"You're going to hell!"
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-09-2011, 07:13 AM
RE: "You're going to hell!"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-09-2011, 07:15 AM
 
RE: "You're going to hell!"
(01-09-2011 06:36 AM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  I would be curious to know, though, if evolution is true...why are there still monkeys?

I believe this has been pointed out to you before: monkeys are on a different branch of the evolutionary tree.

Seriously, attitude to evolution is not my main problem with believers.

My main problem is that they can not even define the words they are using (starting with the word 'god') on a solid epistemological basis.

All the definitions I have ever heard (and I have heard quite a few) are going around in circles.

I think you would agree that someone who can not define the words he uses does not make any sense.

So my usual response to proselytizers is "what the hell are you talking about?"

(I realize that 'hell' is also an undefined word, I just used it for fun).
Quote this message in a reply
01-09-2011, 07:49 AM
RE: "You're going to hell!"
Human Lineage in a nutshell

Common ancestor ------->Humans
_______________\------->Monkeys

We share a common ancestor with monkeys just like you share a common ancestor with you 15th cousin. We did not evolve FROM them but alongside them. Just like you were not born as a product of your 15th cousing but grew up at the same time.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
01-09-2011, 09:01 AM (This post was last modified: 01-09-2011 09:07 AM by S.T. Ranger.)
RE: "You're going to hell!"
(01-09-2011 06:51 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Hi S.T. , good to see you are having more success on this post. I'm enjoying reading your discussion with L.P.

Hi Mark, good morning. This will be my last post this morning, but I have a hard time leaving posts unanswered, so, I will do one more, then off to work I go.

Thanks for this response, as it directs conversation to the topic, and I appreciate your views being given.



(01-09-2011 06:51 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Re..."what exactly do those here know about the topic of Hell?" Well....I can quote what "Jesus" said about hell, and what I think of "Jesus'" hell (Apologies to anyone who has read this before)

Jesus said,
“But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!...woe to you, blind guides...You blind fools!...You blind men!...You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell?” (Matthew 23:13-34 NJB).
“Well then, just as the darnel is gathered up and burnt in the fire, so it will be at the end of time. The Son of Man will send his angels and they will gather out of his kingdom all things that provoke offences and all who do evil, and throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and grinding of teeth” (Matthew 13:40-43 NJB).
“Next he will say to those on his left hand ‘Go away from me with your curse upon you, to the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels’’’ (Matthew 25:41 NJB).

Jesus was undoubtedly convinced of the reality of hell. He seemed to get great satisfaction out of imagining people he disliked burning in agony for all eternity.
His threats raise four key issues.

That He would derive satisfaction contradicts the very purpose scripture teaches for His coming: God so loved the world...

I will try (try...lol) to limit my comments to yours.


(01-09-2011 06:51 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Firstly, he would have had no need to threaten people with hell-fire if he had made a convincing case that what he talked about was fact.

They were not threats, merely staments of fact. And of course I am giving my perspective from a position of belief, as well as one that views Jesus as God manifest in the flesh.

The following argument that is presented I will address as I go:

(01-09-2011 06:51 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  The very fact that disbelief would be met with punishment (argumentum ad baculum, or, literally an “argument with a cudgel”), is not evidence the belief is true.

In New Testament doctrine, it the new creation that is evidence that belief is true. I would have to get seriously involved in explaining this through scripture, but here, I am merely addressing the statements of belief or non-belief depending on context.


(01-09-2011 06:51 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  If Jesus had eloquently spoken what was obviously the truth, the crowds would have believed him.

We see that it was not just a matter of unbelief, but of rebellion. We see the same thing in the wilderness with the children of Israel. They were in rebellion. In John 6 the "disciples" (learners of Jesus) believed as long as they were being fed and seeing miracles, but when the weightier meaning of Who Christ was was taught, it was rejected. You have to understand that even as today, man takes the word of God and conform it to what they want it to say, eisegeting the text, rather than finding what is actually there.

This was the error so vehemently rebuked by the Lord concerning the religgious leaders, who can be likened to the caricature that the media presents to the world today.

The Sadducees, for instance, did not have a belief in anything supernatural. The Pharisees took the word of God and added to them. An example of this last would be the modern thought that one must attend every sunday or they will go to hell, despite the fact that this is not taught by scripture, but is man's traditional teaching.


