Freethought & Rationalism Archive

WWSD · 07-31-2003, 11:07 AM

Whispers wrote
IF there is one truth and one truth only and there must be, and Jesus was that truth, then everything he said is true....If he is the only way to the father, then all other ways/methods are doomed to failure. In other words, to have an afterlife, you need to be in a relationship with Christ, because he is the ONLY way to eternal life. If during your life, you repeatedly turn down or ignore this relationship which leads to the heavenly father, you cannot moan because when you die, you did not get what you never wanted or believed in. Remember a step of faith is required.

Your first sentence makes little logical sense. We have to define truth, then determine what the "one truth" is, eliminating all potential possibilities, and then determine that your diety actually represents the "one truth."
AT this point we haven't even satisfied the condition of defining truth. Ergo we cannot say with any certainty that your diety spoke any truth at all.

Beyond that, we're going to have to establish the existence of an afterlife in order to determine if your diety really is the only way to secure a postion there.

At the moment, I have several religions/faiths/etc vying for my time and mental energy. How am I to determine that yours is correct?

Read the bible? How am I to be certain that it is a reputable source for information regarding your afterlife. After all, doesn't the Qu'ran also speak about the afterlife and claim to be the only authority?

Anycase...
As has already been stated, your analogy is faulty. In addition to the aformentioned problems, there is also another that I'd like to address.

The man at the edge of the river, if he is to be analogous to your diety, would have known I was going to fall into the river long before I even approached the river or even thought about going fishing that day. Thus he couldhave simply shown up at my door and told me not to go to the river that day or ever.

Originally posted by SignOfTheCross
Reject - to refuse to accept, submit to, believe, or make use of.

You refuse to accept the Gospel, you reject it.

Do you refuse to believe in leprechauns?

Or rather, do you simply not believe in them because you've never seen one or have no evidence of thier existence?

The statement "refuse to believe/accept X" seems to imply that one has seen acceptable evidence for X and simply does not want to believe in X for alternate reasons. Perhaps this is not what you are implying, but it sounds like it is.

Cross Examiner · 07-31-2003, 11:30 AM

emotional,

Quote:

I trust God. I have faith in God. I trust and have faith that God will not put me in hell for failing to believe in Jesus. I trust and have faith that He is kinder than that, and that He judges people according to their actions towards other people, and not according to an arbitrary article of faith.

I understand your point of view. I feel sympathetically towards it as well. I believe you are closer than many here to salvation but you must hear from me that God will not tolerate sin in His eternal presence. And none are made righteous, sinless, alone by their own works, however noble in intent. No doubt you do good deeds, I believe you wholeheartedly, however the standard is not goodness but perfection, a standard unattainable by man's works alone; man must exhibit utter trust and dependence upon Jesus Christ's perfect life and conquering of death itself for one's own rescue. I cannot rescue myself from myself, but Jesus can and did and will for any who call on his name.

Quote:

Christianity says I shall burn in hell for not being a Christian. Islam says I shall burn in hell for not being a Muslim. I reject both Christianity and Islam and choose to trust instead in God. To trust that He is not a God of bribe and blackmail. Christians and Muslims think much lowlier of God than I do.

Hell. A misunderstood concept. For me, personally, a trying subject as well. So I studied what I could of it. I would have you know that Hell is, details from the Aramaic aside, in essence only a separation from God, quarantine between light and dark, that is not to be used as leverage against our skeptical friends but is to be warned of, as the natural consequence of a life lived in doubt to the very end. Each breath, hour, day and year is mercy from God so you may believe on the name of Jesus Christ for rescue. God is not willing that even one should perish.

Regards,
BGiC

WWSD · 07-31-2003, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Billy Graham is cool

Now, I hesitate to take an analogy from the minds of George Lucas and Steven Spielberg, but you've seen "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade?" If so, you'll then remember that on the third and final trial, the Path of God, Indiana Jones could not see the bridge that he was supposed to cross but there had to be one in order to cross at all. Indiana could not see it, but the clock was ticking away while his father was dying to receive the Living Water from the Cup of Christ, the Grail, so Indiana, realizing the urgency, believed that the bridge would be there when he stepped. You know the rest. Granted, for the hardened empricist, it is indeed a leap from the Lion's Head to trust that the Bible speaks correctly on who Jesus was and what Jesus said and did. Millions of Christians have taken that leap. You can have confidence to trust that there is good reason to believe and go in headlong into the Gospels with a friendly eye. Read it again with a trusting eye rather than the doubting eye. For many, this will be the difference between living and dying.

