ljoey02

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mageth
[B]Originally posted by ljoey02

Of course, in my experience, no matter what the Church teaches (especially in this area) the people believe whatever they want anyways and teach their children to pray for their friends and relatives who are not "saved" in order that their souls might be spared from eternal damnation. Is it just me or does this all just not fit at all???

I'm a bit confused: does what not fit with what?

Sorry, I should have been a bit clearer... I was trying to say that if the Church teaches that people other than Christians can get into heaven, then why do the people believe otherwise and teach their children to fear hell and pray for the souls of those who are not saved?

Gooch's dad

Situation A: My child steals a cookie off the counter and eats it. I never actually told the child to not steal cookies, but the child has gotten a general idea that this sort of thing isn't tolerated. My response is to lock the child in a dungeon and torture it for the rest of its life. As long as I'm alive and able, I will continue to torture this child unmercifully.

Situation B: God remains hidden, gives no certain evidence that it exists, and fails to answer my prayers when I pray that this God show that he exists. I choose to not believe in any gods. This God's (the Christian God) response, after I die, is to somehow resurrect me into a body that He tortures for all eternity, as "punishment" for the "sin" of not believing that he exists, and especially for not believing that he sent himself as his own son to be tortured to death for my sake.

Theists will almost certainly condemn my actions in Situation A as wrong. Yet they will bend over backwards to try to claim that the God of Situation B is "wholly good" and "a God of love".

If Christians cannot condemn situation B as utterly wrong, then they have no criteria whatsoever for saying anything is wrong.

Mageth

I'm speculating, but, if that is indeed the case, perhaps it's because they think that "classical" salvation is the only guaranteed way to make the cut.

Lanakila

I don't believe in the need for salvation, in sin, in heaven, hell, or God. The Jews in the holocaust died, because people killed them. They ceased to exist upon death the same way, you or I will. The whole sin/savior construct is a carrot stick thing that I wholly reject as manmade, mumbo jumbo with not a shred of evidence that it has any foundation in reality.

I was just giving the evangelical protestant perspective. I held that belief for 18 years.

gregor

Why must god be omnibenevolent? The Bible demonstrates the opposite. For example:

"2Th 2:11 - And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie [and go to hell]."


"Mt 7:21 - Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven."

So, there's alot more than simple faith and belief involved; you've got to be lucky according to Matthew and you've got to avoid those God-sent delusions (i.e. evilution?) to stay out of hell.

Scotsmanmatt

Originally posted by Scotsmanmatt
MB
Strawmen are often absurd and always irrelevant. Think omniscience and you might get an inkling of why informed theists simply smile to themselves at remarks such as the above.

MB
1. It is a strawman because in Christian theology [which I assume you're trying to address] God, being omniscient isn't "constantly monitoring for Jesus-belief".
2. I don't see why faith as a requirement for being a Christian has to do with either of our remarks.

MB [previously]
Of course this assumes as true the very subject under dispute between the theist and the atheist, i.e. whether or not God has conclusively shown his existence humans.

MB
You really need to familiarise yourself with Christian theology and logic if you're going to rationally discuss these subjects. Just because you *think* there isn't conclusive evidence for the existence of a god doesn't mean that there *isn't* conclusive evidence for his existence. That being so you cannot simply assume as true that which is the very subject under dispute without begging the question.

GW [previously]
c) Condemn those who use their rational minds which he gave them to conclude on the basis of complete lack of evidence that no gods exist to eternal punishment.

MB [previously]
This again begs the question which for your information is a logical fallacy warranting dismissal of the intended argument until such time as the assumption being made is substantiated.

MB
Find out what it means to beg the question and you might get an idea where I'm coming from.

ljoey02

Sorry Lanakila, I must have misinterpreted your earlier reply.
:banghead:

Godless Wonder

You would agree that the Christian God knows at all times whether someone does or does not have faith in Jesus? If yes, that amounts to the same thing as "constantly monitoriing for Jesus belief."
The "constant monitoriing for jesus belief" and subsequent reward and punishment are the enforcement of that requriement.
No. 1+1 = 2. Nobody disputes this. Water at sea level atmospheric pressure freezes at 0 degrees C and boils at 100 degrees C. Deprived of oxygen to breathe, humans will die within a matter of minutes. These are examples of things for which there exists conclusive evidence. People from all over the world from different cultures can verify these things easily, and there is no arguing about these facts. only 1 of 3 people in this world believe in a form of the Christian God, and those are divided into many sects with all sorts of disagreements between them about the details. There is not conclusive evidence. There is in fact, not one shred of evidence anywhere. Produce one shred of evidence, please. It sounds like it should be no problem for you.

judge

A good place to begin to understand hell is this article here.

http://www.preteristarchive.com/Part...uel_pp_02.html

Here are the thoughts of a fundamentalist(?) when he actually looked at what the bible really said about hell.

"Don't you know that hell is just something the Catholic Church invented to scare people into obedience?"

I was properly righteously indignant when, a number of years ago, a caller uttered these words on a call-in radio show I was conducting. Perturbed by his haphazard use of Scripture, I pointed out to him and the audience, that hell couldn't possibly be something invented by Catholic theologians because Jesus talked about it. I forcefully read some of the passages where Jesus did, and concluded that hell couldn't possibly be the invention of an apostate church.

Lanakila

Even though, that said Apostate church, compiled what we know to be the Bible, that same said Catholic church, had redactors and translators, determine what belongs in the Bible. If God is omniscient, it seems he could keep his word out of the hands of apostates. Not. The Bible is what man has compiled together. Calling the Catholics apostate, when according to the scriptures you hold they are brothers, is a bit of hypocracy. It's the Bible thats flawed, and the God it speaks about doesn't exist, or hasn't shown himself to exist. Hell is a doctrine to keep the faithful in line, and cause many to convert. But, convert why. Since the only evidence that hell exists is in the Bible, and the Bible is where we learn about how to avoid it, the Bible creates the sickness, and then provides the cure. The problem is the sickness cannot be proven, nor the cure.