(01-09-2011 06:51 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  If he had actually performed miracles, there could have been no doubt he was the real thing. People weren’t stupid. It is obvious he resorted to threats after he’d failed to convince them.


I agree, they were not stupid, they were rebellious. Going back to the earlier concept mentioned, take the twelve disciples, who walked with the Lord and sat under His direct teaching: did they believe? Truly?

If you say yes I will have to disagree, and I can show in scripture that they did not.

Why? For the simple fact that they were not as yet born again, which is something that even my brethren (some of them) disagree with me about. But I am confident that not until Pentecost did they truly believe, meaning, they believed to the saving of the soul.



(01-09-2011 06:51 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Secondly, it is clear Jesus considered the love of the divine arbitrator was only granted to those who behaved in a certain way.


Just not taught in scripture. Some will go through the gospels and say, "See, Jesus is teaching good works for salvation, not belief!"

I am more than willing to discuss as well as debate that teaching.

Believe it or not, the number of Christians that truly "believe" on the name of Christ is very limited in this day. This is due to the teaching found in modern Christendom, which leads the one that relies on man's teaching to confusion.

But if truth is sought, God will do as He said, and lead and guide us into all truth.


(01-09-2011 06:51 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Most people today would say that true, real love, such that a parent has for a child, is unconditional.

I would agree that the love of a parent is normally conditional (lets face it, there are some strange and unloving people out there), when conditions are normal.

Now the heart of the argument that is presented here is that if God warns (seen as threatening) one of Hell, He is then charged as unloving, thereby elevating the moral righteousness of man above that of God.

Scripture teaches this very thing.

Now, to put it in perspective, do we not raise our children with threats? "Look both ways before crossing the road!"

"Don't talk to strangers!"

"Don't stick anything into electriacal sockets or your ears!"

How unloving that is. Who do we think we are, to threaten children thus? I mean, what's wrong with us anyway?

A little facetious, I know, but think back to childhood. Can one of us not remember a time when we questioned our parent's wisdom? That we did not rebel against what they said? Iknow I can, and it led to drugs, alcohol, and, yes...rock 'n' roll.

I was threatened about what would happen if I messed with drugs and alcohol, but when I saw my friends do it, well, it couldn't be as bad as mom and dad said after all.

Right?

(01-09-2011 06:51 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Jesus portrays God as being in a relationship with man for his own satisfaction. If God doesn’t get what he wants he becomes a vindictive, evil tyrant who would burn people in hell forever, not something a loving father would do.


I would agree for the most part, just adding, "...for His own satisfaction and for man's good."

Admit it: if there was a God and you could believe that, would you view the things He has in store for His children as bad things?

As far as God being vindictive, it goes back to there are consequences for wrongdoing.

It is true in the parent/child relationship, why would we not use this same illustration when considering the God/man relationship.


(01-09-2011 06:51 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Thirdly, these quotes cause confusion in anyone trying to rationalize Jesus’ doctrine. Jesus advised people to love their enemies, bless those that curse them and to forgive seventy times seven times. He hardly set an example by threatening to burn people in hell forever!


Not rationalizing, putting them in context. Syllogistic conclusions can usually be shown when doctrine is in error.

I cannot emphasize enough, nor cause one to accept...that man decides for himself, and the charge that God forces people to go to hell is unjust.


(01-09-2011 06:51 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Fourth, one wonders on what basis God made the decision on who goes to hell?


He did not. And He does not. He has given His word, which states that only through faith in Christ (primarily that He died in my place) can man be reconciled.

This reconciliation did not occur until the Cross. Man was not resurrected (spiritually, the new birth) until Pentecost. We have to understand redemptive history as the progressive revelation to man that it is before we can put all these pieces together to find harmony in God's will.

When we approach it with a patch-work quilt theology (whether for or against) we are apt to misunderstand.


(01-09-2011 06:51 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Jesus claimed God will put sheep on his right, goats on his left. There must be borderline people with who God will need to decide what to do.

There is not. There are the saved, and the lost. Look, I know this terminology is going to be offensive at times, even as scripture teaches, but if we want to speak about what scripture teaches...we have to speak about what scripture teaches.

And it clearly is a division between those who are separated from God, and those who are not.

I can't argue against a basis that denies this, but I can argue for what scripture teaches, keeping in mind my limitations also. I do not claim to have all the answers, but I am seeing some pretty basic errors that cannot be said to represent the teaching of God's word.