Did not doubting T have the evidence in front of him? Why can I not be afforded the same luxury?

Yes, I am a hard core empiricist. I like to test things in order to determine thier nature. Before leaping, I would have tossed something into the chasm and discovered the existence of the hidden bridge.

Unfortunatly, there is nothing I can use to test your claims. You, as well as all others who claim truth, have competing and sometimes mutually exclusive claims. Yet none of you have any solid evidence to support those claims. A leap of faith could occur in any direction. I could become a Muslim or a pagan if I were to blindly leap all of the time. Therefore I require something a little more solid from which to base my decisions about what I'm going to beleive in.

BTW, I understand that you've heard this before but you'll hear again and again because God does care to speak with you, has not forgotten you and does communicate through the faith of one man to the doubt of another.

Yes, I have heard it many times. I have read the bible many times as well. I read it once as a believer, once in search of something to bolster my flagging faith, and once as a skeptic. I am currently slogging through a fourth time with a highlighter, highlighing both good and bad passages.

I wonder then, why god doesn't simply deliver the message directly, as that would be the most eficient approach and the one most likely to convince someone like me. But then, that's what faith is for eh?

emotional · 07-31-2003, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Billy Graham is cool
but you must hear from me that God will not tolerate sin in His eternal presence.

This I believe. He is all-holy and will not admit sinners into His heavenly abodes. That is why He sends them to Hell to repent and be cleansed of their sins, and then lets them out of there into one of the heavenly planes. Hell is like a washing machine for stained souls. It cannot be eternal, for that would have no remedial or corrective value.

Quote:

And none are made righteous, sinless, alone by their own works, however noble in intent. No doubt you do good deeds, I believe you wholeheartedly, however the standard is not goodness but perfection, a standard unattainable by man's works alone; man must exhibit utter trust and dependence upon Jesus Christ's perfect life and conquering of death itself for one's own rescue. I cannot rescue myself from myself, but Jesus can and did and will for any who call on his name.

This I disbelieve. Faith in Jesus, even faith in God, counts for nothing. When people die and stand in front of God (and this is from near-death experiences), He asks them what they have done with their life, not what they have believed. Since God is self-sufficient, it is impossible that ritual or faith could please Him. He lacks nothing; how can you please Him? So that the only requirement is a loving and kindly life towards others. All the rest is man-made vanity. The Bible is man's word, not God's word; such is clear from its very first chapter onwards, reading an account of creation which is contrary to what happened in reality.

God and His attributes

rdalin · 07-31-2003, 12:33 PM

Quote:

BTW, I understand that you've heard this before but you'll hear again and again because God does care to speak with you, has not forgotten you and does communicate through the faith of one man to the doubt of another.

I've heard this nonsense over and over again, and it still strikes me as being completely foolish and unbelievable. You see, I have no doubt at all about the non-existence of your god. Why do you think that constant repetition will somehow magically convince people?

No Quarter · 07-31-2003, 01:01 PM

Whispers babbled:
"IF there is one truth and one truth only and there must be, and Jesus was that truth, then everything he said is true....If he is the only way to the father, then all other ways/methods are doomed to failure. In other words, to have an afterlife, you need to be in a relationship with Christ, because he is the ONLY way to eternal life. If during your life, you repeatedly turn down or ignore this relationship which leads to the heavenly father, you cannot moan because when you die, you did not get what you never wanted or believed in. Remember a step of faith is required."

Of course, those poor ignorant savages in other countries that have cultural, political and familial pressures to stay within their respective religions (Hindus are a good example I think) can go straight to hell for not being lucky enough to be born into the christian world.

How dare they refuse to ignore and reject thousands of years of cultural heritage, their families upbringing and societal pressures just to blindly have faith in another foreign god that seems, I am sure, as ridiculous to a hindu as their gods seem to a christian.

They damn well deserve to fry.

Ahhh - the comforting, warming glow of smug christianity.

I would have to say that Whispers' point is one of the main things that caused me to leave religion behind. It simply cannot be resolved aginst the concept of an all-loving sky-daddy.

