. Why would a creator want his people to rebel against him? He would not. He loves us and wants our love and obedience.
Hugs, Cat

----------


## Cat_Brenners

Someone seems to not be listening. I don't believe that disbelievers burn forever. I believe God is kind in that respect. The murderer that repents and believes in God will not be one that burns. I only meant that we have choices and we make them. We have a life time to make them. So, we really should make them wisely. You can make fun if you like but let's keep this at an adult level ok? 
Hugs, Cat

----------


## skasian

> Totally totally wrong!
> 
> Actually, Nicolaus Copernicus lived from 15th to 16th century, Galileo Galilei from 16th to 17th; and Galiliei proved Copernicus theory of heliocentrism. 
> They both disagreed with Ptolemy on geocentric system, which was in confrontation with RCC inqusition. If you want, I can find some links to prove my statements.


Did you get this straight from your head or can you admit that you did a little research to wrong me out? 
You have to forgive me for my inaccurate information I learnt this from school about 3years ago and it seems my memory on that particular lesson is very flawed. Yes I can remember now, Galileo supported Copernicus's not Ptolemy. Thanks for refreshing my form 5 science lesson on astronomy. :Smile:

----------


## skasian

> No. It has never been proven that there are absolutely no psychics or telepaths in the world.


How do we "prove" that the supernatural do exist? Accounts from eye witnesses seems to be random fake stories to people, documentaries dedicated to such subjects seem to entertain skeptics. Exactly what is needed to prove the supernatural?

----------


## bazarov

> Did you get this straight from your head or can you admit that you did a little research to wrong me out? 
> You have to forgive me for my inaccurate information I learnt this from school about 3years ago and it seems my memory on that particular lesson is very flawed. Yes I can remember now, Galileo supported Copernicus's not Ptolemy. Thanks for refreshing my form 5 science lesson on astronomy.


I have big head.  :Smile: 
To realize that someone said something wrong, you have to be very familiar with what he said.

----------


## Jozanny

> People who do not accept Christ did so at their own choosing and they are put to death.


Statements like these do not even allow the possibility of reasoned discussion.

I am going to regret this, because literature is much loved in my life, but I quit, and leave the forum to such sentiments as these. Anyone who can write that and believe it simply leaves the realm of compassion, mercy, and doubt behind, and to me, beyond amazement. You condemn millions of people in your own mind because you feel so threatened by the possibility of this particular assertion not being so.

When or if this sub-forum is removed, then maybe I will return, but as a disabled woman who believes in the optimism of progressive thought, I can't handle that another human being so relishes the imposition of suffering over a doctrine.

You are on your own Alan. I simply cannot handle this anymore.

----------


## skasian

> I take it then that you didn't see what I said about accurate measurements. Shows my point if that's the best you have.
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it does. Creativity is knowing what to look for and interpret results and abstract thinking is designing experiments to observe.
> ...


As you told me "science is refined rather than changed", you are quite wrong regardless you mentioned accurate measurements in science. The back bone of science was formed by trial and error, and when a rough theory was made, that became the official theory of a particular branch of science until a new theory wronged it. My reference, astronomy, there had to be an idea to be the starting point of a theory. As Ptomely's idea was CORRECTED by Galileo, therefore a branch of science, astronomy was changed. It is true modern science is more about development however the backbone of science was more about corrections, alterations.

"Sure it does. Creativity is knowing what to look for and interpret results and abstract thinking is designing experiments to observe."

Creativity and abstract thinking in science is not all what you may think. It is more about using insight, thinking out the unthinkable. Seeing a blindspot the others have missed. Its discovering things right in front of you while the others are searching too far away. Observation is not a major thing in science, its more about twisting the brain in an uncanny way the next person wont be able to try. Mendel father of genetics didnt start observing pea plants until he commenced to consider an aspect or idea no one else thought of before. What is the point of observing if you do not understand what hypothesis is?

The definition of atheist? Let me explain my definition of it. Non religious person that does not believe in the existance of God or not a follower of God.
If my definition is inadequate, please feel free to add or alter.

I have thought about the method of proving an aspect that is hard to understand and believe. How do you prove such things and do you think such proof are adequate to give sense of belief to people?

----------


## skasian

> I have big head. 
> To realize that someone said something wrong, you have to be very familiar with what he said.


Beg your pardon, who is "he"?

----------


## bazarov

> Beg your pardon, who is "he"?


Sorry, ''her''.

----------


## skasian

> Sorry, ''her''.


Ah dont apologise. Did I seem like a "he"?

----------


## bazarov

> Ah dont apologise. Did I seem like a "he"?


No, no, no!!! I know you're pretty 18 year old girl, 1,80m height and less then 50kg  :FRlol:  
I was just taking generally.

----------


## skasian

> No, no, no!!! I know you're pretty 18 year old girl, 1,80m height and less then 50kg  
> I was just taking generally.


Ah~ Sorry for being misunderstanding! :Blush: 

Err,,actually Im pretty short, 1.67m in height, how did you think of 1.80?!?

----------


## bazarov

Uffff, sorry! You're still tall for Korean; and a woman so be happy!

----------


## weltanschauung

> I am a devoted Christian, and I have been asked similar questions about hell by many atheists or people that are interested in becoming a Christian. 
> We believe that hell exists as a realm that is inexplicable in terms of eternal suffering, pain and agony and because there is no sense of time or space, there is no way out forever. Hell is governed by satan and devils and they inflict abhorrent terrors unimaginable.
> Now many people have asked the question who goes to Hell and why do people go there when God does cherish each and every one of us, and how come good people in the world that dedicate their life for other people can also go to hell.
> The answer is that they do not have belief and faith in God, Jesus.
> No matter how many good deeds you do in life, if you do not confess Jesus as your God then you go to Hell. Harsh, but true.
> In order to be saved from hell, theres only one way, and that is Jesus once again. Jesus is the bridge between our world and Heaven, and without Him, you may not enter Heaven.
> I know that God hates to see that His children have to suffer in Hell forever, but the ones that do not know him and love Him must be punished eternally.
> I have been thinking about the people in the world, the ones that it is not their fault that they do not know God. I wondered what will happen to them. I thought it was not fair for them to miss out the good news about Jesus and how He can be their salvation. But it is evident in the Bible that it is us, Christians' duty to spread the good news about Jesus to these people that never heard about Him. I am still not sure what will happen to those people who it isnt their fault that they do not know Him, but one thing I am sure is that we must spread the Word about God.
> Then it is up to them to whether to have faith with him and begin to have the greatest relationship with Him which will change their lives forever. See the love of God. See the glory of God. See how we are priceless in the eyes of the Lord. From then on, they will begin to get closer to God, and get closer to the His Kingdom where they will serve and share the joy together with God.




"Harsh, but true." 
_ phillipe, tanto tempore vobiscum sum, et non congnovistis me?_

"I know that God hates to see that His children have to suffer in Hell forever, but the ones that do not know him and love Him must be punished eternally."

its wonderful how christians think of god as a huge angry bearded guy that lives in the clouds...
_o luce qui mortalibus lates inacessa deus! in lumine tuo videbimus lumen!_

l'enfer, c'est les autres...

----------


## Pendragon

> I would like to add to this discussion simply because I believe that God is loving and he gives everyone the chance to accept him or not. It's not his fault if a person goes to hell for their sin of not accepting him. We are given a choice...freely. I do think that hell is a place that will be destroyed along with its followers after Christ comes back (for the people who have accepted him as Lord and Savoir.) The reason I don't believe in someone burning forever is because in Revelation it says that the devil and his followers will be devoured and consumed. What does consume mean? I also think no more sin will be left so when it's consumed it will be gone forever. My take on it.
> Cat


BINGO! Just what I stated before, and still ignored by people who wish to believe that hell is eternal. It is punishment for a time, then destruction for good, which is what consume means. Our God is a consuming fire!

----------


## The Atheist

> I did not mention anything about a millennia now did I?


Yes you did; you clearly mentioned "when god returns" and you do it again in a second.

Given that even Paul [?] said it would be "soon" and that's 2000 years back, I think it's silly to presume he'll be here within millennia, even now.




> I believe when God comes back the disbelievers and satan will be destroyed. That's how and why I call Him a loving God. They had their whole life to accept or not.


Yes, that is indeed a loving god - one who loves his creation so much that they must bow down before him or he'll fry you.

I must try that with my kids.




> God created us to live a wonderful life..one free of sin.


This is simply absurd. If god created us to *not* sin, why create sin?

Is your god that dumb that he can't see a contradiction there? It would be like me giving my kids a loaded pistol and say "don't touch the trigger".




> Man chose to sin and Satan was the creator. He knows he is going to die by fire and he is trying to get as many people taken down with him as he can. He is mad and angry and wants others to suffer so he decieves us if we let him. God is not the creator of sin.


Nope, sorry. If the god created Satan, he surely created the ability for Satan to sin. You just cannot have this both ways - if the god created _everything_ then, it certainly created the sin.




> Why would a creator want his people to rebel against him? He would not. He loves us and wants our love and obedience.
> Hugs, Cat


Love and obedience, eh? Yet people who disobey him but repent get to go to heaven.

As I keep saying, that's a strange sort of being and one which I wouldn't worship if it were real.




> How do we "prove" that the supernatural do exist? Accounts from eye witnesses seems to be random fake stories to people, documentaries dedicated to such subjects seem to entertain skeptics. Exactly what is needed to prove the supernatural?


An example of it happening.

When millions of examples of claims exist, but not a single instance of actuality, I'm pretty ok with saying it's beyond reasonable doubt.




> You are on your own Alan. I simply cannot handle this anymore.


Can you just not come to this section? Just stick to the literature part?

It'd be a shame to lose you because some people have distasteful beliefs.

But at least it shows what I've been trying to say - that telling someone they're going to fry because they failed to bow down to a god is pretty hateful and unpleasant.

(To say the least)

Go well, whatever you choose and remember that I've always got a virtual shoulder for ya. We don't see eye to eye on everything, which I think is probably a good thing - but when things do matter, I'd give you anything I could.

Au revoir, cherie!




> My reference, astronomy, there had to be an idea to be the starting point of a theory. As Ptomely's idea was CORRECTED by Galileo, therefore a branch of science, astronomy was changed. It is true modern science is more about development however the backbone of science was more about corrections, alterations.


*sigh*

What you're saying actually proves my point, but you seem to have missed that. In fact, it's quite obvious that you haven't understood the subject of science in any meaningful way, so I'll just leave you with your misconceptions.




> The definition of atheist? Let me explain my definition of it. Non religious person that does not believe in the existance of God or not a follower of God.
> If my definition is inadequate, please feel free to add or alter.


That's fine, stick with it.




> I have thought about the method of proving an aspect that is hard to understand and believe. How do you prove such things and do you think such proof are adequate to give sense of belief to people?


Proof is easy. When something works, has been peer-reviewed and can be replicated, then I'm happy with calling it proven.

----------


## Cat_Brenners

My answered prayers have been proven over and over. That's proof for me! 
Yes. I do mention when Christ comes back and He will some day. Hope everyone is ready and does not have to face the punishment of not accepting him. 
God did not create sin. Satan did and God is loving because he lets us make those choices. He does not want puppets on a string and make them love him or obey. We have that choice and satan clearly made his choice. And satan wants followers to his fatal end in hell.
Repent means to mean it. Not just do something and say I can do it again later. You have to be sincere and try with Gods help. God helps us when we pray and call on him.
I think it's a shame that someone would leave this forum just because someone believes what they do. That's sad. Does it mean if they don't believe as you do that you are angry and running? Please stay! No reason to leave. We all have beliefs of some sort and I am not leaving because you believe different.

Hugs, Cat

----------


## Pendragon

This looks like a good time for me to fold on this thread, myself. The subject keeps jumping around with telepathy and such being brought in, which I cannot see has one thing to do with The Christian Hell.

I will point out that every religion I know of speaks of punishment in one way or another, all the way back to the Old Gods and Goddesses of far gone time. Most believe in an underworld, where punishment is for misdeeds, and a heaven of some sort where right deeds are rewarded. Why people fuss so much about Christianity when even Pagans believe in such things beats me. 

But I can see the way the cards are playing, and thus, I fold. I believe in hell, just not an eternal one. I also believe that many who feel they have already received white robes and a halo will be shocked on judgment day. 

Living Christlike and having the right attitude towards others goes a long way in my book. I think many will make it that Christians would throw away, and many Christians are on somewhat shaky ground.

As a great man once said: "I would rather be right in my spirit and wrong in my doctrine, than right in my doctrine and wrong in my heart or spirit."

God bless you all

Pen

----------


## The Atheist

> My answered prayers have been proven over and over. That's proof for me! 
> Yes. I do mention when Christ comes back and He will some day. Hope everyone is ready and does not have to face the punishment of not accepting him.


You don't see how that might look just a little spiteful to non-believers, Buddhists, Hindus, Jews and many other people?

Hope you're ready to boil! Shouldn't there be a LOL or something after it?




> God did not create sin. Satan did and God is loving because he lets us make those choices.


Didn't the god create everything? Including Satan?




> He does not want puppets on a string and make them love him or obey.


And I bet you see no irony in using the free choice argument while spouting that those who don't believe will burn in hell!

How is that a free choice? Believe or die? I can certainly accept the Catholic version of free choice being with their god or not, and not meaning oblivion rather than torture, but offering thousands of years of torture for not believing is not a choice, it's the Spanish Inquisition on PCP.




> I think it's a shame that someone would leave this forum just because someone believes what they do. That's sad. Does it mean if they don't believe as you do that you are angry and running? Please stay! No reason to leave. We all have beliefs of some sort and I am not leaving because you believe different.