(01-09-2011 06:51 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  He could put a gate in the fence and have some goats some days in heaven, some days in hell, or there could be some goats with two feet in heaven, two in hell.

This is natural, to want things to be as we want them to be. I speak generally, I am guilty of this at times. In some issues, because revelation is limited about some things, I have opinions that I hope are right, but I cannot know for sure, because I have to admit that it is opinion only, not something I can be dogmatic about.

One very basic doctrine of the bible is separation. Good from bad...et cetera. In this age, we have a picture of the Church, showing true and false side by side, growing in the same field, so to speak.

But when Christ judges, the tares are separated from the wheat. He does leave some darnel with the wheat at harvest. The harvest in most cases speaks about the end of the tribulation.

(01-09-2011 06:51 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Perhaps God could turn the furnace on full for the really bad goats and on simmer for the not so bad? It is obvious these possibilities are not satisfactory.


I actually believe in differing degrees of punishment for the lost. God is just, and will reward according to works.

Not only is it a satisfactory (in the sense of plausibility of course) I believe it is taught.


(01-09-2011 06:51 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  There is no way churches can justify teaching hell to sensitive, innocent children.



We are commanded to teach the whole counsel of God, not just the nice things. This is one reason God's name is blasphemed among unbelievers, because of the failure of sound doctrine and practice. God's word does not just speak to unbelievers, but pricks the hearts of every true believer, which is one aspect of the sanctification process.

As I said, it is similar to teaching a child about the physical dangers of this life. How much more can we see instruction about eternal separation as the foremost important warning? I will agree that our approach in instruction is vital, and we need not scare our children, though we do not fail to teach the whole counsel.



(01-09-2011 06:51 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  How can a child reconcile an all-good God with an intense feeling of fear of eternal damnation?


The same way a child can reconcile his own parent chastising him for his wrongdoing.

The bottom line is this: it is assumed that teaching a child there is a hell equates to the child believing there is a hell. I was well aware of hell as I grew up, though I did not grow up in a church. It did not scare me enough to worship God. Or to seek His righteousness.

Why? Because I wanted to things my way, and believe what I wanted to believe.


(01-09-2011 06:51 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Many adults have vivid memories of the fires of hell and the immense, unending, unendurable pain. This psychological bullying is child abuse.


When taught to children in the manner some teach about the "boogey-man," I agree.

But there is a right way of instruction, and a wrong.


(01-09-2011 06:51 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Christians sometimes claim the individual actually makes his own choice by either accepting or rejecting Jesus.


I affirm that belief, and can from scripture show this to be a sound biblical doctrine.


(01-09-2011 06:51 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  How sincerely must one “accept Jesus” to get into heaven, and how can one prove it?


First, how can one accept Jesus if they do not believe? The problem is that knowledge does not equate to belief. Many in churches around the world knowledge, but no belief. True belief evidences itself in the response of the "believer."

And, one cannot prove it, God does. I know this will be scorned, but it is true.



(01-09-2011 06:51 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  By praying to Jesus? Once? A thousand times?


There is only one prayer that God will hear from us before conversion, and that is the prayer of repentance. This will happen through God's work accomplished in this individual's life, as it is God that gives the ability to believe as is mentioned and asked about here. No amoutn of preaching, apart from the conviction of the Holy Spirit, will avail man anything. The good news is this: God desires to do this work in the hearts of all.


(01-09-2011 06:51 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Does “accepting Jesus” excuse the Christian from heinous crimes he may have committed?



No. Even Christians can fall into sin, though, I do not believe in the way that is implied with the following line of reason.

(01-09-2011 06:51 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  What does rejecting Jesus mean? Not going to church on Sunday? Every Sunday?


First and foremost it is the rejection of God speaking to the heart of the unbeliever.

There will be many church-going folk in Hell. Because they did not seek God on His terms, according to that which He has spoken.



(01-09-2011 06:51 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  What about the person who has never heard of Jesus? Have they rejected him?

If one of these could step forward, please...lol.

God has revealed Himself to all men. Those who have never, in truth, heard the specific message of the gospel will be judged according to the revelation they do have, and there is not a person who does not have the revelation that God has placed in the hearts of man as well as in creation itself.

This usually offends the atheist, but, I will say, this is my belief and I think it something that is taught in scripture. I will not argue the point.
(01-09-2011 06:51 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  The truth about this, the bottom line, is that “accepting Jesus” means accepting being told what to believe by someone authoritative from a church, and all the different churches have their own interpretations.

