openeyes

Magus, It seems to me that you are frustrated that most of us on a site called "Infidels," part of "The Secular Web" don't see the world as you do, yet we're not all worried about punishment in an afterlife.

You are not going to change our minds. If that pains you, go back to your "friends" on the xian boards. I mean, you can stay if you want, but you're going to continue to get the same kind of resistance to your outlook as you've received so far. If you looking for reverence to something in which we have no belief, you're not going to find it here. Sorry (for you, not for us.)

Magus55

I know, such a shame that atheists end up believing Satan's lies and don't see Jesus' truth.

Bree

If you'd like to continue trying to win us to Jesus, please open up your own thread in ~~Elsewhere~~ as comments like these add nothing to the discussion at hand.

sakrilege

The problem is, the more I hear about heaven and hell, the more unreal they seem and the harder it is for me to believe. When I didn't think about them I was able to accept their existance. But now that I have paid attention to the absurdities that arise if they do exist I can no longer believe. I'm not choosing anything.

Magus55

Yet the the exact same comment orac made does?

Magus55

You ARE choosing something. By denying God, you automatically choose to be separated from Him. To God, there is no inbetween; you can't be lukewarm. Its either Hot or Cold, Heaven or Hell, God or no God. Lack of belief is the biggest sin ( the unpardonable sin) and whether you are directly choosing or indirectly - by denying God's existance - you choose Hell. Thats the way it works.

Hawkingfan

If you can be separated from god, then he is not omniscient. Also, (just a side note) you are wrong about lack of belief being the "biggest" sin:

1 Timothy 5
8If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

lpetrich

Bertrand Russell had pointed out:

"And if there is a God, I think it very unlikely that he would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence."

Abacus

No, it isn't. That's the way (some) humans have decided it works.

mike_decock

The word Hell, in the Old Testament, is always a translation of the Hebrew word Sheol, which occurs sixty-four times, and is rendered "hell" thirty-two times, "grave" twenty-nine times, and "pit" three times.

1. By examination of the Hebrew Scriptures it will be found that its radical or primary meaning is, The place or state of the dead

These witnesses all testify that sheol, or hell, in the Old Testament, has no reference whatever to this doctrine; that it signifies simply the state of the dead, the invisible world, without regard to their goodness or badness, their happiness or misery. The Old Testament doctrine of hell, therefore, is not the doctrine of endless punishment.

1. Though Gehenna occurs twelve times, the Savior actually used it only on four or five different occasions, the rest being only repetitions. If this is the word, and the revelation of this terrible doctrine is in it, how is it possible that Christ, in a ministry of three years, should use it only four times? Was He faithful to the souls committed to His charge?

The Biblical Doctrine of Hell

So now it's just your opinion that unbelievers should be eternally tormented? The doctrine of endless torment is a Pagan concept that got twisted into church doctrine.

-Mike...