Here is another analogy...

Mr. and Mrs. Smith have been able to produce 5 beautiful little children, They range in ages from 7years old to newborn. The Smith home is a lovely 2 story colonial style house.

One night, a terrible fire happens to start in the house. Mrs. Smith runs outside. Mr. Smith runs upstairs to the children's bedrooms. Only one of the children is awake. Rather than shout or yell or physically roust up the other babies, he simply makes a gesture to the 7 year old to follow him downstairs to safety. The seven year old willingly follow his daddy downstairs and outside to safety. It takes a good 30 minutes for the fire to actually spread to the upstairs bedrooms and he has plenty of time to get all the children out one at a time if necessary.

BUT - the other 6 children are left to die a smothering, burning death. He does nothing else to save them. Mr. Smith stands on the street. His arm around the 7 year old, the red glow of the fire warming them in the chill evening air as they watch the house burn to the ground. Mr. Smith even thinks he may have heard a scream or two from the little kids. He might have imagined it, but he is sure he heard the newborn crying briefly as well.

Their twisted, blackened little skeletons are found cowering together under one of the melted steel bed frames. The 6 year old must have gathered the little ones together and tried to hide them there in safety. The fire department and police are devastated at the senseless loss of 6 innocent children.

After the investigation, the police come to find out that the Father started the fire. Furthermore it comes out that he had plenty of time to save his children (which he states he loves VERY VERY much), but refused to do so.

As he is arrested and brought in for questioning, the question is posed to Mr. Smith, "So, why did you not save these poor little children from such a horrible death?".

Mr. Smith, the loving father replied " They should have known better than to be asleep in the middle of the night! I waved my fucking arm for them to follow me. What was I supposed to do?! Shake them up or carry them out myself?!" "For fuck's sake, the 7 year old had enough sense to follow me. It's not my damn fault!".

The policeman asks "So why did you start the fire in the first place you maniac?"

"So I could show everyone how much I love my kids and how much they love me, of course. What are you, stupid? It makes perfect sense to me! It is not my fault that they rejected my offer to follow me to safety. I still love them nontheless - even though they had to die for not obeying me." Pipes Mr. Smith.

"But they were sound asleep - why didn't you wake them up and save them/ Better yet - why didn't you just not start the fire in the first place you psychopath!" The policeman shouts.

"Look, you're just not getting this." Says Mr. Smith. "I already told you why I did it. Any sane person can see that I am right and you guys are wrong for not agreeing with me. I am completely innocent. I already told you how much I love my kids. They are the most important thing in my life to me. I simply HAD to prove it this way. Why do you feel sorry for the little bastards anyway? they had their chance and refused to listen to me. IT IS NOT MY FAULT!".

Mr. Smith plead not guilty to the charges of arson and six counts of murder. The jury took 1 second to convict him and sentance him to death for being a sadistic cold blooded son of a bitch.

THE END.

And THAT, folks, is my opinion of christianity.

No Quarter

NQ

Cross Examiner · 07-31-2003, 01:37 PM

WWSD,

Quote:

Did not doubting T have the evidence in front of him? Why can I not be afforded the same luxury?

Shall Christ appear personally to each? Shall he coerce each into heaven by fiat or would he request the involvement of your will to gather evidence to counter your doubt? The latter is what Christ really did for Thomas.

Quote:

Before leaping, I would have tossed something into the chasm and discovered the existence of the hidden bridge.

In our analogy, Indiana Jones did just that except that he did so after he crossed, after the intial exhibition of faith. Remember? Faith validated by empiricism, Not empiricism pre-validating faith.

Quote:

Unfortunatly, there is nothing I can use to test your claims. You, as well as all others who claim truth, have competing and sometimes mutually exclusive claims. Yet none of you have any solid evidence to support those claims

You cannot measure history with the methodology of science. Doing so is like trying to weigh a chicken with a yardstick. When evaluating textual authenticity and historical events you are a juror, not a lab tech. Consequently, you arrive at confidence, not certainty. Personally, I am 95% confident with 5% doubt in what I believe which is more than sufficient to trust and follow.

