Political Crossfire Forums

Shady · Joined: 13 Oct 2005 Posts: 7413 Location: VA

wannabe wrote: Shady wrote: wannabe wrote: Shady wrote: I'm not worried, I know I've got a special spot in hell warming up for me. Right next to the lake of fire or so I'm told, very scenic.

oh, so you plan on working for the HMOs after med-school I see :wink:

Nope. I'm into research, I want to save lives. (obligatory *GASP*)

But no, I've been told I'm a damned soul enough times that I finally got the message. ;) And hey, it could be worse, they could send me to Montana for eternity. Man that'd be boring!

ah-so, evil pharmacutical Doctor who's gonna get rich off the misery of other.........or invent a better wang pill :wink:

lets see, for me hell on earth would be............Inner Mongolia, in winter, with only big hairy men around for company..........yep that would suck donkey balls.

to answer the real question here though......in my reading of the scriptures it's really not clear what happens to those who are "cut off"(from the book) after death, or what gets one "cut off". Although it mentions that people who abuse children or use Gods name to hurt and exploit others are in for a world of suck after they die. I like that :-D

Eh, God is going to see me and he's going to be all like "zOMG Shady!!111 g2h3ll!"

Shady · Joined: 13 Oct 2005 Posts: 7413 Location: VA

Winchester wrote: Shady wrote: wannabe wrote: Shady wrote: I'm not worried, I know I've got a special spot in hell warming up for me. Right next to the lake of fire or so I'm told, very scenic.

oh, so you plan on working for the HMOs after med-school I see :wink:

Nope. I'm into research, I want to save lives. (obligatory *GASP*)

But no, I've been told I'm a damned soul enough times that I finally got the message. ;) And hey, it could be worse, they could send me to Montana for eternity. Man that'd be boring!

Don't be dissing Montana or you will get sent to hell.

Better than Montana.

eynon · Posted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 2:51 am Post subject:

Shady wrote: wannabe wrote: Shady wrote: wannabe wrote: Shady wrote: I'm not worried, I know I've got a special spot in hell warming up for me. Right next to the lake of fire or so I'm told, very scenic.

oh, so you plan on working for the HMOs after med-school I see :wink:

Nope. I'm into research, I want to save lives. (obligatory *GASP*)

But no, I've been told I'm a damned soul enough times that I finally got the message. ;) And hey, it could be worse, they could send me to Montana for eternity. Man that'd be boring!

ah-so, evil pharmacutical Doctor who's gonna get rich off the misery of other.........or invent a better wang pill :wink:

lets see, for me hell on earth would be............Inner Mongolia, in winter, with only big hairy men around for company..........yep that would suck donkey balls.

to answer the real question here though......in my reading of the scriptures it's really not clear what happens to those who are "cut off"(from the book) after death, or what gets one "cut off". Although it mentions that people who abuse children or use Gods name to hurt and exploit others are in for a world of suck after they die. I like that :-D

Eh, God is going to see me and he's going to be all like "zOMG Shady!!111 g2h3ll!"

would God say "oh my god!"? :-|

btw.........what you got against Montana anyways, it's pretty 8:)

Shady · Joined: 13 Oct 2005 Posts: 7413 Location: VA

wannabe wrote: Shady wrote: wannabe wrote: Shady wrote: wannabe wrote: Shady wrote: I'm not worried, I know I've got a special spot in hell warming up for me. Right next to the lake of fire or so I'm told, very scenic.

oh, so you plan on working for the HMOs after med-school I see :wink:

Nope. I'm into research, I want to save lives. (obligatory *GASP*)

But no, I've been told I'm a damned soul enough times that I finally got the message. ;) And hey, it could be worse, they could send me to Montana for eternity. Man that'd be boring!

ah-so, evil pharmacutical Doctor who's gonna get rich off the misery of other.........or invent a better wang pill :wink:

lets see, for me hell on earth would be............Inner Mongolia, in winter, with only big hairy men around for company..........yep that would suck donkey balls.

to answer the real question here though......in my reading of the scriptures it's really not clear what happens to those who are "cut off"(from the book) after death, or what gets one "cut off". Although it mentions that people who abuse children or use Gods name to hurt and exploit others are in for a world of suck after they die. I like that :-D

Eh, God is going to see me and he's going to be all like "zOMG Shady!!111 g2h3ll!"

would God say "oh my god!"? :-|

btw.........what you got against Montana anyways, it's pretty 8:)

Well I don't he's gonna go "oh my me!"