You've clearly missed what Jo said. She has no problem with you having different beliefs, and I bet you any amount of money you like she's never found a Pendragon post offensive.

What upsets Jo is someone repeatedly - and in the case of this thread, two someones repeatedly - telling her she's going to be tortured for an indeterminate period of time; solely for not believing in a god. Jo is a good person in any qualification of the word "good" and I agree with her that it makes no sense to tell her she's going to hell. The god which you believe creates everything clearly also created Jo's disability, yet you're telling her that she must love the god who did it to her, or be cast into a lake of fire.

Nice.




> Living Christlike and having the right attitude towards others goes a long way in my book. I think many will make it that Christians would throw away, and many Christians are on somewhat shaky ground.
> 
> As a great man once said: "I would rather be right in my spirit and wrong in my doctrine, than right in my doctrine and wrong in my heart or spirit."
> 
> God bless you all
> 
> Pen


As usual, I can't fault that attitude too much.

Go well, mate.

Oh, I look forward to seeing some former clerics in Satan's lair.

 :Wink:

----------


## NikolaiI

> Repent means to mean it. Not just do something and say I can do it again later. You have to be sincere and try with Gods help. God helps us when we pray and call on him.


This is true, if we love, we obey, but if we don't obey then we are not loving correctly.

----------


## Cat_Brenners

I keep getting quoted but misinterpreted. I would never laugh about someone burning in hell. I would pray for them to accept God. I have not pointed my finger at anyone on here and said YOU will burn in hell. That's between you and God. Only you and Him know if you have accepted Him or not. I am not your judge. God is the creater but once again he gave all of us a choice of sinning or not sinning....accepting or not accepting. I hope no one burns in hell...even though I believe it is a short time in order to consume all sin. I wish and pray for only the best for anyone. Why anyone wants to get angry or fuss and make fun of anyone here is beyond me. I will not be baited into being mean. That's not what this is for. Best to all.
Hugs, Cat

----------


## The Atheist

> I keep getting quoted but misinterpreted. I would never laugh about someone burning in hell. I would pray for them to accept God. I have not pointed my finger at anyone on here and said YOU will burn in hell. That's between you and God. Only you and Him know if you have accepted Him or not. I am not your judge.


Again, I get a horrible disconnect with reading what you say and reading what you say you meant.

This covers every post you've made in this thread:




> ....because in Revelation it says that the devil and his followers will be devoured and consumed. ...





> ...People who do not accept Christ did so at their own choosing and they are put to death. ...





> I believe when God comes back the disbelievers and satan will be destroyed.





> Someone seems to not be listening. I don't believe that disbelievers burn forever. I believe God is kind in that respect.





> Hope everyone is ready and does not have to face the punishment of not accepting him.


Every single post you made you managed to include a note that atheists are going to hell.

Now, you may see that as beseeching us to come over before we get burned, but for someone who disbelieves, and therefore is the exact person being referred to, it can look more like schadenfreude than advice.

Especially when it's repeated and repeated.




> God is the creater but once again he gave all of us a choice of sinning or not sinning....accepting or not accepting. I hope no one burns in hell...even though I believe it is a short time in order to consume all sin. I wish and pray for only the best for anyone. Why anyone wants to get angry or fuss and make fun of anyone here is beyond me. I will not be baited into being mean. That's not what this is for. Best to all.
> Hugs, Cat


As above, I'll take you at your word and accept that you're not trying to be spiteful, but you must realise that in a written dialogue, it can look awfully much like it.

----------


## skasian

> "Harsh, but true." 
> _ phillipe, tanto tempore vobiscum sum, et non congnovistis me?_
> 
> "I know that God hates to see that His children have to suffer in Hell forever, but the ones that do not know him and love Him must be punished eternally."
> 
> its wonderful how christians think of god as a huge angry bearded guy that lives in the clouds...
> _o luce qui mortalibus lates inacessa deus! in lumine tuo videbimus lumen!_
> 
> l'enfer, c'est les autres...


Do you think God likes being angry? God likes being praised and happy just like any of us. As we like being content, we take this from God Himself.

I dont know why some people think God is a white bearded big guy. Have you read the Book of Revelations? There is a defintion of God in the heavenly clouds and its description is certainly no way close to being "huge angry bearded guy"

----------


## skasian

> An example of it happening.
> 
> When millions of examples of claims exist, but not a single instance of actuality, I'm pretty ok with saying it's beyond reasonable doubt.
> 
> 
> 
> *sigh*
> 
> What you're saying actually proves my point, but you seem to have missed that. In fact, it's quite obvious that you haven't understood the subject of science in any meaningful way, so I'll just leave you with your misconceptions.
> ...


How does a claim exists with instance of actuality? Simply, to the skeptic,any level of proof does not hinder their idea of belief. The reality is that no matter how true and real it may seem to them, if they do not WANT to believe in it, they just never will. Proof being effective is not easy; just think of evolution. There are simple proof of fossils that supports the idea of evolutions however even with these proof, people do not believe in evolution, or believe that we come from a long line of apes and fishes or microbacterias.

----------


## bazarov

> Proof being effective is not easy; just think of evolution. There are simple proof of fossils that supports the idea of evolutions however even with these proof, *people do not believe in evolution, or believe that we come from a long line of apes and fishes or microbacterias*.



But...that is evolution.

----------


## skasian

Back to the subject of The Christian Hell, let me give Thomas Hobbes's perspectives in Christian Hell,written in Leviathan which equals to my own views.

"The Torments of Hell are expressed sometimes by 'weeping and gnashing of teeth' as Mat 8.12..'where the worm dyeth not and the fire is not quenched'..sometimes by 'shame and contemp' Dan 12.2..'some to shame and everlasting contempt'..may be called an Everlasting Death prepared for the wicked which is the Second Death."

"The joyes of Life Eternall are in Scripture comprehended all under the name of Salvation, or being saved. To be saved, is to be secured either respectively against speciall Evills or absolutely against all Evill comprehending Want, Sicknesse and Death itself."

"Of what is Necessary for a Mans reception into the Kingdom of Heaven: All that is Necessary to Salvation is contained in two Vertues, Faith in Christ and Obedience to Laws"

I see that some people indeed are against and angered by the aspect that people who do know accept Jesus Christ as their God and Saviour will end up in Christian Hell, but that is because it is the only truth in Christianity, not because we as Christians say, think or want so, but because our God said so, and Hobbes can justify so.

There is actually a whole section dedicated to the subject of Christian hell, called The Kingdom of Darknesse, if you are interested in Christian Hell, then I recommend Leviathan.

----------


## skasian

> But...that is evolution.


Ah, trust me I know a lot of people that BELIEVE in evolution.

----------


## bazarov

> Ah, trust me I know a lot of people that BELIEVE in evolution.


Me also. The point is your previous statement is contradiction.

----------


## skasian

> Me also. The point is your previous statement is contradiction.


Actually it doesnt. Although there are many people that believe in Evolution, the rest, including atheists do not believe in evolution even though there are proofs and evidences that back up.
Mind you, alot does not mean all.

----------


## dzebra

> I dont know why some people think God is a white bearded big guy. Have you read the Book of Revelations? There is a defintion of God in the heavenly clouds and its description is certainly no way close to being "huge angry bearded guy"


Here's something from Revelation that talks about God being a big, angry looking, white, hairy guy.

_"And standing in the middle of the lampstands was someone like the Son of Man. He was wearing a long robe with a gold sash across his chest. His head and his hair were white like wool, as white as snow. And his eyes were like flames of fire. His feet were like polished bronze refined in a furnace, and his voice thundered like mighty ocean waves. He held seven stars in his right hand, and a sharp two-edged sword came from his mouth. And his face was like the sun in all its brilliance. When I saw him, I fell at his feet as if I were dead"_

----------


## The Atheist

> How does a claim exists with instance of actuality? Simply, to the skeptic,any level of proof does not hinder their idea of belief. The reality is that no matter how true and real it may seem to them, if they do not WANT to believe in it, they just never will.


No, that's exactly what a sceptic isn't.

A sceptic asks questions and checks evidence to find answers. Belief has nothing to do with it. 

Where on earth do you get these strange ideas?




> Proof being effective is not easy; just think of evolution. There are simple proof of fossils that supports the idea of evolutions however even with these proof, people do not believe in evolution, or believe that we come from a long line of apes and fishes or microbacterias.


Quite right.

But the only people I ever meet who don't accept the theory of evolution as being correct are fundamental christians. I'm guessing you accept it, however, so that's a good start.




> Although there are many people that believe in Evolution, the rest, including atheists do not believe in evolution even though there are proofs and evidences that back up.
> Mind you, alot does not mean all.


Again, this is a horrendously bad error.

Since when don't atheists accepts the ToE? I know hundreds of atheists and not one of them seriously doubts it.

----------


## weltanschauung

> Do you think God likes being angry? God likes being praised and happy just like any of us. As we like being content, we take this from God Himself.
> 
> I dont know why some people think God is a white bearded big guy. Have you read the Book of Revelations? There is a defintion of God in the heavenly clouds and its description is certainly no way close to being "huge angry bearded guy"


i dont think god "likes" or "dislikes" anything. your god is a ridiculous frankenstein plagiarism of every other pagan symbol that existed before your christ "came", and by that i mean "before the structure of the church along the middle ages invented and organized this whole set of lies that live up to this day." and i dont know why every christian treats everyone else that isnt christian like poor ignorant mongoloids, who have never read the bible. yes, i read the book of revelations, which btw is an open pagan reference to the 22 cards of the tarot. the whole bible itself is a huge plagarism of the book of enoch, since christianity is founded over lies and deception and plagery.
that being said, i would also like to add that your (christians) conception of hell is childish and hilarious. hell obviously isnt a place, but a state of mind, and it's funny how christians use that to scare everyone, "do this, do that or youll go to hell forever har har." you've all been living in hell since birth and you seem to be having quite the good time. your god's punishments and anger dont scare me at all. 

hugs and kisses  :Smile:

----------


## weltanschauung

> Back to the subject of The Christian Hell, let me give Thomas Hobbes's perspectives in Christian Hell,written in Leviathan which equals to my own views.
> 
> "The Torments of Hell are expressed sometimes by 'weeping and gnashing of teeth' as Mat 8.12..'where the worm dyeth not and the fire is not quenched'..sometimes by 'shame and contemp' Dan 12.2..'some to shame and everlasting contempt'..may be called an Everlasting Death prepared for the wicked which is the Second Death."
> 
> "The joyes of Life Eternall are in Scripture comprehended all under the name of Salvation, or being saved. To be saved, is to be secured either respectively against speciall Evills or absolutely against all Evill comprehending Want, Sicknesse and Death itself."
> 
> "Of what is Necessary for a Mans reception into the Kingdom of Heaven: All that is Necessary to Salvation is contained in two Vertues, Faith in Christ and Obedience to Laws"
> 
> I see that some people indeed are against and angered by the aspect that people who do know accept Jesus Christ as their God and Saviour will end up in Christian Hell, but that is because it is the only truth in Christianity, not because we as Christians say, think or want so, but because our God said so, and Hobbes can justify so.
> ...


"obbey, obbey, obbey, OBBEY, INSECT!"
it isnt really a shock that the catholic church ruled the world for 16 or so centuries, is it. 

william blake> thomas hobbes  :Thumbs Up: 

just for humour purposes, here goes a great quote i got from wikipedia, but dont laugh, or youll go to hell:
"In 1532, Thomas Harding, who with his wife, had been accused of heresy, was brought before the Bishop of Lincoln, and condemned for denying the real presence in the Sacrament. He was then chained to a stake, erected for the purpose, at Chesham in the Dell, near Botely; and when they had set fire to the fagots, one of the spectators dashed out his brains with a billet. The priests told the people that whoever brought fagots to burn heretics would have an indulgence to commit sins for forty days."

and this also, never fails to bring a smile to my face:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjMRgT5o-Ig

go christianity!

----------


## The Atheist

> go christianity!


Two classic comedic pieces!

Cheers.

I look forward to having a beer together in hell.

----------


## weltanschauung

> Two classic comedic pieces!
> 
> Cheers.
> 
> I look forward to having a beer together in hell.



amen!

----------


## blp

At last, some actual religious texts in the religious texts forum. And such inspiring ones! Thanks, welt!

----------


## skasian

> Here's something from Revelation that talks about God being a big, angry looking, white, hairy guy.
> 
> _"And standing in the middle of the lampstands was someone like the Son of Man. He was wearing a long robe with a gold sash across his chest. His head and his hair were white like wool, as white as snow. And his eyes were like flames of fire. His feet were like polished bronze refined in a furnace, and his voice thundered like mighty ocean waves. He held seven stars in his right hand, and a sharp two-edged sword came from his mouth. And his face was like the sun in all its brilliance. When I saw him, I fell at his feet as if I were dead"_


Read closely. I said he was not "huge angry bearded guy" and the extract doesnt say God was huge in any comparison, it doesnt say He was bearded although he has white hair, and it doesnt say that He was angry although His PRESENCE is almighty and frightful. Get the difference? :Wink:

----------


## skasian

> i dont think god "likes" or "dislikes" anything. your god is a ridiculous frankenstein plagiarism of every other pagan symbol that existed before your christ "came", and by that i mean "before the structure of the church along the middle ages invented and organized this whole set of lies that live up to this day." and i dont know why every christian treats everyone else that isnt christian like poor ignorant mongoloids, who have never read the bible. yes, i read the book of revelations, which btw is an open pagan reference to the 22 cards of the tarot. the whole bible itself is a huge plagarism of the book of enoch, since christianity is founded over lies and deception and plagery.
> that being said, i would also like to add that your (christians) conception of hell is childish and hilarious. hell obviously isnt a place, but a state of mind, and it's funny how christians use that to scare everyone, "do this, do that or youll go to hell forever har har." you've all been living in hell since birth and you seem to be having quite the good time. your god's punishments and anger dont scare me at all. 
> 
> hugs and kisses


It seems your assumption of God not "liking" and "disliking" is wrong. God loves His Children and does not like the wrongdoers that are against Him. 