I'd add here that the oft-alleged lack of "solid evidence" (well, oft-alleged at iidb at least) for the validity of the Gospels was found to be an erroneous preconception by Simon Greenleaf, (among countless other scholars), a former skeptic himself, principle founder of Harvard Law and prodiguous formulator on evidentiary law itself. Beyond merely his analysis, the evidence goes much deeper and leads to greater confidence when friendly testimony, rather than hostile testimony, is sought out.

You demand completely objective testimony? It doesn't exist. There are only degrees of hostility and friendliness over such a polarizing issue as the divinity of Jesus Christ. Disagree? Show me an atheist who is convinced in the validity of the Gospel. Show me a Christian who completely denies the validity of the Gospels. Impossible. These philosophical positions are intertwined and utterly defined (hence, no objectivity) by their stances toward the Gospels. Objecitivity in man does not exist for any such polarizing issue, else what is the purpose of jury selection? Would you return a verdict based solely upon the opening arguments of the prosecutor? Of course not, which begs, what friendly testimony for Christ have you examined?

As important as the evidence you choose to analyze is how you interpret the evidence. Who you are is an amalgam of all the decisions you've ever made, shaping and molding both your character and personality. Who you are is largely your own making which leads to the issue of personal culpability over rejecting the Gospel. Who you are determines how you analyze data, which is why interpretations on things may vary as wildly as the personalities of one man to the next. I'd speak more to this all but it gets into the problems with atheistic epistemology and is probably out of scope for our discussion here.

Just some thoughts for now.

Regards,
BGiC

07-31-2003, 01:59 PM

BGic: I see you're getting a fair bit of latitude here over preaching!

I would remind you that you never acknowledged my post of 30th July in this thread. You seem to me to be doing much the same in this one as you were there: telling people to take the blind leap of faith in Jesus but skating round your refusal to consider alternatives.

I find it highly appropriate that you use Indiana Jones as an analogy. That is fiction. A bit like the bible really. Look at the NT as a marketing tool for a religion. The Doubting Thomas story is a clever way of selling something for which there is precious little evidence.

Quote:

Shall Christ appear personally to each? Shall he coerce each into heaven by fiat or would he request the involvement of your will to gather evidence to counter your doubt? The latter is what Christ really did for Thomas.

Well christ is supposed to be one with the omnipotent god, so he certainly could appear to everyone if he tried. It is entertaining to see xian apologists equating revelation with coercion. If revelation for one, why not for all? Why should there be merit in believing on no grounds other than a mixture of fear and wishful thinking?

Mageth · 07-31-2003, 02:09 PM

Originally posted by SignOfTheCross
Reject - to refuse to accept, submit to, believe, or make use of.

You refuse to accept the Gospel, you reject it.

Umm, no. I don't "refuse to accept" the Gospel, and I havent "rejected" the gospel. Like I said, there's nothing there for me to reject (or accept), and there's nothing there to "refuse to accept". I can't, and don't, refuse to accept, or reject, something that doesn't exist.

The way you used "reject" implies that I'm "refusing to accept" something that is true, that exists, like an accused person rejecting a plea bargain. An accused person can't reject a plea bargain that hasn't been offered. If you have to dig around for a particular definition of "reject" in order to counter my claim that I haven't rejected the gospel, then your argument isn't very strong.

It wasn't intended to be bitter, rather I have no problem with the concept of hell for those who reject Him.

And to me, that's bitter, as in it leaves a bad taste in my mouth that people in the 21st century can still believe in such a cruel superstition.

No, the idea of hell isn't a nice one, and no, I don't believe you are going to hell, that is up to God.

If you believe that people that have heard the gospel and rejected it, or in my case that has heard it and determined that it is bogus and that there is nothing there to accept or reject, then you believe that I'm going to hell.

You took what I said out of context.

Hardly. My comment you're responding to is "If you're going to continue with posts that condemn people to hell, and apparently are in approval of that." Your posts do condemn people to hell (e.g. those who reject the gospel) and you apparently are in approval of that (e.g. when you said "However, no such problem for those who reject it.")

Peace,
SOTC

One more time: I would prefer it if you'd leave off the vacuous "Peace" in replies to me in which you describe your superstitious vision of my future eternity in Hell, especially when you say things like "I have no problem with the concept of hell for those who reject Him".

Autonemesis · 07-31-2003, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Billy Graham is cool
BTW, I understand that you've heard this before but you'll hear again and again because God does care to speak with you, has not forgotten you and does communicate through the faith of one man to the doubt of another.

You do not understand. My doubt does not need to be assauged. My doubt is the center of my life, the mover of my mind, the foundation of my worldview. Through doubt, I was saved.

You think I mock your faith? Think again. It is you who mock my doubt. Faith may be able to move mountains, but Doubt will put them right back where they belong.

The most preposterous notion that H. sapiens has ever dreamed up is that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of all the Universes, wants the saccharine adoration of His creatures, can be swayed by their prayers, and becomes petulant if He does not receive this flattery. Yet this absurd fantasy, without a shred of evidence to bolster it, pays all the expenses of the oldest, largest, and least productive industry in all history. - Lazarus Long

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-31-2003, 11:07 AM	#21
WWSD Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Albucrazy, New Mexico Posts: 1,425	Whispers wrote IF there is one truth and one truth only and there must be, and Jesus was that truth, then everything he said is true....If he is the only way to the father, then all other ways/methods are doomed to failure. In other words, to have an afterlife, you need to be in a relationship with Christ, because he is the ONLY way to eternal life. If during your life, you repeatedly turn down or ignore this relationship which leads to the heavenly father, you cannot moan because when you die, you did not get what you never wanted or believed in. Remember a step of faith is required. Your first sentence makes little logical sense. We have to define truth, then determine what the "one truth" is, eliminating all potential possibilities, and then determine that your diety actually represents the "one truth." AT this point we haven't even satisfied the condition of defining truth. Ergo we cannot say with any certainty that your diety spoke any truth at all. Beyond that, we're going to have to establish the existence of an afterlife in order to determine if your diety really is the only way to secure a postion there. At the moment, I have several religions/faiths/etc vying for my time and mental energy. How am I to determine that yours is correct? Read the bible? How am I to be certain that it is a reputable source for information regarding your afterlife. After all, doesn't the Qu'ran also speak about the afterlife and claim to be the only authority? Anycase... As has already been stated, your analogy is faulty. In addition to the aformentioned problems, there is also another that I'd like to address. The man at the edge of the river, if he is to be analogous to your diety, would have known I was going to fall into the river long before I even approached the river or even thought about going fishing that day. Thus he couldhave simply shown up at my door and told me not to go to the river that day or ever. Originally posted by SignOfTheCross Reject - to refuse to accept, submit to, believe, or make use of. You refuse to accept the Gospel, you reject it. Do you refuse to believe in leprechauns? Or rather, do you simply not believe in them because you've never seen one or have no evidence of thier existence? The statement "refuse to believe/accept X" seems to imply that one has seen acceptable evidence for X and simply does not want to believe in X for alternate reasons. Perhaps this is not what you are implying, but it sounds like it is.

07-31-2003, 01:01 PM	#26
No Quarter Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: A place so dense a tablespoon of it would weigh as much as 10,000 battleships Posts: 86	Whispers babbled: "IF there is one truth and one truth only and there must be, and Jesus was that truth, then everything he said is true....If he is the only way to the father, then all other ways/methods are doomed to failure. In other words, to have an afterlife, you need to be in a relationship with Christ, because he is the ONLY way to eternal life. If during your life, you repeatedly turn down or ignore this relationship which leads to the heavenly father, you cannot moan because when you die, you did not get what you never wanted or believed in. Remember a step of faith is required." Of course, those poor ignorant savages in other countries that have cultural, political and familial pressures to stay within their respective religions (Hindus are a good example I think) can go straight to hell for not being lucky enough to be born into the christian world. How dare they refuse to ignore and reject thousands of years of cultural heritage, their families upbringing and societal pressures just to blindly have faith in another foreign god that seems, I am sure, as ridiculous to a hindu as their gods seem to a christian. They damn well deserve to fry. Ahhh - the comforting, warming glow of smug christianity. I would have to say that Whispers' point is one of the main things that caused me to leave religion behind. It simply cannot be resolved aginst the concept of an all-loving sky-daddy. Here is another analogy... Mr. and Mrs. Smith have been able to produce 5 beautiful little children, They range in ages from 7years old to newborn. The Smith home is a lovely 2 story colonial style house. One night, a terrible fire happens to start in the house. Mrs. Smith runs outside. Mr. Smith runs upstairs to the children's bedrooms. Only one of the children is awake. Rather than shout or yell or physically roust up the other babies, he simply makes a gesture to the 7 year old to follow him downstairs to safety. The seven year old willingly follow his daddy downstairs and outside to safety. It takes a good 30 minutes for the fire to actually spread to the upstairs bedrooms and he has plenty of time to get all the children out one at a time if necessary. BUT - the other 6 children are left to die a smothering, burning death. He does nothing else to save them. Mr. Smith stands on the street. His arm around the 7 year old, the red glow of the fire warming them in the chill evening air as they watch the house burn to the ground. Mr. Smith even thinks he may have heard a scream or two from the little kids. He might have imagined it, but he is sure he heard the newborn crying briefly as well. Their twisted, blackened little skeletons are found cowering together under one of the melted steel bed frames. The 6 year old must have gathered the little ones together and tried to hide them there in safety. The fire department and police are devastated at the senseless loss of 6 innocent children. After the investigation, the police come to find out that the Father started the fire. Furthermore it comes out that he had plenty of time to save his children (which he states he loves VERY VERY much), but refused to do so. As he is arrested and brought in for questioning, the question is posed to Mr. Smith, "So, why did you not save these poor little children from such a horrible death?". Mr. Smith, the loving father replied " They should have known better than to be asleep in the middle of the night! I waved my fucking arm for them to follow me. What was I supposed to do?! Shake them up or carry them out myself?!" "For fuck's sake, the 7 year old had enough sense to follow me. It's not my damn fault!". The policeman asks "So why did you start the fire in the first place you maniac?" "So I could show everyone how much I love my kids and how much they love me, of course. What are you, stupid? It makes perfect sense to me! It is not my fault that they rejected my offer to follow me to safety. I still love them nontheless - even though they had to die for not obeying me." Pipes Mr. Smith. "But they were sound asleep - why didn't you wake them up and save them/ Better yet - why didn't you just not start the fire in the first place you psychopath!" The policeman shouts. "Look, you're just not getting this." Says Mr. Smith. "I already told you why I did it. Any sane person can see that I am right and you guys are wrong for not agreeing with me. I am completely innocent. I already told you how much I love my kids. They are the most important thing in my life to me. I simply HAD to prove it this way. Why do you feel sorry for the little bastards anyway? they had their chance and refused to listen to me. IT IS NOT MY FAULT!". Mr. Smith plead not guilty to the charges of arson and six counts of murder. The jury took 1 second to convict him and sentance him to death for being a sadistic cold blooded son of a bitch. THE END. And THAT, folks, is my opinion of christianity. No Quarter NQ

07-31-2003, 02:09 PM	#29
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Originally posted by SignOfTheCross Reject - to refuse to accept, submit to, believe, or make use of. You refuse to accept the Gospel, you reject it. Umm, no. I don't "refuse to accept" the Gospel, and I havent "rejected" the gospel. Like I said, there's nothing there for me to reject (or accept), and there's nothing there to "refuse to accept". I can't, and don't, refuse to accept, or reject, something that doesn't exist. The way you used "reject" implies that I'm "refusing to accept" something that is true, that exists, like an accused person rejecting a plea bargain. An accused person can't reject a plea bargain that hasn't been offered. If you have to dig around for a particular definition of "reject" in order to counter my claim that I haven't rejected the gospel, then your argument isn't very strong. It wasn't intended to be bitter, rather I have no problem with the concept of hell for those who reject Him. And to me, that's bitter, as in it leaves a bad taste in my mouth that people in the 21st century can still believe in such a cruel superstition. No, the idea of hell isn't a nice one, and no, I don't believe you are going to hell, that is up to God. If you believe that people that have heard the gospel and rejected it, or in my case that has heard it and determined that it is bogus and that there is nothing there to accept or reject, then you believe that I'm going to hell. You took what I said out of context. Hardly. My comment you're responding to is "If you're going to continue with posts that condemn people to hell, and apparently are in approval of that." Your posts do condemn people to hell (e.g. those who reject the gospel) and you apparently are in approval of that (e.g. when you said "However, no such problem for those who reject it.") Peace, SOTC One more time: I would prefer it if you'd leave off the vacuous "Peace" in replies to me in which you describe your superstitious vision of my future eternity in Hell, especially when you say things like "I have no problem with the concept of hell for those who reject Him".

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.