Montana is boring as heck. Sort of like a potato...but without flavor.

Faet · Joined: 04 Oct 2006 Posts: 67 Location: Florida

wannabe wrote: Faet wrote: wannabe wrote: Faet wrote: CCD wrote: Faet wrote: I'll shoot this from a Judeo-Christian perspective, to keep things simple:

If God is all about love, why would he condemn otherwise morally acceptable non-believers to eternal damnation in hell?

He would not condemn otherwise morally acceptable people to damnation in hell. However.........

Faet wrote: It doesn't really make sense to me: he gave us free will to reason for ourselves, if we reasoned that he didn't provide sufficient evidence OR that the evidence he presented wasn't preserved by humans so that others could, too, see the so-called Truth, why should non-believers get screwed?

Since God does exist, if you have reasoned that He does not it is extremely difficult to create a truly moral existence by your own actions. A good moral conscience is built over a lifetime, and must be reinforced with study and prayer and sincere desire to attend to His will. We all have the natural instinct to follow the moral law that God has written in to our hearts, but we need guidance and practice always to stay focused.

The flaw in your logic is presuming free will can be used to reason moral choices for yourself. Moral choices are not subject to mental reasoning. There is a moral order, a moral law, that we are all subject to regardless of our cultural background. This moral order is part of the nature of God-created humans. We ignore this moral law at our own risk.

The following link goes into the subject in more detail.

Your absolutism amazes me.

There are two kinds of people of faith: those who talk to god, and those that god speak to. I'll assume you're the crazier of the two.

If there were an innate moral law, then why would we need the ten commandments?

people confuse easily, that's why.........10 commandments jsut laid out the basics.

If there were an innate moral law, I don't see a need for basics.

I don't think it's that strait forward, every person has their inner angles and demons, s**t can get confusing, more-over often we ignore our conscience and commit what we know(orthinkorfeel) is wrong(like me jerking off to Italian Bondage porn earlier :wink: ). Laws such as the 10 commandments reinforce that innate morality. Plus it's also prioritizes things pretty well too.......

I suppose that is a reasonable explanation of innate morality. But I guess that is where you an I disagree, and where this conversation go from being a religious discussion to a philosophical one.

ChuckBerry · Joined: 01 Aug 2007 Posts: 2208 Location: Lafayette, LA

Faet wrote:

Your absolutism amazes me.

There are two kinds of people of faith: those who talk to god, and those that god speak to. I'll assume you're the crazier of the two.

If there were an innate moral law, then why would we need the ten commandments?

There are fundamentals of morality that are not up for debate. Insult me all you want; I didn't make the rules, and you ignore them at your own peril.

As for your question, it was already addressed in my first post on the subject.

eynon · Posted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 3:11 am Post subject: Re: Why are non-believers doomed?

Faet wrote: I suppose that is a reasonable explanation of innate morality. But I guess that is where you an I disagree, and where this conversation go from being a religious discussion to a philosophical one.

what's the difference? :-|

John · Joined: 02 Jun 2004 Posts: 22871

Enoch wrote: John wrote: Faet wrote: I'll shoot this from a Judeo-Christian perspective, to keep things simple:

If God is all about love, why would he condemn otherwise morally acceptable non-believers to eternal damnation in hell?

It doesn't really make sense to me: he gave us free will to reason for ourselves, if we reasoned that he didn't provide sufficient evidence OR that the evidence he presented wasn't preserved by humans so that others could, too, see the so-called Truth, why should non-believers get screwed?

How can you hate God and be morally acceptable? Who said anything about hate? Simply not believing a religion's interpretation of the divine doesn't equate to hate.

If God (the one who sent Christ to die for our sins) is real...then we were all designed and inherently know deep down that we should serve Him. The only reason people reject that is because deep down they hate that idea...and in effect hate what God is all about. Because THAT is what it's all about.

To reject what Christ did for you is a very hateful thing to do. He took your sin debt upon His shoulders and provided a way of Salvation for you....to say...."Meh, I don't care or even give that any credit"...is hateful.

slitedeviance · Joined: 02 Sep 2006 Posts: 1507

John wrote: The only reason people reject that is because deep down they hate that idea...and in effect hate what God is all about. Because THAT is what it's all about.