And please, do not disrespect other people's religion and God, I doubt you will like if someone swore about your mother or father. Think about what you are saying before you insult others and their belief.

If you dont believe in hell and Christian belief, I dont care. I dont mind what you believe in. But I do mind what you say about what you dont believe in. It is rude and childish yourself in every way.

Have a nice day with less insulting and with more respect :Smile:

----------


## skasian

> No, that's exactly what a sceptic isn't.
> 
> A sceptic asks questions and checks evidence to find answers. Belief has nothing to do with it. 
> 
> Where on earth do you get these strange ideas?
> 
> 
> 
> Quite right.
> ...


Skeptical- disbelieving: denying or questioning the tenets of especially a religion; "a skeptical approach to the nature of miracles" 
incredulity: doubt about the truth of something 

My idea is right. Skeptic becomes believers when they search for evidence and accepts an aspect to be true.

It is true that I dont completely disagree with evolution. I accept that nature revolves around with adaptation, however I do not believe in speciation, the vital aspect that supports that we derive from apes and so on.

And no, it seems the hundreds atheists you know is an insufficient sample. People and non religious people and classmates that I know do not believe in evolution, or the idea that we derive from apes although they may believe in a small aspect like me. Even with these one person existing in the world, they make your assumptions very invalid.

----------


## NikolaiI

> ...


Your quote from Blake... I wished to share a couple of other quotes by him. I find them to be quite good.

"The tree which moves some to tears of joy is in the eyes of others only a green thing that stands in the way. Some see nature all ridicule and deformity... and some scarce see nature at all. But to the eyes of the man of imagination, nature is imagination itself. "

"If a thing loves, it is infinite."

"If the doors of perception were cleansed everything would appear to man as it is, infinite."

"He whose face gives no light, shall never become a star."

"I am in you and you in me, mutual in divine love." 

"I have no name: I am but two days old. What shall I call thee? I happy am, Joy is my name. Sweet joy befall thee!"

"Where mercy, love, and pity dwell, there God is dwelling too."

----------


## blp

> It seems your assumption of God not "liking" and "disliking" is wrong. God loves His Children and does not like the wrongdoers that are against Him. 
> 
> And please, do not disrespect other people's religion and God, I doubt you will like if someone swore about your mother or father. Think about what you are saying before you insult others and their belief.
> 
> If you dont believe in hell and Christian belief, I dont care. I dont mind what you believe in. But I do mind what you say about what you dont believe in. It is rude and childish yourself in every way.
> 
> Have a nice day with less insulting and with more respect


The Slavoj Zizek article I read the other day seems to be full of useful quotes:




> I always have this uncanny association that this is dangerously close to how we treat our children: the idea that we should respect them, even when we know that what they believe is not true. We should not destroy their illusions. No, I think that others deserve better - not to be treated like children.

----------


## Riesa

> and this also, never fails to bring a smile to my face:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjMRgT5o-Ig


it brings a scared smile to my face, most of those people live very close to me.

----------


## The Atheist

> And please, do not disrespect other people's religion and God, I doubt you will like if someone swore about your mother or father.


I have to admit I see nothing but irony here.

Someone makes fun of your religion and it's disrespectful and hurtful, but telling someone repeatedly that they will burn forever isn't. Didn't Jesus say something about reaping what we sow?




> Skeptical- disbelieving: denying or *questioning* the tenets of especially a religion; "a skeptical approach to the nature of miracles" 
> incredulity: doubt about the truth of something 
> 
> My idea is right. Skeptic becomes believers when they search for evidence and accepts an aspect to be true.


Note the bolding I made.

Sceptics question.

And please do note that there are far better ways to construct an argument than living in a dictionary.




> It is true that I dont completely disagree with evolution. I accept that nature revolves around with adaptation, however I do not believe in speciation, the vital aspect that supports that we derive from apes and so on.


Thanks for the clarification. 




> And no, it seems the hundreds atheists you know is an insufficient sample.


How many do you know?

Which atheist boards would you like to put the question at? James Randi? Dawkins? IIDB? Skeptical Community? Skeptics' Forum? Skepchick? Bad Astronomy?

If you intend to argue this point with me, you will be proved sorely wrong. I can absolutely guarantee you that there are no people who are materialist atheists* who don't accept that the Theory of Evolution is largely right.

I doubt you know many atheists and I strongly doubt that you've discussed religion and ToE with many, so I see no point in you arguing this, because you clearly have no idea what you're saying.

* Material atheists are the largest group of atheists and this enables psychic atheists and the likes of David Icke's lizard people to be left out as their opinions are irrelevant.




> People and non religious people and classmates that I know do not believe in evolution, or the idea that we derive from apes although they may believe in a small aspect like me. Even with these one person existing in the world, they make your assumptions very invalid.


What assumptions? I know for a fact that many christians don't accept ToE, but I have also shown you that the majority of christians _do_ accept it, because the RCC officially accepts it as correct and they are the majority of christians.

As it happens, the numbers of believers are meaningless anyway - atheism is a minority sport internationally.

You're quite welcome to think the ToE is wrong, but in terms of believability, I'm going to stick with scientists who have actually studied the subject and presented hard evidence rather than a 2000 year old book or a pastor who couldn't set fire to a Bunsen burner.

----------


## billyjack

> It is true that I dont completely disagree with evolution. I accept that nature revolves around with adaptation, however I do not believe in speciation, the vital aspect that supports that we derive from apes and so on.


evolution isnt religion. you cant pick and choose which parts fit in with your beliefs

----------


## West

> Two classic comedic pieces!
> 
> Cheers.
> 
> I look forward to having a beer together in hell.






LOL, it could turn out real Hell for you though instead of cold beer. I have a question for you, you are aware of history and what went and goes on in the world, all the injustices committed against defenseless people. Far too many occassions, people got away with horrendous crimes they committed against others. Wouldn't it be sensible for criminals of these calibre to face justice and to account for their deeds? You do believe in Justice don't you? giving each person their dues? That is where Hell comes in  :Biggrin:  


I disagree with some of the people in here who claim One's sins are forgiven by virtue of accepting Jesus as their saviour. I am not a christian but do understand that christianity teaches "The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him." Ezekiel 18:20 This makes more sense than the claim of Jesus dying for some criminal's sins. Justice needs to prevail and God(the one who created jesus and the rest) being just, the saviour claim has no legs to stand on.

----------


## The Atheist

> LOL, it could turn out real Hell for you though instead of cold beer. I have a question for you, you are aware of history and what went and goes on in the world, all the injustices committed against defenseless people. Far too many occassions, people got away with horrendous crimes they committed against others. Wouldn't it be sensible for criminals of these calibre to face justice and to account for their deeds? You do believe in Justice don't you? giving each person their dues? That is where Hell comes in


Sure, it's where the desire _came from_ which led to creation of the myth. For peasants and slaves under the thumb of the few, eternal evening up was a great sales pitch.

I don't believe that applies now, however, and a couple of posters in this thread are living proof of it. For some reason, the idea that they are the chosen of their god, while everyone else will burn, is attractive.

I just don't see why. If I were a theist, it would be a repulsive parody of god and I'd have to find a new church without that belief.

The world is a nasty place, and while it would be nice to think of Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot and many, many others forced to account for their sins, so monstrous were they, but it doesn't add up, in my book.





> Justice needs to prevail and God(the one who created jesus and the rest) being just, the saviour claim has no legs to stand on.


Well, that is the majority view in christianity. Seems a lot friendlier, but then again, maybe a vengeful and unfriendly god is what they're looking for.

----------


## weltanschauung

> The Slavoj Zizek article I read the other day seems to be full of useful quotes:


slavoj zizek is most excellent!

----------


## weltanschauung

> I have to admit I see nothing but irony here.
> 
> Someone makes fun of your religion and it's disrespectful and hurtful, but telling someone repeatedly that they will burn forever isn't. Didn't Jesus say something about reaping what we sow?


see, they dont get it. they dont get it that their faith, their god, their christ is so offensive to the non-christians, THEY DONT GET IT. they take non-christians as children who have no yet learned their lesson. the see all the non-christians as semi-functioning mongoloids, leading their heretic lifestyle and spreading out evil nonsense like the black plague throughout the earth. i think freud would call that projection.

on a related note, skasian, everything that comes from you towards this topic is completely offensive to my free-non-brainwashed mind and to my soul, as so is everything that you represent. please, have that in mind. your speech offends every atom of my being and hurts my feelings and leaves me with a hopeless despair towards the future of mankind. you are the personification of the most important things that i disaprove in this world. have some mercy on my suffering, and respect my pain.



nikolaiI, i enjoyed your blake quotes, but i think they were a little out of topic, unlike these:
"listen to the fools reproach, it is a kingly tittle!"

"the apple tree never asks the beech how he shall grow, nor the lion, the horse, how he shall take his prey"

"when thou seest an eagle, thou seest a portion of genius. lift up thy head!"

"the roaring of lions, the howling of wolves, the raging of the stormy sea, and the destructive sword are portions of eternity too great for the eye of man."

"always be ready to speak your mind, and a base man will avoid you."

"the eagle never lost so much time, as when he submitted to learn from the crow."


-I-

----------


## dzebra

> evolution isnt religion. you cant pick and choose which parts fit in with your beliefs


I think that analogy is unfair. Religion is not meant for people to pick and choose what they think is right, then ignore the rest. I know it happens (as it happens with scientific theories), but I don't think that is how religion is meant to be used.

----------


## West

> Sure, it's where the desire _came from_ which led to creation of the myth. For peasants and slaves under the thumb of the few, eternal evening up was a great sales pitch.
> 
> I don't believe that applies now, however, and a couple of posters in this thread are living proof of it. For some reason, the idea that they are the chosen of their god, while everyone else will burn, is attractive.
> 
> I just don't see why. If I were a theist, it would be a repulsive parody of god and I'd have to find a new church without that belief.
> 
> The world is a nasty place, and while it would be nice to think of Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot and many, many others forced to account for their sins, so monstrous were they, but it doesn't add up, in my book.
> 
> 
> ...





Religion gives and gave strength to the under-privelleged(peasants, slaves and the likes). There is no dispute about that. People who were receptive first to the prophets were the poor, the sick and the undermined not because they were intellectually less bright than the elite, but because there was equality, brotherhood, freedom, justice and common decency in the messages brought to them by men who spoke their language and who offered an alternative to their miserable existence. What is also true about peasants, slaves and other underprivelleged groups is their lack of arrogance, a complexity and a trait that almost always prevents people from listening to others they deem inferior. I must admitt that some religious people are arrogant as well, but that has to do nothing with the religion they affliate with but more with their ignorance. In God's eyes, there are no exclusive clubs, no special connection to him by virtue of claiming an allegiance to certain groups. You are as good as your deeds are. If you are a criminal, you get punished for your sins, just like we, the people, set up courts and jails to punish criminals. Likewise, those who have done their share of good in good faith are rewarded for their good deeds. I know all these would make sense to you if you believed in God's existence, but I hope you see the logic behind rewards whether they are negative(hell), or positive(heaven) in nthe eyes of faithfuls. Also, I want to make clear that when I refer to God, I don't mean Jesus as I take him to be a prophet among past prophets and nothing more. He advocatd the same faith Moses advocated for and Mohamed did after Him. I am a muslim.

----------


## The Atheist

> Also, I want to make clear that when I refer to God, I don't mean Jesus as I take him to be a prophet among past prophets and nothing more. He advocatd the same faith Moses advocated for and Mohamed did after Him. I am a muslim.


Yep, very good post, thanks.

----------


## NikolaiI

> nikolaiI, i enjoyed your blake quotes, but i think they were a little out of topic, unlike these:
> "listen to the fools reproach, it is a kingly tittle!"
> 
> "the apple tree never asks the beech how he shall grow, nor the lion, the horse, how he shall take his prey"
> 
> "when thou seest an eagle, thou seest a portion of genius. lift up thy head!"
> 
> "the roaring of lions, the howling of wolves, the raging of the stormy sea, and the destructive sword are portions of eternity too great for the eye of man."
> 
> ...


Actually they are on topic. Consider this one:

"If the doors of perception were cleansed, all would appear as it is, infinite."

Now let us do some logic with this - just to construct a little bit of philosophy. 

If we take this as a beginning, then we can say that all exists within the infinite.

What does this mean?

Consdier this statement. I came to this while I am going to sleep, and I wanted to share with you. 

A drop of water in an ocean is of the same constitutional properties as the entire ocean. It is qualitatively the same, though the quantity is different.

The same is true of gold. A particle or molecule of gold is chemically the same as the whole bar of gold.

We are the same as this. We are qualitatively the same as God - whether this God is the universe, the source of everything, the infinite, or something else.

Let us take the example of the universe - we are qualitatively the same. How can it be, or what does it mean?

I am saying this because the analogy from gold and water, it is the case in those instances.

And also, don't forget, we are going from Blake saying that if the doors of perception were cleansed, all would appear as it is, infinite.

So all is infinite, or all is divine. But it is not actually simply divine in and of itself. Vegetable matter is not divine, if there is nothing except for vegetable matter. But rather, all is divine because it is part, or rather belongs, to the divine.

All is divine because it is part of the infinite. Vegetable matter, rocks, trees, air, light, _us_, - all of this is divine because it belongs to God.

Now - whoops - I said that word which wars have been started over and which you do not adhere to.

What is Godhead? Godhead is the supreme. It's the root of existence. It's the Divine Grace. The Divine Mother and the Divine Father. There is no reason to start wars over it, and anything done so is actually only done in trying to become God, instead of trying to serve God. Just look at all the "divine right" rulers.

But just because of human affairs, actualities do not change. The universe is not affected by our actions. Enlightenment does not cease to exist simply because someone who said they were a Buddhist, Hindu, Christian (insert any label) actually committed atrocious acts.

So if what Blake said was true; that all is infinite (or as I would say, all is in some part, part of the infinite, since the infinite is the source of all) - this remains true regardless of human affairs.

As for the Christian Hell - I would say that I read your post and I understand your feelings. I feel this way - or I would if I let my feelings go completely unchecked - when someone ascribes the adjective "delusional" to one of the members of Lit-net. Get this? I get you. I feel the same way about what I just said. But I am encouraging you to consider one point. We are all human!  :Smile: 

And one other point, and this will be my last (I realize this post must when it's posted be VERY long because of one-sentence paragraphs...) - Christianity is not based on Hell. Christianity is based on Christ. 

Christ taught love of God - God consciousness. This message may not have been new, but it is what he taught. Christ taught that "the Kingdom of God is within you" and this is the message that if someone is not preaching, they are not Christian. It is good news. But it is not incompatible with other religions. If you look at Buddhist scriptures, you will find in the Great Flower Ornament Sutra it says "in every atom of the universe, there exist oceans of world systems." Similarity?

Buddha-nature. 

Hinduism also teaches that God is within. The drop of water and particle of gold comes from Hinduism.

But if you look, then you see that Buddha-nature, and divine nature, they are the same. Only Buddhists sometimes are impersonalists. They don't believe in the soul, while Hindus believe in the divine soul. It's the only difference. Both are vegetarian, and both don't eat garlic either.  :Smile:  Messes with your subtle energies.

No one has all the answers. But every one of us has the greatest potential. To quote Harrison - each soul is potentially divine.

----------


## weltanschauung

> Actually they are on topic. Consider this one:
> 
> "If the doors of perception were cleansed, all would appear as it is, infinite."
> 
> Now let us do some logic with this - just to construct a little bit of philosophy. 
> 
> If we take this as a beginning, then we can say that all exists within the infinite.
> 
> What does this mean?
> ...




_“God is an intelligible sphere, whose center is everywhere, and whose circumference is nowhere.”_ (pascal)
 :Smile:

----------


## skasian

> evolution isnt religion. you cant pick and choose which parts fit in with your beliefs


Who ever said that evolution is a religion?
Believing in an aspect evolution doesnt mean that it is a religion. Believing on your friend to do something important for you doesnt mean that your friend is a god.
What are you talking about?

----------


## skasian

> I have to admit I see nothing but irony here.
> 
> Someone makes fun of your religion and it's disrespectful and hurtful, but telling someone repeatedly that they will burn forever isn't. Didn't Jesus say something about reaping what we sow?
> 
> 
> 
> Note the bolding I made.
> 
> Sceptics question.
> ...


Insulting someone religion differs from speaking about an aspect about religion. If an aspect of an religion seems like an insult to someone, they should move on, as they do not believe in the religion. I say once again, if people arent ready for the idea of the Christian Hell, then they should avoid the thread altogether. I dont want to insult people, its just the reality about Christian hell.

"A sceptic asks questions and checks evidence to find answers. Belief has nothing to do with it."

I never said about questioning, it is in a skeptic's very nature to question, however when they find what they need to believe in something, they no longer become a skeptic. I used the dictionary to back up my thought about skeptics which you indicated it was wrong.

"Since when don't atheists accepts the ToE? "
Have you forgotten your assumption? Please, remember what you were thinking about. I was explaining that people and friends I know and talked to are atheists that dont necessarily accept evolution completely, therefore there are atheists in the world that do not accept the full ToE.

----------


## The Atheist

> Who ever said that evolution is a religion?
> Believing in an aspect evolution doesnt mean that it is a religion.


I know this isn't a question to me, but I'll answer it - and I'm very glad you ask it, because it does show a complete lack of understanding of what was said.

What he means is that the ToE cannot be cherry-picked to take the bits we like and ignore the rest.

Which is what religions do.




> I dont want to insult people, its just the reality about Christian hell.


It's the reality, _in your view_, *and* it's insulting.




> Have you forgotten your assumption?


I don't make assumptions.




> I was explaining that people and friends I know and talked to are atheists that dont necessarily accept evolution completely, therefore there are atheists in the world that do not accept the full ToE.


What do they believe instead?

What is your point?

----------


## dzebra

> I don't make assumptions.


lol  :FRlol:

----------


## weltanschauung

> *I never said about questioning*, it is in a skeptic's very nature to question, however when they find what they need to believe in something, they no longer become a skeptic.


skasian, that is exactly the problem: you DONT question anything. you are like a broken record. and see, that which you repeat is only the song some sly producer stick into you, for you are just the record, not the song.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Two classic comedic pieces!
> 
> Cheers.
> 
> I look forward to having a beer together in hell.





> amen!


Gentlemen, I have tragic news for you: since Hell is supposed to be at minimum unpleasant - the absolute void of emptiness - then the truth must be told: THERE IS NO BEER IN HELL. If there were, would it really be "hell"?

(There is, however, TV in hell).

----------


## weltanschauung

goshdarnit, redzeppelin, YOURE RIGHT!
i guess we are d00m3d!
AND I BET THE PERMANENT TV SHOW ON AIR IN HELL IS DR.PHILL!!!

----------


## Redzeppelin

> goshdarnit, redzeppelin, YOURE RIGHT!
> i guess we are d00m3d!
> AND I BET THE PERMANENT TV SHOW ON AIR IN HELL IS DR.PHILL!!!


You've been there! 

I told you the horrors there were unimaginable. 

I suggest immediate repentance and a changing of your evil ways. 

(PS - if you get to the deepest Dantean pit - Dr. Phil is there with you LIVE - and you're the main guest!)

----------


## weltanschauung

:Bawling:  :Bawling:  :Bawling:

----------


## skasian

> I know this isn't a question to me, but I'll answer it - and I'm very glad you ask it, because it does show a complete lack of understanding of what was said.
> 
> What he means is that the ToE cannot be cherry-picked to take the bits we like and ignore the rest.
> 
> Which is what religions do.
> 
> 
> 
> It's the reality, _in your view_, *and* it's insulting.
> ...


Religion is cherry picked? Would you mind to elaborate?

I dont understand why non Christians bother to discuss Christian Hell when it involves something that will make them disagree and somewhat angry. If an aspect of Christian Hell will seem insulting to them it is common sense that they should dismiss themselves from being part of the discussion. 
Its called a instinctive behaviour, if encountered by something they dont like, they should avoid it, like touching a hot pan, instinctively, the finger jerks away from the hot pan.

Let me clarify. Atheists and non believers I know do not completely accept or believe in ToE. What they believe in, the answer varies from each individual, unfortunately I do not have the time to interrogate each and every one of them.
My point, is this. That what you thought is wrong, 
"Since when don't atheists accepts the ToE? "
There are some atheists that do not accpet ToE.

----------


## skasian

> skasian, that is exactly the problem: you DONT question anything. you are like a broken record. and see, that which you repeat is only the song some sly producer stick into you, for you are just the record, not the song.


How would you know whether if I dont question anything, sorry but you are very wrong. I question alot of things and most of these just cant be answered by humans. I question about why some periods of my life is so hard, I question God sometimes why I am not what He is expecting me to be, I question myself why somethings just seem so meaningless in life. I question myself what is worth the time and effort and what is not.
And yet you remark that I do not question? You have no authority to judge me in this way just because I am religious.

----------


## billyjack

> Religion is cherry picked? Would you mind to elaborate?


sure. eye for an eye or the golden rule. your choice

----------


## skasian

> sure. eye for an eye or the golden rule. your choice


Eye for an eye? Jesus was against the idea, you should read the whole extract. Thats not cherry picking.

Golden rule being around nature? See your fingers creases, it has the golden rule, A4 follows the golden rule, shells and ferns are constructed by golden rule and so are many other things in nature. Thats mathematical measurement in nature. Thats no cherry picking.

----------


## zado_k

> Eye for an eye? Jesus was against the idea, you should read the whole extract. Thats not cherry picking.
> 
> Golden rule being around nature? See your fingers creases, it has the golden rule, A4 follows the golden rule, shells and ferns are constructed by golden rule and so are many other things in nature. Thats mathematical measurement in nature. Thats no cherry picking.


The Golden Rule in this case is not the geometric proportion - the golden ratio - but the moral principle that is often stated positively as



> Do to others as you would have them do to you


or negatively as



> Do not do to otherw what is hateful to you


It seems to have arisen in various places and times independantly and maybe even turns out to be the equivalent of more "sophisticated" moral calculi (Kant's for example).

The principle of an eye for an eye (the Lex Talonis, iirc) was repudiated by Jesus, but that's hardly to the point, since it stood presumably for a thousand years before him, as dictated by god in the Jewish scripture.

Peace and loving kindness

Z

----------


## zado_k

> Eye for an eye? Jesus was against the idea, you should read the whole extract. Thats not cherry picking.
> 
> Golden rule being around nature? See your fingers creases, it has the golden rule, A4 follows the golden rule, shells and ferns are constructed by golden rule and so are many other things in nature. Thats mathematical measurement in nature. Thats no cherry picking.


The Golden Rule in this case is not the geometric proportion - the golden ratio - but the moral principle that is often stated positively as



> Do to others as you would have them do to you


or negatively as



> Do not do to otherw what is hateful to you


It seems to have arisen in various places and times independantly and maybe even turns out to be the equivalent of more "sophisticated" moral calculi (Kant's for example).

The principle of an eye for an eye (the Lex Talonis, iirc) was repudiated by Jesus, but that's hardly to the point, since it stood presumably for a thousand years before him, as dictated by god in the Jewish scripture.

Peace and loving kindness

Z

----------


## skasian

> The Golden Rule in this case is not the geometric proportion - the golden ratio - but the moral principle that is often stated positively as
> 
> or negatively as
> 
> It seems to have arisen in various places and times independantly and maybe even turns out to be the equivalent of more "sophisticated" moral calculi (Kant's for example).
> 
> The principle of an eye for an eye (the Lex Talonis, iirc) was repudiated by Jesus, but that's hardly to the point, since it stood presumably for a thousand years before him, as dictated by god in the Jewish scripture.
> 
> Peace and loving kindness
> ...


 Thanks for clarifying the other definition of the golden ratio.
Jesus was sent to earth for many reasons and one of them was to correct the laws of moses, therefore the eye for an eye seems to be one of them.

----------


## zado_k

> Thanks for clarifying the other definition of the golden ratio.
> Jesus was sent to earth for many reasons and one of them was to correct the laws of moses, therefore the eye for an eye seems to be one of them.


May I ask then why the law of Moses needed correction? If the Bible is correct it was given to Moses directly from god. What was wrong with it and why did god hand down a flawed moral code?

----------


## skasian

> May I ask then why the law of Moses needed correction? If the Bible is correct it was given to Moses directly from god. What was wrong with it and why did god hand down a flawed moral code?


I asked this question when I was very young and I remember the pastor saying that nothing was wrong in the law of Moses however the reason for the correction was for the love of God for us. The law of Moses, some what the modern Jews strictly follow is very hard, and requires alot of attention and effort. Because God wanted less of these strict rules for us to follow, He sent Jesus to correct rules for us, rules that requires less attention and effort. 

Oh yes, may I correct my thinking about the eye for an eye? I believe it is not from the law of Moses, but an idea that was arose before the time of Jesus, which according to Jesus, is wrong.

----------


## bazarov

> Oh yes, may I correct my thinking about the eye for an eye? I believe it is not from the law of Moses, but an idea that was arose before the time of Jesus, which according to Jesus, is wrong.


Deuteronomy 19



> 21 Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.


I think it's Moses!

----------


## Saladin

> Oh yes, may I correct my thinking about the eye for an eye? I believe it is not from the law of Moses, but an idea that was arose before the time of Jesus, which according to Jesus, is wrong.



Huh? It`s not from the law of Moses? Of course it`s from there. It`s a part of the halakha and it`s in the Torah (as bazarov quoted it)

----------


## Saladin

> May I ask then why the law of Moses needed correction? If the Bible is correct it was given to Moses directly from god. What was wrong with it and why did god hand down a flawed moral code?


The mosaic laws is "outdated" according to the NT (Matt 5:17). That means christians are free from following the laws and the punishments which are prescribed for some of those crimes (adultery, murder, rape and etc). The reason is because according christianity a person will "always" do good deeds as long he have the faith that Jesus Christ is his saviour. So a person with that faith will act good, ergo the punishments which are prescribed in the mosaic laws are not necessarily "flawed moral codes", but "updated" in a way by abrogation (which is something normal in religious scriptures , in the Quran it`s called the naskh-principle, the same is in hindu scriptures).

From a christian perspective you can say God is a "software developer". First God tried to enter in a pact with a nation (Israelites) and prescribed a whole lot of laws that they had to follow. When this didnt work (i want to clarify this is from christian perspective, for jews this is rubbish). God came with a new plan. The new plan is that he sends down his own "son" so humans can recieve salvation - with other words not a salvation meant for a specific nation, but universal. That`s why you can say that both christianity and islam have a universal doctrine for salvation.

According NT, Jesus Christ (John 3:16) freed humans from the law when he died for humanities sins. That is my understanding (as a non-christian) on why you can`t use the_ "tooth for tooth"_ argument on christians. Because that law is not prescribed for them anymore, so it will basically be irrelevant.

----------


## Saladin

wrong post

----------


## The Atheist

> Religion is cherry picked? Would you mind to elaborate?


I gave a list of hundreds of contradictions earlier.

Or, a subject which is irrefutable, since it concerns the bible - are the apocrypha. Men decided which bits went into the bible, men decide which bits get read in churches.




> I dont understand why non Christians bother to discuss Christian Hell when it involves something that will make them disagree and somewhat angry.


I've been discussing aspects of religion for 40 years - I see no reason to stop now. 

Why do I do it?

It's entertaining, and very occasionally, enlightening.

It enables me to see where the issues I wish to take on are, how deeply they're entrenched and trying to find possible ways to counter them. Also, to make sure that sufficient record is kept of the non-arguments for creationism to ensure that it never, ever gets close to being taught in public schools.

Not a word of it, however, makes me angry. My writing can look like that because I'm a forceful kinda bloke - personally and in prose, but angry, I ain't. I can get angry at wilful ignorance, but that's about the only thing, so you have no more chance of angering me than converting me.

 :Wink: 




> If an aspect of Christian Hell will seem insulting to them it is common sense that they should dismiss themselves from being part of the discussion.


Don't you think that's a pretty arrogant attitude? 

I know you just can't quite grasp that it is insulting, and to some degree, nor do I, but the plain facts are that some people find it insulting to be repeatedly told that they're going to hell.

Things are insulting because someone feels they are, not because the writer intends an insult. 




> Its called a instinctive behaviour, if encountered by something they dont like, they should avoid it, like touching a hot pan, instinctively, the finger jerks away from the hot pan.


So, you believe that the rule of "respect the belief of others" should only apply to non-christians? It's this simple - if someone else's beliefs make your assertion about hell insulting, then repeating it many times can only be disrespectful. Do we build fences around swimming pools? With that hot pan on your stove, do you put it right at the front, with the handle facing outwards? Even your own analogy shows the point - we think about other people as well as ourselves.

I always thought christianity taught that.

_Mea culpa._




> Let me clarify. Atheists and non believers I know do not completely accept or believe in ToE. What they believe in, the answer varies from each individual, unfortunately I do not have the time to interrogate each and every one of them.


That was my point exactly - you don't know, because you won't have asked the right questions. It's not a case of interrogation, but simply sorting the group of atheists into materialist/rationalists and other sections, which tells you about what they *do* believe, unlike atheism, which only tells you about what they don't.

I've explained many times that atheists comprise a wide range of people who self-assume the tag, which is how it's meant to be.

On the other hand, materialist atheists are a group of people who do share similar beliefs and I would challenge anyone, anytime, to find a material atheist who seriously challenges the ToE.

Anyone else's opinion is irrelevant to me.

----------


## skasian

> Deuteronomy 19
> 
> I think it's Moses!


Ah, thanks for the correction.

----------


## skasian

> I gave a list of hundreds of contradictions earlier.
> 
> Or, a subject which is irrefutable, since it concerns the bible - are the apocrypha. Men decided which bits went into the bible, men decide which bits get read in churches.
> 
> 
> 
> I've been discussing aspects of religion for 40 years - I see no reason to stop now. 
> 
> Why do I do it?
> ...


No, I dont mind non religious people like you that doesnt shout of offensive language about Christianity and its belief in hell since you are open to discuss without lack of respect. It is that some atheists and non Christians that gets themselves in angst about hearing somethings that they dont want to hear when it was their responsibility to put themselves in that position.

I am sorry for all the people that have felt the pain of me speaking out the belief in some Christians, but what do people expect out of this thread named as "The Christian Hell"? Wouldnt the rules that follow about Christian hell be inevitably brought up? In real life, the word hell represents the most insulting and abhorrent atmosphere. The thread that is called "The Christian Hell" obviously is going to contain some abhorrent components and it should be clear for people to realise this before allowing themselves to be into the discussion. I really have to ask you, is it my fault to bring up the most horrific truth about Hell? If it I have emphasised it too much, then I apologise, but I just want people to know that it is not in my responsibility to induce people to feel insulted, they should be the ones to expect that some component are going to be somewhat insultive.

It seems the rule that who ends up in hell is causing great harm for everyone. I vow that I never speak out this rule again. Now this rule is out of the way, what else is there to discuss about Christian Hell? There is not much about it, just souls in inexplicable pain, fear and all those detrimental emotions and feelings. Let see, if Christian Hell exists or not? Let us experience that ourselves in the end of time.

A thing I want to thank you about is your ability to control yourself when perceiving contrasting perspectives and views about Christianity that you may not necessarily agree with. You dont dispute without manners and respect out of your anger like some people here and in the world. And finally please, dont get any idea that I am trying to convert you, I have no intention to do so.

----------


## Pendragon

> It's the reality, _in your view_, *and* it's insulting.


Just one quick question, my friend, for I do consider you a friend. Why be insulted by another's reality, as this is something you cannot believe and cannot see. 

A quote from Thomas Jefferson:

"It makes no difference to me if my neighbor believes in no God or more Gods. It doesn't pick my pocket." This is paraphrased, as the exact quote is on my home computer and I am at work, but you get the idea. What someone deems worthy of belief and thinks you should know is no more insulting than for you to tell them you think they are being irrational. It should insult no one to hear someone out, and then agree or disagree and just move on. 

That said, this thread should probably close, because this is getting us no further than when it first began. Some feel mankind is doomed to hell and others don't think so. That sums it up pretty good. 

Do I think you are going to hell? I don't know you, and that would be judging, which the Bible expressly forbids. As I said before, I think Judgement Day will be filled with surprises for a lot of people, many of them who believe themselves to be solid Christians.

Sorry to post again after I folded, but I am certain you will forgive me.

God Bless

Pen

----------


## Pendragon

And to another friend, Skasian. You have openly made your point and have warned people about the reality of hell. Having done so, you are free from their blood should they wind in in that awful place. Further argument is unnecessary. 

I think you are very sincere, and that you are concerned and caring. But what people cannot believe, they cannot believe. Go in peace, my sister. 

God bless

Pen

----------


## The Atheist

> It seems the rule that who ends up in hell is causing great harm for everyone. I vow that I never speak out this rule again. Now this rule is out of the way, what else is there to discuss about Christian Hell?


Other people have different ideas, and the point of the thread was to find a wide spread of opinion.

I think we have had that, but maybe it's been a bit overshadowed.

No matter - we're all in tune now.

 :Smile: 




> Just one quick question, my friend, for I do consider you a friend.


Just as well - I'd be insulted if you didn't!




> Why be insulted by another's reality, as this is something you cannot believe and cannot see.


My sentiments entirely - it's the same to me as David Icke's supporters telling me I'm insane because I don't see the evidence of alien lizards. You may as well threaten me with the Cottingley Fairies.

I would bet that everyone in this thread knew before they entered it that some christians feel the way skasian does. The problem seems to be the repetition of it, which does come across as arrogant, "You're going to hell!" repeated endlessly gets under the skin.

In NZ, at least, we can laugh at it because Hell is an extremely successful pizza chain company which makes the best pizzas outside of specialist Italian restaurants. Many churches have felt insulted by both the name Hell and its highly amusing and Satanic advertising, and have made an immense number of official complaints to the regulatory bodies. The RCC has even asked its members to boycott the company.

To me, this is the identical situation in reverse and I ask myself why on earth those churches would care about it at all. According to their own theology, the people involved cannot be christian and cannot harm the church or its members, so why the fuss? 




> As I said before, I think Judgement Day will be filled with surprises for a lot of people, many of them who believe themselves to be solid Christians.


Yep, we agree here, because if such a thing as a god exists, I bet humans have got him completely wrong.




> Sorry to post again after I folded, but I am certain you will forgive me.


I'll give it serious consideration.

 :Wink:

----------


## Pendragon

> In NZ, at least, we can laugh at it because Hell is an extremely successful pizza chain company which makes the best pizzas outside of specialist Italian restaurants. Many churches have felt insulted by both the name Hell and its highly amusing and Satanic advertising, and have made an immense number of official complaints to the regulatory bodies. The RCC has even asked its members to boycott the company.
> 
> To me, this is the identical situation in reverse and I ask myself why on earth those churches would care about it at all. According to their own theology, the people involved cannot be christian and cannot harm the church or its members, so why the fuss?


Mountains and molehills, or Jesus' motes and beams. Camels and the eye of a needle, etc. Much ado about nothing. My motto is: If things are as they are, deal with it.  :Smile: 

When it comes to churches, I have, as a Minister, had a lot of doors closed for speaking my mind. But I am sure there are others who would be glad to hear someone like me speak. Que sera, sera.

----------


## weltanschauung

> How would you know whether if I dont question anything, sorry but you are very wrong. I question alot of things and most of these just cant be answered by humans. I question about why some periods of my life is so hard, I question God sometimes why I am not what He is expecting me to be, I question myself why somethings just seem so meaningless in life. I question myself what is worth the time and effort and what is not.
> And yet you remark that I do not question? You have no authority to judge me in this way just because I am religious.



how do you know what "god" is expecting you to be? and why do you think he '"expects" anything at all? 
what i dont understand is why do you see god as a person, but a huge one?
what i gather from what you say is that you see god as a gigantic superego, judging and pointing the finger down to his worthless children, an out of reach tyrant father, ordering around and expecting submission, or else punishment. i look at this kind of thought as infantile and under-elaborated, and that weltanschauung is the general rule in the world.
i dont believe in this god, because that is simply humankind's superego projection, and if there is something in this reality that is the demiurg, it is nature and the universe, and there isnt an outside force interfering and expecting anything, because the universe's laws are unavoidable and unchangeable. polarity and atraction and repulsion, that is "god". it is an eternal mechanism, but it doesnt think, cause we're the ones who do. a cloud and a rock and planet saturn dont think yet they're all alive, because the universe is alive, otherwise we wouldnt be here to question it. 
therefore, god isnt "outside" of the world, watching and analising. god IS the world, we exist in "him", and he's not interfering and sending worthless parts of himself into an enternal ring of fire, because there is nothing outside of him.

----------


## billyjack

> how do you know what "god" is expecting you to be? and why do you think he '"expects" anything at all? 
> what i dont understand is why do you see god as a person, but a huge one?
> what i gather from what you say is that you see god as a gigantic superego, judging and pointing the finger down to his worthless children, an out of reach tyrant father, ordering around and expecting submission, or else punishment. i look at this kind of thought as infantile and under-elaborated, and that weltanschauung is the general rule in the world.
> i dont believe in this god, because that is simply humankind's superego projection, and if there is something in this reality that is the demiurg, it is nature and the universe, and there isnt an outside force interfering and expecting anything, because the universe's laws are unavoidable and unchangeable. polarity and atraction and repulsion, that is "god". it is an eternal mechanism, but it doesnt think, cause we're the ones who do. a cloud and a rock and planet saturn dont think yet they're all alive, because the universe is alive, otherwise we wouldnt be here to question it. 
> therefore, god isnt "outside" of the world, watching and analising. god IS the world, we exist in "him", and he's not interfering and sending worthless parts of himself into an enternal ring of fire, because there is nothing outside of him.


the philosophers god. a new word is needed other than god though--too many anthropomorphic and religious implications. i've always been keen on allan watts name for it, "IT"

----------


## weltanschauung

agreed.

i watched this video once on youtube and i couldnt help laughing at it, because even though most christians arent this hysterically psychotic, i see all of the main characteristics of this lady in them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOpva_iit-8

now this is also something that makes no sense at all to me...
why is it that nature is so evil under their eyes? nature is everything that is pure, arent we the filthy ones?

----------


## billyjack

> agreed.
> 
> i watched this video once on youtube and i couldnt help laughing at it, because even though most christians arent this hysterically psychotic, i see all of the main characteristics of this lady in them.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOpva_iit-8
> 
> now this is also something that makes no sense at all to me...
> why is it that nature is so evil under their eyes? nature is everything that is pure, arent we the filthy ones?


watched it: terrifying, vile, and cringefully funny. she's from the country i call home too...albeit the south 

the beef with nature is some deep seeded self loathing that's beyond me...or self righteousness for that matter: too supreme to be part of the natural universe

----------


## The Atheist

> i've always been keen on allan watts name for it, "IT"


Bit Steven King.

What's wrong with Lucas' _Force_?

----------


## billyjack

i hear "down under" there's a rather large proportion of people who claim jedi as their religion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jedi_census_phenomenon

i can live with force, it, the, spaghetti monster, whatever. just so the implications of the word don't involve a heaven or a hell

----------


## blp

> agreed.
> 
> i watched this video once on youtube and i couldnt help laughing at it, because even though most christians arent this hysterically psychotic, i see all of the main characteristics of this lady in them.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOpva_iit-8
> 
> now this is also something that makes no sense at all to me...
> why is it that nature is so evil under their eyes? nature is everything that is pure, arent we the filthy ones?


Those poor kids. They need to be taken away from that woman for their own protection. I actually couldn't watch it all, but it gives us a good, new way of understanding the subject of this thread, doesn't it? The Christian Hell. quod erat demonstrandum.

----------


## blp

> What's wrong with Lucas' _Force_?


Seriously? I know it might sound a bit humourless, but I do really dislike the earnestness with which that creed's put forward in the films, the notion that what seem to be the limits of natural law are really just the limits of our own preconceptions. It's very anti-Kantian.  :Wink:  And there are just too many people bumbling around with these kinds of ideas in real life for me to be able to see it as harmless in those movies.

----------


## weltanschauung

> i hear "down under" there's a rather large proportion of people who claim jedi as their religion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jedi_census_phenomenon
> 
> i can live with force, it, the, spaghetti monster, whatever. just so the implications of the word don't involve a heaven or a hell



hey, since you mentioned...

http://www.ooze.com/toolofsatan/

----------


## weltanschauung

> Those poor kids. They need to be taken away from that woman for their own protection. I actually couldn't watch it all, but it gives us a good, new way of understanding the subject of this thread, doesn't it? The Christian Hell. quod erat demonstrandum.


quod erat demonstrandum indeed.

----------


## The Atheist

> Seriously?


The name, not the philosophy.

----------


## Pendragon

This woman needs help herself. She cannot help others with that attitude. Christian is as Christian does and acts. I trust this isn't only way people view Christianity, through a warped lens given by a warped person.

God help us all if Christianity is degraded in this manner by those who profess it. May I never give the people on this site who know me as a Christian that type of horrible image.

God bless you all.

Pen

----------


## The Atheist

> This woman needs help herself. She cannot help others with that attitude. Christian is as Christian does and acts. I trust this isn't only way people view Christianity, through a warped lens given by a warped person.


Not worth bothering with - every side has its lunatics.

I know atheists at least as mad as she is.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> I know atheists at least as mad as she is.


Me too! We agree on something! Woooooweeeeee!

----------


## skasian

> And to another friend, Skasian. You have openly made your point and have warned people about the reality of hell. Having done so, you are free from their blood should they wind in in that awful place. Further argument is unnecessary. 
> 
> I think you are very sincere, and that you are concerned and caring. But what people cannot believe, they cannot believe. Go in peace, my sister. 
> 
> God bless
> 
> Pen


Thank you for your words and your complements. Yes I agree that further argument is not required. God bless you too :Smile:

----------


## skasian

> how do you know what "god" is expecting you to be? and why do you think he '"expects" anything at all? 
> what i dont understand is why do you see god as a person, but a huge one?
> what i gather from what you say is that you see god as a gigantic superego, judging and pointing the finger down to his worthless children, an out of reach tyrant father, ordering around and expecting submission, or else punishment. i look at this kind of thought as infantile and under-elaborated, and that weltanschauung is the general rule in the world.
> i dont believe in this god, because that is simply humankind's superego projection, and if there is something in this reality that is the demiurg, it is nature and the universe, and there isnt an outside force interfering and expecting anything, because the universe's laws are unavoidable and unchangeable. polarity and atraction and repulsion, that is "god". it is an eternal mechanism, but it doesnt think, cause we're the ones who do. a cloud and a rock and planet saturn dont think yet they're all alive, because the universe is alive, otherwise we wouldnt be here to question it. 
> therefore, god isnt "outside" of the world, watching and analising. god IS the world, we exist in "him", and he's not interfering and sending worthless parts of himself into an enternal ring of fire, because there is nothing outside of him.


Let me just clarify what I believe in, and response to your enquires.

I do not believe that God is a mortal person but a high being that is far from comprehension. Because we are created in the image of God, I believe our personalities and emotions came from God as well, such as expressing love, hope, happiness, anger etc. I believe the relationship between a human father and his offspring is similar to what we have with God, therefore a Father for us all.

I do not believe He points down his finger at "his worthless children", what ever He may not approve is our decisions that lack morality and virtue. He created us for the hope of us being His children, able to love him back and praise Him with all our might. He WANTS us to respect and follow His Words just like any other father in our world.

Now let me share my view of God being "outside" of our world. I believe when He first created the earth, He created three skies, the blue sky we see from earth, the infinite stretch of sky existing in the universe, and the final sky called heaven. I believe that God resides in the heaven, looking down on us in earth with His Holy Spirit moving around Earth. Now let me ask you a question, how is a cloud, rock, planet saturn in a universe "living"? How confident are you to believe that universe is living? How do you define "living"?Cloud is formed by water vapour, a lifeless gas, rock is a small lifeless component of the earth crust being separated from the ground and planet saturn is a lifeless gaseous sphere held by forces of the solar system's belt. How is the universe "alive" when such motion and interference have absolutely nothing to do with being "alive".

If following your logic, every religious person must worship everything in universe because it contains God. There is a reason why people dont worship rocks, clouds and planet saturn. Because God resides in Heavens, religious people look up to Him and worship Him upwards, in a realm where we cannot comprehend.

God created the universe, and once again, the universe is not Him, and nothing inside the universe can be God, unless His spirit resides in one, (ie God takes form of a burning bush when encountering Moses). 
I believe that God is a true being that exists in the Heaven, and it is His Holy Spirit that revolves around us everyday in earth, watching our every move. 

And may I ask what is weltanschauung?

----------


## skasian

> In NZ, at least, we can laugh at it because Hell is an extremely successful pizza chain company which makes the best pizzas outside of specialist Italian restaurants. Many churches have felt insulted by both the name Hell and its highly amusing and Satanic advertising, and have made an immense number of official complaints to the regulatory bodies. The RCC has even asked its members to boycott the company.


I have a question about Hell pizza chain company, because I heard this often as a rumour, but just asking you if you know anything about this.
Hell pizza belongs to a large chain group, including Burger King, Demon Drink, Starbucks, Mudfight Bikini festival that includes unappropriate nudity in women.
There have been on going rumour that these large chain companies dedicate a sum of their incomes to a cult that worships satan and devils. It seemed odious to realise that Hell pizza and Demon drink dedicates its image in these devilish theme, BK playing around "Whooper" which means hitting and slapping on people, Starbucks with its central logo, which represents goddess of all evil and Bikini festival containing very immoral behaviours.

I dont want to believe in these rumours, however I just want to ask if you know anything about this large chain group all directing to such abhorrence to be true.

----------


## Leksandar

I love how atheism is slowly becoming a new religion, mostly being spread by insecure people that want to seem intellectual by underlining how religion cannot be proved through empiricism etc. It's not the point people. The point is that a shoemaker or an engineer doesn't need existential angst. That's religion's purpose in society. A doctor's job is to fix the gears, a teacher's job is to raise gears, and a priest's job is to convince the gear of the fact that there is a point in ticking the clock that is society. And now atheism is taking over that part in society, because we know enough now to be able to relax even when in the face of empiricism, but the truth? People, the truth is that we know nothing at all. 

The conclusion? Richard Dawkins is a dork, and this «discussion» is absurd.

Thank you.

(Oh, and I do hope_ skasian_ was joking with that last post about pizza and hellish demon cults, because there's a grave difference between being a model citizen and just plain... stupid. Ick.)

(And just for the record, I'm an agnostic. Not because I'm too lazy to make up my mind, but because I'm sincere, though I do not expect that of you unless your ambitions are as high as mine.)

----------


## skasian

> (Oh, and I do hope_ skasian_ was joking with that last post about pizza and hellish demon cults, because there's a grave difference between being a model citizen and just plain... stupid. Ick.)


If it was to be true, which I hope is not, all model citizens are paying their hardearned money towards evil.

----------


## weltanschauung

skasian, i apreciate your effort to explain your point of views, you are extremely patient and kind in your words. but i disagree with every single word you say  :Smile: 
i also think your view is filled with contradictions you clearly dont suspect, but...

"He created us for the hope of us being His children"
thats it? thats why we exist? thats the reason for all of this? that is way too naive and underelaborated for me..

"Now let me ask you a question, how is a cloud, rock, planet saturn in a universe "living"? How confident are you to believe that universe is living? How do you define "living"?"
the universe is alive and expanding, in motion, that isnt just an empirical assumption, everything is alive, the atoms are pulsing, in that rock, in my finger, in planet saturn, that is a scientific fact... the seed of life lies latent everywhere in the universe, given the right conditions for life to blossom, it does, because life is latent in our universe, because the universe itself is alive. 


i dont think you realise, but you have an anthropomorphicized vision of god, you give him human characteristics. you give him thoughts, and feelings and behaviours

"If following your logic, every religious person must worship everything in universe because it contains God. There is a reason why people dont worship rocks, clouds and planet saturn. Because God resides in Heavens, religious people look up to Him and worship Him upwards, in a realm where we cannot comprehend."
"*How is the universe "alive" when such motion and interference have absolutely nothing to do with being "alive*"."

movement and motion are EXACTLY everything that define life. im not talking about arms and legs here, skasian, get out of your box.
you know.. maybe if people "worshiped" nature instead of jhwh frankenstein, the world would not have turned into a huge pile of s%#t and trash. there is nothing holier than nature.
yeah, god resides in heaven, sitting somewhere drinking ambrosia and thinking "hmm, im gonna start some s**t today " 

"God created the universe, and once again, the universe is not Him, and nothing inside the universe can be God, unless His spirit resides in one, (ie God takes form of a burning bush when encountering Moses)."

"aham eva param brahman", skasian.

what is weltanschauung? 





6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.
7 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:
8 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.


*"Battle not with monsters lest ye become a monster and if you gaze into the abyss the abyss gazes into you.."*
spread your wings, ikarus.

----------


## weltanschauung

> (Oh, and I do hope_ skasian_ was joking with that last post about pizza and hellish demon cults, because there's a grave difference between being a model citizen and just plain... stupid. Ick.)


she isnt




> If it was to be true, which I hope is not, all model citizens are paying their hardearned money towards evil.

----------


## billyjack

> The conclusion? Richard Dawkins is a dork, and this «discussion» is absurd.


the #2 intellectual in the world a dork? obviously. but he's also witty, sincere, and brilliant....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mmskXXetcg

of course this topic is absurd. but people believe it so we discuss it

----------


## The Atheist

> Because we are created in the image of God, I believe our personalities and emotions came from God as well, such as expressing love, hope, happiness, anger etc.


Again, we arrive at the position that the god created us, complete with our sin, which he abhors.

Doesn't add up.




> I have a question about Hell pizza chain company, because I heard this often as a rumour, but just asking you if you know anything about this.
> Hell pizza belongs to a large chain group, including Burger King, Demon Drink, Starbucks, Mudfight Bikini festival that includes unappropriate nudity in women.


False.

Hell Pizza is a privately owned NZ company and no relation at all to BK or Starbucks. BK and Starbucks aren't related either. I've never heard of the Bikini Festival, but Demon Energy [drink] is just another small, privately-owned NZ company which is no relation to any of the others.

This information is available through the NZ Government website here.

The Mudfight Bikini Festival sounds great - where is it? (and when)




> There have been on going rumour that these large chain companies dedicate a sum of their incomes to a cult that worships satan and devils.


The rumour is false. Starbucks and BK are publicly-listed companies whose books are subject to close audit by several regulatory bodies and there is no payment to demonic cults.

Hell has a chain going, but Demon Energy are a very small company.




> It seemed odious to realise that Hell pizza and Demon drink dedicates its image in these devilish theme, BK playing around "Whooper" which means hitting and slapping on people, Starbucks with its central logo, which represents goddess of all evil and Bikini festival containing very immoral behaviours.


 :FRlol:  :FRlol:  :FRlol:  :FRlol: 

Good grief, where did you get all this?

Hell Pizza and Demon Drink are simply trading on your own fears. Why do you think they came up with those names? Because the owners know that controversy creates talk, which creates business. First rule of business is to get your brand name known, and it's sad but true that any company which chooses a demonic or hell theme will attract publicity because people from various churches will kick up a fuss - and in your case, pass on unfounded rumours.

Just think - every time you pass on that rumour, you are actually helping those companies, which is both funny and ironic.

The BK, is a "WHOPPER", which is just big, rather than a whooper, so that one's gone, and as for Starbucks' logo being a goddess, it comes from Greek mythology, so it's no relation to anything you'd need to worry about. Would you have a problem if their logo was Zeus or Hercules?




> I dont want to believe in these rumours, however I just want to ask if you know anything about this large chain group all directing to such abhorrence to be true.


There you go - all lies, every bit of it, you can drink coffee and eat burgers to your heart's content. I can understand you not going to Hell Pizza, though. Even the Catholic church asked its members to avoid the place. Their pizzas are ok. Demon Energy is just typical guarana/caffeine rubbish and shouldn't be fit for human consumption. They'll go broke anyway - as has every Kiwi company which has tried to break into the "energy" drink market.




> I love how atheism is slowly becoming a new religion, mostly being spread by insecure people that want to seem intellectual by underlining how religion cannot be proved through empiricism etc.


This is just wrong.

Please do explain how insecurity has anything to do with atheism?




> The conclusion? Richard Dawkins is a dork, and this «discussion» is absurd.


Well, it certainly seems to have got that way today.




> (And just for the record, I'm an agnostic. Not because I'm too lazy to make up my mind, but because I'm sincere, though I do not expect that of you unless your ambitions are as high as mine.)


Thanks. Marvellous to have such a paragon of sincerity and honesty in the discussion. 

Given your ability to insult people based only upon your own mistaken views, I really have my doubts about your sincerity, but if you say it, it must be true.

----------


## Leksandar

Try again.

----------


## The Atheist

> Try again.


Nah, I'm pretty comfortable with the response.