Just not true. A man can be saved by his private reading of scripture. That is not to say that there are not people that God uses to bring the gospel message, this is very evident in scripture.


(01-09-2011 06:51 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Church people know how to create, then calm, a newcomer’s fears- mention hell and then convince him to embrace Jesus and comply.

This is a view that does not rightly describe evangelism, in my view.

I will just touch on one part: scripture teaches that God, not "church people," accomplishes the sanctification process in the life of the believer.

It is the failure of many to understand this, and you do see many in churches who are following a pastor, or a teacher...not Christ. The primary failure is to understand God and His word personally, rather than being bottle-fed an hour or two a week.

This explains the slow maturation rate of many who are genuinely saved.

(01-09-2011 06:51 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  In the past, the idea of hell justified terrible behavior by churches. It gave them a license to burn any helpless person they didn’t like, claiming they were just beginning on earth the roasting God was to continue for all eternity.


Their actions show an ignorance of sound doctrine.

An understanding of the First covenant in contrast to the New Covenant ratified by the blood (death) of Christ goes a long way in gaining insight as to why those who burned people at the stake were in all probablity not Christians.

But it this kind of "Christian" that makes the headlines of history, isn't it. Where is the mention of those that applied sound doctrine and application? Never hear about them being mentioned.


(01-09-2011 06:51 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  The whole concept of punishing people forever is immoral!

Is it immoral to put a murderer in prison? No. it is justice. To see it as unjust or immoral is the most basic human reaction to the gospel...that man is just and righteous, undeserving of justice.

(01-09-2011 06:51 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Our understanding of time has changed since the Bible was written. People living in 150AD would have thought 200 years was an eternity...we now understand mind boggling numbers like “trillions” and mathematical concepts like “infinity”. They didn’t.


I disagree. I believe I hold the same beliefs that were taught in the first century. This is an argument used by some Christians as well.



(01-09-2011 06:51 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  But, churches still commonly use hell to control people’s behavior. It is quite rightly an embarrassment to many modern Christians, who choose not to talk about hell anymore.


If the church you use to attend was like this, it is no wonder you left. Just don't think that I am controlled by a fear of Hell, my standing before God is of one who has been justified and has had this condemnation removed. I do not fear Hell.

I only fear for those I believe are headed to this judgment.



(01-09-2011 06:36 AM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  
(01-09-2011 05:31 AM)Zatamon Wrote:  
(01-09-2011 04:59 AM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  My suggestion to those who do not believe in God is this: just as any scientist would test something, the same test is available to the non-believer. Simply find a bible-believing church...and attend for about a month. Go with an open mind, and what I believe scripture teaches will happen. God will speak to your heart.

My suggestion to those who DO believe in god is this: just as any scientist would test something, the same test is available to the believers. Simply find an evolution-believing university...and attend for about a month. Go with an open mind, and what I believe science teaches will happen. Einstein will speak to your mind. Big Grin

Is it thought that I have not examined the "evidence for evolution?"

I have. Perhaps not on a level that is taught in universities, but, I have seen enough to know that it does not seem rational.

But, I am a new earth believer, while there are many believers that try to reconcile evolution with creation. I don't have a problem with that. One of the teachers I admire was a believer in an old earth.

It is not an issue that I feel is a fellowship breaker...if that is what one believes, they have every right to do so. This is not something that is of soteriological importance, I believe, and I try not to get into debate about things I consider secondary issues.

I would be curious to know, though, if evolution is true...why are there still monkeys?

I recently saw a documentary that said that "evidence" of man's descent was found in Africa, based on a skull. Now that is certainly evidence that cannot be refuted...right?

I saw a documentary about a snake that adapted from a mainland cousin given as evidence of evolution. I see it as adaptation.

I scanned through the thread dealing with the diversity of races, saying this was proof of evolution, rather than seeing that this stems from adaptation to climate and geography. Of course, that is just my personal opinion.

I see the latino people, and the great diversity among that one race alone, and what is the primary factor? Their location.

But, like I said, this test is available, to both sides, I admit. It is doubtful that either will accept the challenge, for various reasons, but that is okay.

As I said, evolution does not preclude a postion of belief or atheism, as there are those on both sides that believe in it.

S.T.
(01-09-2011 06:30 AM)Zatamon Wrote:  No response to my challenge?