I'm sorry John, but no. I would actually much prefer it if I beleived in God or a supreme power and authority. It would make life much simpler for myself in terms of explaining how my life has gone the way it has.

I don't believe in God because I have an inherent faith that he / she / they do not exist. I have no belief in a higher power. It is not a choice I make based on an emotional response, in the same way you do not conciously choose to believe in God.

I do not consider you hateful for believing that people will go to hell because they do not share your specific view on the world, so why is it you choose to be so judgemental of others who do believe what you do?

Enoch · Joined: 29 Aug 2005 Posts: 8771

John wrote: Enoch wrote: John wrote: Faet wrote: I'll shoot this from a Judeo-Christian perspective, to keep things simple:

If God is all about love, why would he condemn otherwise morally acceptable non-believers to eternal damnation in hell?

It doesn't really make sense to me: he gave us free will to reason for ourselves, if we reasoned that he didn't provide sufficient evidence OR that the evidence he presented wasn't preserved by humans so that others could, too, see the so-called Truth, why should non-believers get screwed?

How can you hate God and be morally acceptable? Who said anything about hate? Simply not believing a religion's interpretation of the divine doesn't equate to hate.

If God (the one who sent Christ to die for our sins) is real...then we were all designed and inherently know deep down that we should serve Him. The only reason people reject that is because deep down they hate that idea...and in effect hate what God is all about. Because THAT is what it's all about.

To reject what Christ did for you is a very hateful thing to do. He took your sin debt upon His shoulders and provided a way of Salvation for you....to say...."Meh, I don't care or even give that any credit"...is hateful. Once again John, you attribute motive to people incorrectly. I reject the Christian definition of God, but I don't reject God. I don't hate God, or the Goddess, or anything about the divine.

Simply because you interpret hate to be present doesn't mean it is.

However, that is all beside the point. Answer the original question. Why should a moral person go to Hell simply for not believing what a religion tells him/her they should believe?

CursedLemon

CCD wrote: Faet wrote:

Your absolutism amazes me.

There are two kinds of people of faith: those who talk to god, and those that god speak to. I'll assume you're the crazier of the two.

If there were an innate moral law, then why would we need the ten commandments?

There are fundamentals of morality that are not up for debate. Insult me all you want; I didn't make the rules, and you ignore them at your own peril.

As for your question, it was already addressed in my first post on the subject.

Ho-ly sh*t.

Have you EVER heard of the social contract?

Carlin · Posted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 10:32 am Post subject:

It will never cease to amaze me how much people think the bed time stories they were told as children are real.

b.scheller · Posted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 11:14 am Post subject:

You mean to tell me the Easter Bunny is not real, and Santa is some pedophile at the mall?

As for being doomed, well, in all honesty, I'd rather be doomed, cease to exist and just decompose. Than live forever in some "big blue yonder" or "down below in hell". The concept of heaven and hell is just beyond me. Your suppose to suffer eternal damnation, but how is it really all that bad if its eternal? Does it matter whether you end up in one place or another. Your no longer flesh and cannot feel pain.

If everyone is to exist till eternity, than what is the point of heaven or hell, if it would be just easier to live out the rest of existance on this rock? However, I accept death as finality. I welcome the idea that we cease to exist, because frankly eternal life is just not something I'd be looking forward to.

perdidochas · Joined: 06 Mar 2006 Posts: 15326 Location: Florida

Faet wrote: I'll shoot this from a Judeo-Christian perspective, to keep things simple:

If God is all about love, why would he condemn otherwise morally acceptable non-believers to eternal damnation in hell?

It doesn't really make sense to me: he gave us free will to reason for ourselves, if we reasoned that he didn't provide sufficient evidence OR that the evidence he presented wasn't preserved by humans so that others could, too, see the so-called Truth, why should non-believers get screwed?

Well, the Catholic Church would say that non-believers do have the opportunity for heaven. it depends on the reason for their non-belief. If nonbelief is based on ignorance, we trust in a merciful God.

Faet · Joined: 04 Oct 2006 Posts: 67 Location: Florida

John wrote: Enoch wrote: John wrote: Faet wrote: I'll shoot this from a Judeo-Christian perspective, to keep things simple:

If God is all about love, why would he condemn otherwise morally acceptable non-believers to eternal damnation in hell?

It doesn't really make sense to me: he gave us free will to reason for ourselves, if we reasoned that he didn't provide sufficient evidence OR that the evidence he presented wasn't preserved by humans so that others could, too, see the so-called Truth, why should non-believers get screwed?

How can you hate God and be morally acceptable? Who said anything about hate? Simply not believing a religion's interpretation of the divine doesn't equate to hate.

If God (the one who sent Christ to die for our sins) is real...then we were all designed and inherently know deep down that we should serve Him. The only reason people reject that is because deep down they hate that idea...and in effect hate what God is all about. Because THAT is what it's all about.

To reject what Christ did for you is a very hateful thing to do. He took your sin debt upon His shoulders and provided a way of Salvation for you....to say...."Meh, I don't care or even give that any credit"...is hateful.

I don't reject what Christ did for me; I am simply uncertain that he even did it at all. I think I explained that in my opening post.

And how would we be designed and inherently know that deep down we should serve Him? That doesn't make sense, and probably doesn't even fall within what most Christians would describe as a correct assessment of Christian beliefs.

As a side note: I can't hate something that I do not believe exists.

mojo · Joined: 08 Sep 2005 Posts: 5485 Location: Dreamland, NC

No person has the right to jusdge anyone on the basis of whether or not they will saved.

But, IMHO, those who intentionally shut themselves off from God in both belief and actions will not share in His glory.

Enoch · Joined: 29 Aug 2005 Posts: 8771

mojo wrote: No person has the right to jusdge anyone on the basis of whether or not they will saved.

But, IMHO, those who intentionally shut themselves off from God in both belief and actions will not share in His glory. And what does it mean, in your opinion, to shut oneself off from God in belief and action?

Shady · Joined: 13 Oct 2005 Posts: 7413 Location: VA

mojo wrote: No person has the right to jusdge anyone on the basis of whether or not they will saved.

But, IMHO, those who intentionally shut themselves off from God in both belief and actions will not share in His glory.

Oh well.

Though from a biblical perspective I'd have to agree with your assesment.

mojo · Joined: 08 Sep 2005 Posts: 5485 Location: Dreamland, NC

Enoch wrote: mojo wrote: No person has the right to jusdge anyone on the basis of whether or not they will saved.

But, IMHO, those who intentionally shut themselves off from God in both belief and actions will not share in His glory. And what does it mean, in your opinion, to shut oneself off from God in belief and action?

Well I must reinforce that this is MY opinion and not God's. There is a difference between telling someone they are damned and telling them they are damnABLE.

In my opinion, to shut oneself off from God is to intentionally isolate yourself from God's word and grace. Therefore someone who understands Christianity in all of its glory, yet still rejects its truths in favor of their own narrow-minded self interest. Basically a person who puts themselves and the material world before a higher purpose.

A person who is so consumed with themselves that they neither care for nor want to care for those who need to be helped.

Of course salvation is ultimately in the hands of God and his grace. Christ (as capn so eloquently put) is amnesty from our sins.

Carlin · Posted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 4:57 pm Post subject:

mojo wrote: Enoch wrote: mojo wrote: No person has the right to jusdge anyone on the basis of whether or not they will saved.

But, IMHO, those who intentionally shut themselves off from God in both belief and actions will not share in His glory. And what does it mean, in your opinion, to shut oneself off from God in belief and action?

Well I must reinforce that this is MY opinion and not God's. There is a difference between telling someone they are damned and telling them they are damnABLE.

In my opinion, to shut oneself off from God is to intentionally isolate yourself from God's word and grace. Therefore someone who understands Christianity in all of its glory, yet still rejects its truths in favor of their own narrow-minded self interest. Basically a person who puts themselves and the material world before a higher purpose.

A person who is so consumed with themselves that they neither care for nor want to care for those who need to be helped.

Of course salvation is ultimately in the hands of God and his grace. Christ (as capn so eloquently put) is amnesty from our sins.

It always just comes to the fact that there will be punishment for free thinkers. It's obnoxious, yet if people really need to believe this stuff in order to even begin to live a happy life, then may your imagination continue to bless you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaEU_yYgWd8