----------


## skasian

> Again, we arrive at the position that the god created us, complete with our sin, which he abhors.
> 
> Doesn't add up.
> 
> 
> 
> False.
> 
> Hell Pizza is a privately owned NZ company and no relation at all to BK or Starbucks. BK and Starbucks aren't related either. I've never heard of the Bikini Festival, but Demon Energy [drink] is just another small, privately-owned NZ company which is no relation to any of the others.
> ...


Actually I never passed on such rumour as I believed it was untrue, I was just asking you if you know anything about it. Thanks for confirming that all is false, and I heard these rumours but a bunch of school people couple of years back.
Oh yeah, I dont have much a thing against Hell pizza, I think they use these devilish themes to increase their profits and fame. I prefer Dominoes, Hell pizzas are way too spicy :Smile: 

Oh yes, God is absolute good and truth, and we are not, so we are capable of sin.

----------


## Pendragon

Dawkins is far from a "dork", someone needs a lesson in humility before calling others names. This discussion became obsolete once people made their points on belief or disbelief in hell...

----------


## Rush_of_Blood

i have looked at all the posts, and i don't see what you are trying to answer now. it seems like it's now turned into a general philosophical debate. what main question are we answering now?

----------


## skasian

I say there isnt much to discuss about the Christian Hell to a further extent, which may make up the reason why people are drifting along some irrelevant philosophical debates.

----------


## skasian

> skasian, i apreciate your effort to explain your point of views, you are extremely patient and kind in your words. but i disagree with every single word you say 
> i also think your view is filled with contradictions you clearly dont suspect, but...
> 
> "He created us for the hope of us being His children"
> thats it? thats why we exist? thats the reason for all of this? that is way too naive and underelaborated for me..
> 
> "Now let me ask you a question, how is a cloud, rock, planet saturn in a universe "living"? How confident are you to believe that universe is living? How do you define "living"?"
> the universe is alive and expanding, in motion, that isnt just an empirical assumption, everything is alive, the atoms are pulsing, in that rock, in my finger, in planet saturn, that is a scientific fact... the seed of life lies latent everywhere in the universe, given the right conditions for life to blossom, it does, because life is latent in our universe, because the universe itself is alive. 
> 
> ...




""He created us for the hope of us being His children"
thats it? thats why we exist? thats the reason for all of this? that is way too naive and underelaborated for me.."

I apologise for my vague approach of expressing my view. Let me put in this context; A man created another human for the hope of them to be his children. Now let us think the reason for all this, why man decides that he wants to become a father. He desires company, create and get to know a human being that has half of his characteristics, physical, pyschological, intellectual etc. He desires to leave a footprint of himself, he desires his footprints to feel the same appreciation of life as he does. He desires to give life to human beings that is part of his flesh and blood. He desires to love and be loved by them, he desires to be proud and be prouded of. He desires beings that he can call his own.

And so did God from the beginning. 

So yes, I do give God the same characteristics and personality/emotions that we humans do. I believe we received some of his characteristics including the ability to feel emotions from the start of Creation. However, I believe that we received very little of these characteristics from him ie. we have limitations of loving a fixed number of people, whereas God can love with no limitations. 

Ok the scientific definition of "life" is MRS C GREN. M- movement, R- respiratory (exhanging of gases) , S-Sensory, C-Circulation (of blood and materials throughout the body), G- Growth, R-Reproduction, E-Excretory, N-Nutrition. This is from a memory of my intermediate school in science class, and any school student will be able to recognise what in this world is living and what is not. The moon, fire, rock, cloud, planet saturn or the universe is NOT living. The universe may CONTAIN life, as it contains organisms in earth and maybe some odd UFO, but let me make it clear, itself is not living.
You tell any scientist that an atom is living, they will laugh at your face. A.T.O.M comes from Atomic Theory of Matter, and matter is always divided into two, living and nonliving. Atom are the smallest particles we can get that can make up either a living or nonliving matter. The scientific word "living" and anything that possesses life, must have MRS C GREN, and thats that. 

The rock with some mosses? Rock itself doesnt cover the MRS C GREN therefore non living. The mosses does cover the MRS C GREN therefore living. The rock provides mosses its habitat and partially responsible for its niche, nothing more. The two things are not the same.

May I ask what "aham eva param brahman" is?

We should worship nature? For what purpose? It contains life, and provides habitat and necessarily materials, but then what? God created nature, and he also created us. In this logic, worshipping nature is like worshipping the next person you see walking past you.

Sorry, but I still dont understand weltanschauung with a couple of random images and verses from the bible. Could you please elaborate?

----------


## Nightshade

Weltanschang is world view quite literally. It means the way you view the world, glass half full glass half empty kind of. Humm on a completly no religious topic 2 differnt weltanschangs for choosing to go to university.
1) A degree is nesscery to get on in life.
2) Learning is an amazing thing and I study purly for the sake of it.

You get me? 
 :Biggrin:

----------


## skasian

> Weltanschang is world view quite literally. It means the way you view the world, glass half full glass half empty kind of. Humm on a completly no religious topic 2 differnt weltanschangs for choosing to go to university.
> 1) A degree is nesscery to get on in life.
> 2) Learning is an amazing thing and I study purly for the sake of it.
> 
> You get me?


I got you. Thanks for elucidating. :Smile:

----------


## Rozzy

Any one ready for a new perspective on Hell? Maybe you already have discussed this, I never went back and read this whole thread.

The Bible is a chronology of past events in time which speaks long about God and all that entails. Today we are taught doctrines especially from the New Testament on both the first advent of Christ and the second.
Concerning the Bible we either believe its teachings or we do not, what if someone has fiddled with the Bible and its teachings and there by we are being taught the doctrines of men rather than the doctrines of God?

Pre christian and early christians up until the fifth century never believed in eternity spent in hell for anyone. Yes that is true, so where do these eternity in hell teachings come from? The answer is quite uncomplicated and short, JEROME that is where.

How can that be when your Bibles all use the word eternal? I can tell you how actually. Several things happened, 1. Jereome switched the Septuagint text out and inserted the Babylonian text 2. Jerome changed the text and 3. he added 2 Peter and Jude which teach a whole new doctrine. 

The Septuagint Bible is the Bible used from the third century B.C. up until the fifth century A.D. This text was a Greek translation of the ancient Hebrew scriptures, it came into being because Greek is the language being spoken at the time. The Septuagint Bible is the first Bible, it was translated by Hebrew scholars from Hebrew into Greek. 
A major change was taking place, around the fifth century Latin was replacing Greek as the common language. Jerome was asked to translate the scriptures into a standard Latin tranlsation, he was given sole authority over the project and that is where the problems begin.

----------


## Rozzy

First lets look at the word eternal

The Greek (Septuagint) uses the word 'aionios', today if you look it up in a modern lexicon it will be determined to mean eternal, forever, etc. 
However if you look it up and its use in the early christian era and the writings from that time it is not used in that sense. Theoligins have been saying it now for so long to mean eternal that its modern use has now morphed.
Aionios as originally used meant a set time or period which varied depending on the circumstances it was being used. It could mean a set time like three years or a lifetime or an aeon etc. 
The Latin equivalent of aionios is 'seculorum' but the word Jerome used was 'aeternum' which is the word english derives the word eternal.
A perfect example is Ephesians ch.3:11 where Jerome did use 'seculorum' but when it came to the words of Jesus he used the word 'aeternum'. 
So now Jerome's new translation used the term 'aeternum iusti' which means eternal punishment. That is why our Bibles now say the nonchristian dead will be resurrected to face eternal punishment.
The Septuagint used the word aionios in many places to describe things and events that had already happened and ended so it is not representative of eternal.

----------


## Rozzy

Something Jerome did was vigorously promote 2 Peter and Jude to be added to the canon. The importance of this can be shown by comparing the doctrines taught in these books as compared to the Old Testament books. The most quoted being Isaiah so let us start there.

(Isa 65:17) For there shall be a new heaven and a new earth: and they shall not at all remember the former, neither shall they at all come into their mind.
(Isa 65:18) But they shall find in her joy and exultation; for, behold, I make Jerusalem a rejoicing, and my people a joy.
(Isa 65:19) And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and will be glad in my people: and there shall no more be heard in her the voice of weeping, or the voice of crying.
(Isa 65:20) Neither shall there be there any more a child that dies untimely, or an old man who shall not complete his time: for the youth shall be a hundred years old, and the sinner who dies at a hundred years shall also be accursed:
Brentons-Septuagint

Notice the transformation of a new heaven and new earth, children being born and sinners dieing at a hundred years old.

Now we will look at 2 Peter on the same subject.

(2Pe 3:7) But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
(2Pe 3:10) But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
(2Pe 3:11) Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
(2Pe 3:12) Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?
(2Pe 3:13) Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

Look at the difference here, the ungodly are going to be burned up instead of living to be a hundred, the heavens and the earth will pass away in a firey destruction.

It is interesting how 2 Peter opposes Isaiah on this very subject.

The Septuagint says the unrighteous dead will be resurrected to 'aionios kolasis' which means temporary punishment not eternal punishment.

The christian founders believed in temporary punishment, the early christians believed in temporary punishment, from the time forward from Jerome the new christians were taught eternal punishment and because it was now scripture and being taught whole heartedly over time it became the standard doctrine being taught.

----------


## Rozzy

Here is another interesting fact.

The Bible also teaches that after their punishment Sodom and Gommorrah will be restored to their original state.

(Eze 16:53) And I will turn their captivity, even the captivity of Sodom and her daughters; and I will turn the captivity of Samaria and her daughters; and I will turn thy captivity in the midst of them:
(Eze 16:54) that thou mayest bear thy punishment, and be dishonoured for all that thou hast done in provoking me to anger.
(Eze 16:55) And thy sister Sodom and her daughters shall be restored as they were at the beginning, and thou and thy daughters shall be restored as ye were at the beginning.

Now let us look at Jude ch.1:7
(Jud 1:7) As Sodom and Gomorrha and the neighbouring cities, in like manner, having given themselves to fornication and going after other flesh, were made an example, suffering the punishment of eternal fire.
English translation of the Vulgate

(Jud 1:7) Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
KJV

Do you see the difference?
Ezekiel has Sodom and Gommorrah redeemed and Jude has Sodom and Gommorrah set as an example of suffering eternal punishment in fire.

You can do a whole study on christianity before Jerome and after, what I have posted is just the surface, but the number one thing that stands out is how he did it, he switched the Septuagint for another text, then made changes to that text and added 2 Peter and Jude.

----------


## Pendragon

2 Timothy 3:7
EVER LEARNING, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

----------


## Rozzy

And some are indoctrinated beyond reason so that they can not see the truth though it is in plain veiw right in front of them.

----------


## blp

Thanks for this detailed explanation, Rozzy. Very interesting.

----------


## Pendragon

> And some are indoctrinated beyond reason so that they can not see the truth though it is in plain veiw right in front of them.


Hey, don't get me wrong, if you go back on the posts you will find my own arguments against eternal hell.

----------


## Rozzy

The best thing to do is research the info I put forward and see if it checks out. What I posted is only the tip of the iceberg once you know what you are looking for you can go into information overload, chuckle.

Ask youself this question, would a God who created all, the God that created man in his own image send in the high nineties percent to an everlasting hell where they would suffer forever and ever for eternity? litterally sending billions of people to there eternal suffering in fire and just keep doing it generation after generation, age after age? I personally do not think so. Would he send people for correction for a time, a correction that maybe very hard to bare that lasts the length of time He determines, yes I think He would.
Now I have some travel plans I need to attend to, adios!

Rozzy

----------


## Rush_of_Blood

> The best thing to do is research the info I put forward and see if it checks out. What I posted is only the tip of the iceberg once you know what you are looking for you can go into information overload, chuckle.
> 
> Ask youself this question, would a God who created all, the God that created man in his own image send in the high nineties percent to an everlasting hell where they would suffer forever and ever for eternity? litterally sending billions of people to there eternal suffering in fire and just keep doing it generation after generation, age after age? I personally do not think so. Would he send people for correction for a time, a correction that maybe very hard to bare that lasts the length of time He determines, yes I think He would.
> Now I have some travel plans I need to attend to, adios!
> 
> Rozzy





You have missed a great discussion on this very subject! look at the first five or six pages, and hopefully your question will be at least partially answered. i am open to more questions if you have them!

----------


## kiki1982

I don't have time to read absolutely everythig, but I read about the first half of this dicussion...

I am also a Christian, but I seem to have more liberal views.

The whole discussion about Jesus' existence. 
If Jesus did not exist, why do certain Roman writers actually mention him then?The key here is not if he existed, that is a preconceived fact which the Romans, in their urge to be administrative, probably even noted down. The key is what the gospels made him. 
In the early days he was a rebel, a sekt leader (like there are ones now), but incidentally the belief in Christ and his doctrines grew to a proportion that made it a religion. Jesus is not perfect, he was a man, but history and certain canonic books (cleverly selected, no doubt) have made him perfect.

Anyway: the Hell. 

I seem to have noticed that the Catholic Church got rid of that idea a few years ago, but I may be wrong. 
It seems indeed strange to conceive that a God who is love would 'punish' people by eternal suffering (however that may be). Jesus indeed never mentioned it and I don't think it exists in Jewish religion either. (if someone would be so kind as to enlighten me on that). 

Heaven, Hell and Purgatory were very popular as categories of people:
Really bad people went to Hell: muderers, people who committed blasphemy, thieves etc. etc. However, if you got absolution for your sins before death then you would go to heaven anyway. (??)
The Purgatory was for temporal suffering, if I'm right, and for unbaptised children (children who died just after birth. That's why they all baptised them straight away: then they would go to Heaven because they had got rid of the birth sin (???), because a baby was considered to have resulted out of the sin of lust (???)), and people who committed suicide. People who still had to pay for their sins, but didn't have to burn in Hell for eternity would go to the Purgatory until they were allowed in Heaven, I think. I don't think they went to Hell because that was eternal condemnation, although maybe during a certain period the Purgatory may not have existed (anymore). 
Heaven was for the truly good, or the ones with no sins. 

For me that structure speaks of worldly creation in order for people to understand the consequences of their behaviour here on earth, to reward good and repel bad behaviour. Like that rich man who asks Jesus what he needs to do to be happy because he has done already a lot of good. And Jesus tells him to get rid of his riches. Which normal person would do that unless he would get a reward for it? In order for a bunch of uneducated people (because that is what medieval peope were) to do good, there needs to be a clear aim: Heaven. A place where it is much better than here: where there is no hunger, no disease, no suffering, no pain, no nothing apart from love and eternal life. 

There are probably theologists who could provide a lot more info on Hell, how it came about, who wrote about it the first time etc, which must be very interesting. But I am afraid I do not believe that God Himself does not punish or reward and that the Christian afterlife is the same as all afterlife: a place where the souls of people live on, good or bad, together.

----------


## The Atheist

> The whole discussion about Jesus' existence. 
> If Jesus did not exist, why do certain Roman writers actually mention him then?


Which Roman writers were they? I'm not aware of any non-biblical texts which mention Jesus. 




> But I am afraid I do not believe that God Himself does not punish or reward and that the Christian afterlife is the same as all afterlife: a place where the souls of people live on, good or bad, together.


You must be an Anglican with those liberal views!

----------


## kiki1982

Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, Suetonius among others. 
Certainly Pliny and Tacitus are respectable sources, seems to me. There is no doubt that they refer to the 'crucified person in Israel who had a lot of followers', who was executed by Pilate. But they also describe Jesus' followers as peculiar people. Like we would do of a sekt leader. The Christians only became a major religion, in my opinion, because they were realistic about their beliefs and not too extreme like the JW's, Scientologists, or others of that kind.

I would say, in a political perspective, that Che Guevara is a good example of reality to myth. Che is now a synonym for any freedom fighter and alternative spirit with T-shirts and everything, but he himself was part of a guerilla-movementand was killed very young. It just grows into myth, no matter what the contents of his life... Yet there are other guerilla fighters, like Pol Pot (?) who do not get that status...

As to miracles f.e.: any normal person realises that a miracle is not possible, or that there is a very minor chance of it happening. It is not denouncing God (as I might do for more pious people), but it is just being realistic. Why is it that all those miracles used to happen and that they don't anymore? Because the perception of people is a lot more scientific and a lot wider than it used to be and they couldn't put an ailment down to a certain disease. Now they can, so the actual going away of a disease is also not anymore solely up to God, so God doesn't perform miracles through his servants anymore, but it is now the servant who makes them happen (the doctor). The Jehova's Witnesses have found a good argument to 'explain' that kind of mistery: 'they don't happen anymore, because God doesn't do them anymore'  :FRlol: . I am sorry, but that just speaks naivety... Both in belief and perception of the world. Sadly, it is people like that who shout the loudest and who make people believe that Christians are peculiar and unrealistic in their world view.

I am a Catholic actually. Surprising, isn't it? And I am not against contraception, not against abortion, not against condoms, not in favour of virginity before marriage etc. etc. Strange isn't it...

----------


## kiki1982

This is what Pope John Paul II said about Hell: 




> The images of hell that Sacred Scripture presents to us must be correctly interpreted. They show the complete frustration and emptiness of life without God. Rather than a place, Hell indicates the state of those who freely and definitively separate themselves from God, the source of all life and joy


In essence, the view of John Paul really provides more realistic people with an acceptable answer to the Hell-question, whether those people are atheists or less-simplistic Christians who also believe but do not choose to be unscientific about things. 

Pope Benedict XVI, though, said: 




> Hell really exists and is eternal


I think, even as a Catholic, that John Paul's view was more accessible and more universal than Benedict's view, but John Paul was a lot more modern and was the first pope to seek other religions of the Christian faith (the Orthodox and Protestant) and even the Jews and Muslims to unite in their vision of God. 

This is interesting, though:
In the Catechism, which is still used apparently (in Belgium it went largely out of use in the 60s, I think), it says about Hell: 




> We cannot be united with God unless we freely choose to love him. But we cannot love God if we sin gravely against him, against our neighbor or against ourselves: "He who does not love remains in death. Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him."610 Our Lord warns us that we shall be separated from him if we fail to meet the serious needs of the poor and the little ones who are his brethren.611 To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God's merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self- exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called "hell."


Yet in one of the first it says (very simplisticly):




> Hell is a state to which the wicked are condemned, and in which they are deprived of the sight of God for all eternity, and are in dreadful torments. (Question 1379)


But we will still have to see how Benedict gets on... However, shuld anyone care what he says no matter what? We all believe in our own way, so we should all be unique in our thinking, and no pope can tell us what to think... 

I can imagine that it is not great to live in eternal damnation, but that eternal damnation does not occur because one has stolen something... It occurs when one is greedy, lustful, envious, etc. (the seven cardinal sins) and does not repent. But I think that that state of mind provokes suffering anyway, and doesn't need God to punish it, because even on the earth during your life, that state of mind of selfishness, striving for material possessions, in short, striving for an empty box (because what does all that bring you?), makes one unhappy. 
So in essence, if looked at properly, there is or shouldn't be an element of punishent involved. It is so in popular culture because it is easier to understand that way...Whether damnation depends on God Himself, I very much doubt it.

----------


## The Atheist

> Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, Suetonius among others.


My apologies - I meant contemporary sources, of which there are none. Plenty of later ones.




> I am a Catholic actually. Surprising, isn't it? And I am not against contraception, not against abortion, not against condoms, not in favour of virginity before marriage etc. etc. Strange isn't it...


You're a bad Catholic! 




> Pope Benedict XVI, though, said:


Yes, Herr RatZZinger seems determined to bring back the Inquisition and fear of hell. Nice bloke. 




> But we will still have to see how Benedict gets on... However, shuld anyone care what he says no matter what? We all believe in our own way, so we should all be unique in our thinking, and no pope can tell us what to think...


Are you sure you're Catholic? I trust you don't apply your beliefs to _ex cathedra_ statements?




> But I think that that state of mind provokes suffering anyway, and doesn't need God to punish it, because even on the earth during your life, that state of mind of selfishness, striving for material possessions, in short, striving for an empty box (because what does all that bring you?), makes one unhappy.


Lovely theory, but people can be either amoral or immoral, which is where the premise falls apart. There is no universal sin.

----------


## kiki1982

Of course they are later. The sources they drew on to make those accounts are no longer available to us, but they were to them. It is probable to historians that Pliny interrogated Christians on who they worshipped and that was passed on to Tacitus. It is not totally impossible for Pliny to have spoken to one who knew Jesus.
Josephus wrote 




> About this time came Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it is appropriate to call him a man. For he was a performer of paradoxical feats, a teacher of people who accept the unusual with pleasure, and he won over many of the Jews and also many Greeks. He was the Christ. When Pilate, upon the accusation of the first men amongst us, condemned him to be crucified, those who had formerly loved him did not cease to follow him, for he appeared to them on the third day, living again, as the divine prophets foretold, along with a myriad of other marvellous things concerning him. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day.


Although it is not agreed upon if this was his true style, in the 10th century there was an independent translation fom a Christian Arab who quotes Josephus as well:




> At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good, and (he) was known to be virtuous and many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not desert his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders


The two passages certainly have the same contents, only the tone is different, which could be a corruption of the copyist, which was done fairly much. The fact that an independent translation of the same work was made, suggests and makes it very probable that Josephus, of whom is recorded that he was a Jew and not a Christian, indeed wrote about Jesus and that very shortly after the crucifixion.
There seems to be a link with the gospel of Luke as well as Josephus and Luke tell the same story about Emmaus. They must both have consulted the same source for their story, because both were not there. However, Josephus can have had access to earlier sources. As the gospel of Luke was written around about 85-90AD and Josephus _Testemonium_ in the 90s of the first century, the source must have been available before that time. As Josephus was born around 37 (around the same time that Jesus was crucified 'during Tiberius' reign' which ended in 37AD) he can certainly have met people seeing as he lived in Jerusalem, was a priest there and came only in the world very very shortly after Jesus was crucified. He was already writing in 70AD. There is a big chance that he had first hand accounts of the man Jesus and not the myth Jesus, which is also to be seen in how he wrote about the man.

I don't see why I should be a bad Catholic? At least I don't terrorise people with my own (sometimes) problematic ideas, that's very Christian to me... Not the principles you follow make you Catholic, Protestant, Calvinist or whatever, but it is what you believe in that makes you something. I believe in Heaven, in Jesus as the son of God, and technically, I should believe in the immaculate conception, although my scientific mind cannot conceive how a baby gets to be without sperm... But the notion of the immaculate conception only came to be (I believe) because of the 'existence' of the initial sin (baby made out of lust). For Jesus that wasn't possible because he was taught to be perfect. How do you solve that? 'He came out of a virgin', which implies no sex, no initial sin. In the eldest gospels Mary is the wife of Joseph and not his pregnant fiancé. But the words of the angel who comes to tell Mary that a son will be born, got interpreted as a ground for the immaculate conception... 

In their urge to actually structurise the belief system of the Catholic Church (or that is what it has now become) they started to get problems in the consistency of them. With the introduction of the Purgatory and the initial sin, they got conflicted with perfect Jesus... The dogma of the immaculate conception only was first mentioned in the 11th century... For the first Christians Jesus was a man who got born like the rest of us and who taught good beliefs, no more than that. And so ironically, would also have ended up in Purgatory, if he had died. But then again he was still Jewish, so that wouldn't have applied to him, I guess...

I believe in the Holy Trinity and that is what makes me Catholic. 

It depends what _ex cathdra_ means... I do not approve of what the pope or bishops or whoever says because 'they have authority'. Hitlier had authority because he was elected president, but was he right? That was only a metaphoric assertion, though, not a sneer towards Ratzinger/Benedict XVI. Authority is only earnt on a basis where it is respectable. Thus the authority of the pope should only go so far that his assertions are realistic. A condom is not immoral, the pill is not immoral, sex is not immoral. Of course if it pans out into a spiral of one-night-stands and 50 sex partners in a month, then it becomes quite exagerated, no matter whether you don't coneive any children because you use condoms or the pill. But then there is mostly an issue with the person who does have such a lot of sex with a lot of different men/women reagarding a self-image. 
Let us hope that in three popes time there is one who is part of the modern world, but the problem is that the largest part of that Catholic world will still be conservative...

Of course, there is amoral or immoral, but still it is not good for a person's happy state of mind to go to the extreme for things like possession, anger, indulgence (seven cardinal sins, if I have to use that expression...). There the philosophy of the Catholics draws on stoic ideas about suffering and eradicating suffering. 
Charity gives you a good feeling. Greed gives you possession. (that doesn't mean you have to give away what you don't have, though)
Humility gives you a feeling of peace and hapiness with people who like you, whereas pride repels people and when your pide is (inevitably) hurt it makes you feel bad. 
I won't go on.
But what it was made in the 19th century or the things my grandmother believed was the simplistic version:
sloth was considered literal: being lazy. Whereas sloth was meant as apathy and a failure of doing God's work, spiritual apathy, so to say. (you might agree or not, about the main issue, but it shows how some early things got corrupted)
and like that, the real doctrine got popularised, but also narrowed down to something unrealistic and sometimes inconsistent.

I supose there is something like universal suffering which the Catholic church adopted from the stoics. Not universal sin, as that is going against a moral and if that moral is not there, there is no sin.

----------


## The Atheist

> I don't see why I should be a bad Catholic?


I'm just kidding ya. "Good Catholics" are usually those whose doctrine matches the RCCposition. Yours doesn't, but I'd see that as positive.




> It depends what _ex cathdra_ means... .


_Ex cathedra_ statements are made on behalf of god, are considered to be genuinely divine (by the RCC), and cannot be challenged.

----------


## kiki1982

I see what you mean by _ex cathedra_. For example the infallibility of the pope is a good one, I presume?

One should never follow as a meak sheep, and certainly not in religious questions. Look what happened in the past, and even now, when people do that...

----------


## kiki1982

Here is a good example of _ex cathedra_ and what it means in Europe:

irrelevant

----------


## Pendragon

Unless the Pope is more than human, he is fallible in anything he might do or say, dogma be hanged...

----------


## kiki1982

hear, hear

----------


## The Atheist

> Here is a good example of _ex cathedra_ and what it means in Europe.


No, you just have it wrong.

_Ex cathedra_ statements are very specially designated pieces and are divinely-inspired. There is only one recorded instance of its use.

Check Wiki - the description is correct.

----------


## kiki1982

Ah, yes. I think I made that view clear when I said what I said about the immaculate conception... I think they did a survey about that and I don't think there were many who believed it. Still, they said they were religious. 

Sorry... When you are in something, you don't really pay attention to what the base of everything is. In some countries they teach it in schools, but eventhough I went to a Catholic school I didn't get taught about doctrine, but mainly about the history and the symbolic meaning of some passages in the bible and even philosophy and the main bases of other religions in the last year. The contents of the course of religious education largely depended on the year and included nothing of Heaven or Hell if I recall. Everything I know is through my own interest. 

Thank you for highlighting that. I learned something new.

----------