I was afraid of that. Sad

Cheer up!

No need for sad faces...lol.

S.T.

Hi S.T., re "I would be curious to know, though, if evolution is true...why are there still monkeys?" PLEASE TELL ME THIS IS NOT A SERIOUS QUESTION! If you are serious, you clearly have no real understanding of evolution. Please reread some basic textbooks. Oops...I forgot...you adamantly refuse to do that...you don't value scientists' theories when you have the bible to tell you how things are! Guess that explains your stupid question then, doesn't it!



[/quote]

Actually, no, I was not being serious. It is just a thought that amuses me.

And, sorry my question was stupid...never said I was smart. Blush


(01-09-2011 07:15 AM)Zatamon Wrote:  
(01-09-2011 06:36 AM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  I would be curious to know, though, if evolution is true...why are there still monkeys?

I believe this has been pointed out to you before: monkeys are on a different branch of the evolutionary tree.




Seriously, attitude to evolution is not my main problem with believers.

My main problem is that they can not define the words they are using (starting with the word 'god') on a solid epistemological basis.

All the definitions I have ever heard (and I have heard quite a few) are going around in circles.

I think you would agree that someone who can not define the words he uses does not make any sense.

So my usual response to proselytizers is "what the hell are you talking about?"

(I realize that 'hell' is also an undefined word, I just used it for fun).

I will hve to respond to this as a whole, there are some strange things occurring with my computer.

What I am talking about should not be too hard to figure out. Is derailing the topic at hand is sought, I am okay with that, but why one would want to discuss the Name of Someone they do not believe in is beyond me.

As far as my attitude towards evolution, I have said, it is a non-issue for me. If the text-books teach that monkeys are on a different branch and one wishes to subscribe to that belief...have at it, it doesn't bother me at all. That this is of critical importance to many atheists is not lost on me, but unfortunately, atheists are not the only ones that wish to show their superiority of knowledge on this issue.

You have books you use as a basis of belief, I have mine. The issue at hand is Hell, and the point raised is what exactly it is according to Christian belief, seeing there are so mny varied beliefs about this, mostly based on personal opinion, rather than scripture.

By the way...I love your rice.

(just kidding, I know you don't own a rice company, I just use this for fun)

And just so you know, I have an odd sense of humor, usually unrecognizable, leaving me to explain it. How sad is that...

Gotta go, fellas, I have enjoyed the conversation, though.

S.T.
(01-09-2011 07:49 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Human Lineage in a nutshell

Common ancestor ------->Humans
_______________\------->Monkeys

We share a common ancestor with monkeys just like you share a common ancestor with you 15th cousin. We did not evolve FROM them but alongside them. Just like you were not born as a product of your 15th cousing but grew up at the same time.

Hello BeardedDude, thanks for the info.

Would you mind giving your take on the subject of Hell?

I will be back when I can to see the replies, but hae to get to work...should have left hours ago, but the conversation has been great.

S.T.

PS-if someone could let me know where to find the thread "Five things Christians don't believe themselves" or something along those lines I would appreciate it. I saw it when logging on but have since not been able to find it.

Thanks, S.T.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-09-2011, 09:15 AM
RE: "You're going to hell!"
Hell.
Pretty sure the only thing mentioned about hell in the bible is the fire. I don't believe in hell is my opinion of it in a nutshell, but the hell I was raised believing in was the southern baptist version. The eternal lake of fire where you suffer in an unimaginable amount of pain for all eternity and never get to see your loved ones ever again. Essentially it was built up as a place that I was told was worse than death where you are in eternal pain, physical and emotional.

Obviously not everyone believes in hell nor this version of hell. The concept of hell would scare me as a child to the point of tears every church service. Just being told that I can go to hell if I do certain things was torture...literally. Eventually I realized that heaven and hell was similar to Santa Claus' presents or coal. Be good go to heaven. Be bad go to hell. OR Be good get toys. Be bad get a lump of coal and switches.

After that revelation I went through the whole phase of not believing in hell. Only to realize that if I still believed in the bible then hell was real. So I started to pick and choose parts of the bible to believe. I thought I was trading irrational beliefs for more rational beliefs, only to realize a few years later when I began to scrutinize my new views that they were as irrational as my previous beliefs and did not actually make me feel better about my life and/or death.

Hell scared the god out of me.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-09-2011, 10:33 AM
 
RE: "You're going to hell!"
(01-09-2011 09:01 AM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  why one would want to discuss the Name of Someone they do not believe in is beyond me.

I don't was to discuss the word 'god' -- I merely challenged you to define it, so I know what you are talking about.

Don't try a definition that goes around in circles (by using other undefined words) or has no anchor in verifiable, repeatable observation, available to everyone, giving a reasonable probability that the word means something. Don't use analogies (like the watchmaker), don't use the bible (of questionable origin and authors), don't use unverified myths and accounts, don't parade your lack of imagination as proof and, most of all, don't use the very concept itself in the definition. That always bugs the rice out of me.

Without that definition, we might as well talk about the word 'tops' -- 'spot' spelled backwards.
Quote this message in a reply
01-09-2011, 11:59 AM
RE: "You're going to hell!"
(01-09-2011 06:51 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Hi S.T., re "I would be curious to know, though, if evolution is true...why are there still monkeys?" PLEASE TELL ME THIS IS NOT A SERIOUS QUESTION! If you are serious, you clearly have no real understanding of evolution. Please reread some basic textbooks. Oops...I forgot...you adamantly refuse to do that...you don't value scientists' theories when you have the bible to tell you how things are! Guess that explains your stupid question then, doesn't it!

Mark has totally hit it on the head. That question is showcased by scientists to show just how uninformed creationists can be. The fact you could ask it seriously, S.T., demonstrates that you really, really need to do some outside reading. Why are you so opposed to opening up your mind? You urge others to come sit in a Bible-believing church to get a different perspective. Why won't you do something comparable? Are you worried it might weaken your faith?

Religious disputes are like arguments in a madhouse over which inmate really is Napoleon.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-09-2011, 12:21 PM
 
RE: "You're going to hell!"
(01-09-2011 11:59 AM)cufflink Wrote:  You urge others to come sit in a Bible-believing church to get a different perspective. Why won't you do something comparable? Are you worried it might weaken your faith?

Just as I suggested in Post #56

The challenge was not met.
Quote this message in a reply
01-09-2011, 12:28 PM
RE: "You're going to hell!"
(01-09-2011 12:21 PM)Zatamon Wrote:  
(01-09-2011 11:59 AM)cufflink Wrote:  You urge others to come sit in a Bible-believing church to get a different perspective. Why won't you do something comparable? Are you worried it might weaken your faith?

Just as I suggested in Post #56

Quite so! I guess great minds think alike. Wink

Religious disputes are like arguments in a madhouse over which inmate really is Napoleon.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-09-2011, 03:39 PM
RE: "You're going to hell!"
[/u]
(23-08-2011 01:54 AM)Mr Woof Wrote:  
(22-08-2011 02:19 AM)Joe Bloe Wrote:  
(22-08-2011 01:01 AM)Mr Woof Wrote:  Is it really neccessary to view "god" through the eyes of Judaeo/ Christianity, or any other religion for that matter? The fact that ,historically ,humanity has created a great many myths to find comfort in their despair does not prove that a god of sorts does not exist. Gods, godesses, hells and heavens are locked into man made semantics and seem to cause more harm than good.Cool

Is it really neccessary to view "god" through the eyes of Judaeo/ Christianity
It is for me, it's the only religion I know. Also, the mere fact that other religions exist does not preclude specific references to Christianity.

The fact that, historically, humanity has created a great many myths to find comfort in their despair does not prove that a god of sorts does not exist.
Not quite sure what you mean by that. Are you referring to "The Negative Way" or something else?

Rather than have an unbeliever prove that god does not exist, I think it would be more helpful if the theist proved that god DID exist. (I don't mind waiting.)

I see the real problem here, from a supernatural point of view, is that god has been defined in ridiculous ways to give believers some sense of purpose. If god was defined less demandingly it might be easier to consider the notion.
For example many Buddhists don't believe in god;rather they look at an evolving spirituality. In Christianity of course you can argue that any lesser god would not be god, but thats their problem. Proof of god too, probably upsets Christians because of the faith element attached to that religion.

Hi Joe Bloe.[u]There is no reason why God should fit the crieria of any religion. Gnostics engage God in a meditational way, at least in part
If the pursuit of betterment was a never to end process, then, as we evolved spiritually ,the higher spiritual good would have to keep evolving also, No end.
This is one way of looking at it and is of course simply a suggestion.Huh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: