View Full Version : We're all going to hell.
Face it, if there is a god, chances are that your going to hell. There are hundreds of religions in the world, and most of them send non-believers to hell. The size of the religion is not a factor, because it varies from time to time.
Christians: Was your religion any less credible when it didnt exist? Where did everybody before 30AD go when they didnt believe in Jesus? Did they all go to hell? Thats pretty cruel.
If you are Christian, you are going to Islamic, Buddhist, Hinduist, Daoist, Jewish, Pagean, and Shinto hells.
Same for any other religion.
As many people have pointed out, Communism very much dislikes religion. While some at Exosci hold that religious persecution is the core ambition of Communism, reality tells us a much different story. Cruelty or practicality aside, the Communists, during their absolutist phases, cannot relate at all to redemptive churches.
The reason for this is actually much relevant to the present topic. That Communists could not cooperate with, say, Christianity, should surprise nobody. When the differences between the two methods of thought and perception collided, Communists saw the church as an obstacle toward actualization of the alleged utopia. The church, however, could not be moved, and for one simple reason:
* Whereas the Communists chose to operate in response to living needs, the Christians chose to operate in response to a promise that transcends life. That is, it is impossible, then, to reach accord in this life when one of the parties has little or no regard for this life's consequences.
We see this in the American republic, as well. Religions scramble to protect their "rights", endowing their right with the marque of a heavenly, transcendent commission. The religious redemptives have no necessary obligation to regard the rest of the living public in the dialogue of propriety. A dialogue, in fact, is unacceptable. Why? Because these infidels are working toward the exploitation of the falsehood of reality, and not the reality of the promise of heaven. What can one do to dissuade one who sees no end? Reason? Bargain? No, for the bargaining words are mere temptations encouraging the faithful to forsake redemption. Force? Torture? Death? No, for the threat only reinforces the perception of righteousness among the faithful. Death only fulfills the promise, and releases the redemptive faithful from the cruel bonds of life.
What I cannot figure out is whether the grander, philosophical abyss separating the various religions is a manifestation of real human function, or if human function is a manifestation of religious fancy. For generations, life has equaled religion, and religion attributed as the highest purpose in life. Accepting whatever happened as a natural process, then, did the religion arise from human cruelty, or did human cruelty arise from religion? Because in the end, the only reason for one person to be redeemed and another not to is so that the first can say, "See, I was right!"
At the theological scale ... that's why I eventually undertook a religious philosophy without a bent for either redemption or evangelism. And, in the end, that's also why religion became unnecessary for me.
A line in a Floater song goes, Open the shades today, welcome the sun on your skin; it feels like giving in.
I wish religion would become unnecessary for all people; when they escape the threat of necessity, they will have a better perspective on their faith. But for some reason, it seems that many individuals cannot arrive at that conclusion without somehow reflecting that their previous days were spent in failure; this is not the case. Life is going forward. Shedding the bonds that held you back is not giving in. It's called growing.
thanx,
Tiassa :cool:
Originally posted by tetra
Face it, if there is a god, chances are that your going to hell. There are hundreds of religions in the world, and most of them send non-believers to hell. The size of the religion is not a factor, because it varies from time to time.
Christians: Was your religion any less credible when it didnt exist? Where did everybody before 30AD go when they didnt believe in Jesus? Did they all go to hell? Thats pretty cruel.
If you are Christian, you are going to Islamic, Buddhist, Hinduist, Daoist, Jewish, Pagean, and Shinto hells.
Probability of going to hell if you die before the end of time: 100%
Why?
Hell is the grave.
Everyone goes there when they die.
God or no God, religion or no religion.
Cruel? Just a fact of li...uh...death.
That's why Jesus came. To bring eternal life, to raise us up out of those graves to live for ever.
Probability of going to hell if you die before the end of time: 100%
From the Bible ... and recall that entire ministries (such as Chick Ministry International) base their evangelism on these phrases.
Rev 19:20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.
Rev 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet [are], and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
Rev 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
Rev 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.
And, you know, while I fully understand the idea that perhaps you don't interpret Revelations the same way as others, I find your apparent ignorance of the habits, psychology, and sentiments of your faithful brethren somewhat amusing. That, and, of course, your ignorance of or apathy toward history.
Something about Biblical infallibility keeps nagging at the back of my mind, but I can't put my finger on it.
Oh well; if it's important, I'll think of it later.
So if the grave is Hell, can I get out of Hell by asking my relatives to not bury me in a lake of fire?
thanx,
Tiassa :cool:
Originally posted by tiassa
From the Bible ... and recall that entire ministries (such as Chick Ministry International) base their evangelism on these phrases.What phrases?
And, you know, while I fully understand the idea that perhaps you don't interpret Revelations the same way as others, I find your apparent ignorance of the habits, psychology, and sentiments of your faithful brethren somewhat amusing. That, and, of course, your ignorance of or apathy toward history.
Well, I am sorry I'm not dancing to your tune.
I'll requote your verses just in case I missed something.
Rev 19:20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.
Rev 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet [are], and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
Rev 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
Rev 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.
I must be missing something in this leap of logic you're asking me to take.
You quote a pile of verses talking about the lake of fire, and the connection between that and not going to the grave is...?
"Probability of going to hell if you die before the end of time: 100%"
From my understanding, and any Christian that i have ever encountered, hell is an actual place. The versus tiassa refers to make hell a place, the lake of fire. I don't buy into a meaning that is so well hidden that only a select few can ever decode but accept the message that seems to be very strong in the bible: if you do not accept Jesus then you will live eternally in hell and if you do you will live eternally in heaven. Where in the bible does it say that hell = grave?
another point: I find it very hard to accept an all loving, kind and justfull god who sends 99% of all his people to hell, the lake of fire, or to the grave. Whichever you prefer.
Originally posted by FA_Q2
"Probability of going to hell if you die before the end of time: 100%"
From my understanding, and any Christian that i have ever encountered, hell is an actual place. The versus tiassa refers to make hell a place, the lake of fire. I don't buy into a meaning that is so well hidden that only a select few can ever decode but accept the message that seems to be very strong in the bible: if you do not accept Jesus then you will live eternally in hell and if you do you will live eternally in heaven.
There is no hidden meaning. And hell is an actual place.
For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
(Romans 6:23, KJV).
The two choices are not live forever in location 1 or location 2.
The two choices are live forever or die.
I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:
(Deuteronomy 30:19, KJV).
Where in the bible does it say that hell = grave?
It's what the word means...
07585 she'owl {sheh-ole'} or sheol {sheh-ole'}
from 07592; TWOT - 2303c; n f
AV - grave 31, hell 31, pit 3; 65
1) sheol, underworld, grave, hell, pit
1a) the underworld
1b) Sheol - the OT designation for the abode of the dead
86 hades {hah'-dace}
from 1 (as negative particle) and 1492; TDNT - 1:146,22; n pr loc
AV - hell 10, grave 1; 11
1) name Hades or Pluto, the god of the lower regions
2) Orcus, the nether world, the realm of the dead
3) later use of this word: the grave, death, hell
The confusion arises from this...
But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
(Matthew 5:22, KJV).
See the two words "hell fire?" That is a single word in Greek.
1067 geenna {gheh'-en-nah}
of Hebrew origin 01516 and 02011; TDNT - 1:657,113; n f
AV - hell 9, hell fire + 3588 + 4442 3; 12
1) Hell is the place of the future punishment call "Gehenna" or
"Gehenna of fire". This was originally the valley of Hinnom,
south of Jerusalem, where the filth and dead animals of the
city were cast out and burned; a fit symbol of the wicked and
their future destruction.
another point: I find it very hard to accept an all loving, kind and justfull god who sends 99% of all his people to hell, the lake of fire, or to the grave. Whichever you prefer.
Where exactly are you planning on going when you die?
Where exactly are you planning on going when you die?
You have finally figured out what makes so many of us so damned amused. You are so engraved in your cult-mode that you've actually submitted to the spiritual blackmail that many of Christianity's critics charge.
God's love is a fiction.
So, where are you going, Tony? For the record, I will either finally be getting enough sleep, or else in the Summerland. I generally tend to think that, whatever it is, it'll be a change of pace.
--Tiassa :cool:
I shall cease to exist like everybody else will or ever has done. By the way, you avoided my statement. As you quoted:
I find it very hard to accept an all loving, kind and justfull god who sends 99% of all his people to hell, the lake of fire, or to the grave. Whichever you prefer.
Well, any response?
I should probably mention that he has no answer, and will most likely ask you to prove that these souls are in Hell.
He's either very delusional, or else exploring what happens when you adopt your religious vision as the complete reality. As we have seen, it affects one's psyche and also their logical performance. I don't think he's bothered to actually make much of a point yet; one wonders when he will either begin acting like a member of his faith, or just call it off and admit he's just here to bug people.
thanx,
Tiassa :cool:
(Oh, and the answer I'd put up to your point about 99.9% of people going to hell is that this is exactly the kind of religion that should be avoided at the risk of one's life. 'Tis better to be put to the grave than believe such horrible things about humanity as such a religion has inspired people to believe.)
Yeah, Tony1 ...
Where exactly are you planning on going when you die?
It's your own question. What's your own answer?
Or are we expected to prove that you will, someday, die?
thanx,
Tiassa :cool:
HOWARDSTERN
03-11-01, 02:12 AM
Originally posted by tetra
Face it, if there is a god, chances are that your going to hell. There are hundreds of religions in the world, and most of them send non-believers to hell. The size of the religion is not a factor, because it varies from time to time.
Christians: Was your religion any less credible when it didn't exist? Where did everybody before 30AD go when they didnt believe in Jesus? Did they all go to hell? Thats pretty cruel.
If you are Christian, you are going to Islamic, Buddhist, Hinduist, Daoist, Jewish, Pagean, and Shinto hells.
Same for any other religion. ************************************************** ************************************************** ********************
<i>We're all goin to hell BOB!</i><u>quit sleepin on the job! BOB ! ! </u>
Yep, been there ! ! ! Yet I say that it is a most fatalist point of view.
Strive each day toward building and acheiving. Look into the positive light of learning and being more than you were the day before. Look not into the past days & depised ways of ignorance, but look into the positive possibilities of tomorrow!
Tiassa seems to have a great reservoir of knowledge within the various subjects-
-thus the wise old owl.....itseemsa.....
<i>(howard???)..."I only tune in to hear what he's gonna say next ! ! !"</i>
<i><b>"this species has amused itself to death."(Tiassism's) </i></b>
<i>" Yes Sir, I agree with those understood erns"</i>
"for he that hath understanding, let him count the number of the beast, for it is the name of a man....and his number is six hundred, three score, & six..."let us pray". For what I have no idea. Ask the wise old Tiassa, he has all the answers!!!!!!!
Dear Mr. Tiassa, so how many anti-beliefs does it take to get to the heart of the tootsie-roll terra-reality of anti-religion, if you please?
Well said Tiassa, "you can kiss my g***d ass jehovah/aussie/atheist/howard the f**cking Stern!!!! I saw you coming, I did, before you ever thought of your last personality! ! ! ! ! ! (you as*hole)", said the wise old Tiassa.
"Not very humerous", Tiassa said.
<b>Christian, you are going to Islamic, Buddhist, Hinduist, Daoist, Jewish, Pagean, and Shinto hells. </b>
Careful what you ask for, Tiassa might give it to you...
<i>blues fans only !!!(house of blues digital radio, people!!!)........AARON NEVILLE, DOWN INTO MUDDY WATERS/ a blues break for this week!</i>
I'd drink turpentine & piss on a brushfire before I'd touch that one, people!!! Occasionally some things just have to be... & understood, and left the hell alone!!!
Often it is best to just go onto the next subject, people!
<i>(howard???)..."I only tune in to hear what he's gonna say next ! ! !"</i>
Originally posted by tiassa
It's your own question. What's your own answer?
Or are we expected to prove that you will, someday, die?
For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
(1 Thessalonians 4:15-17, KJV).
Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.
(1 Corinthians 15:51-53, KJV).
And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.
(Revelation 21:1-3, KJV).
HOWARDSTERN
03-11-01, 05:56 AM
LET US PRAY! T_A_S_!!!!!!!
FAITH & TRUTH & 42 WAYS TO .......
<i>(howard???)..."I only tune in to hear what he's gonna say next ! ! !"</i>
HOWARDSTERN
03-11-01, 06:12 AM
Originally posted by tony1
For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
(1 Thessalonians 4:15-17, KJV).
Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.
(1 Corinthians 15:51-53, KJV).
And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.
(Revelation 21:1-3, KJV).
First Tony....I appreciate your faith and devotion.
Secondly, you would have more luck at beating an extremely hard headed ASS on the head & making a religious point with a sledge hammer, before you stood a chance in heaven or hell at making a point of understanding to Tiassa!!!!!!!
Good try though! Unfortunately, the Evil Tiassa has already taken all the lost souls here!
Good advice Tony! get the hell out of here before the evil Tiassa takes your soul <i>TOO ! ! !</i>
Hell Tony! I was once like you! But now I am the evil disciple Howard Stern! RUN FOR YOUR LIFE & SOUL TONY! ((((((while you still can))))))!!!!!!!!!
<i>(howard???)..."I only tune in to hear what he's gonna say next ! ! !"</i>
Tony1--
It sounds as if you know what's in God's heart there, or else are pretty comfortable in your assumptions. I figured that out a while ago about you, when you mentioned the fire as a one-liner in a retort.
I just wanted to make sure that you were, indeed, relying on your assumption of salvation in these arguments.
Howard!
How many of the red pills have you taken? Do we need to call Poison Control for you?
thanx,
Tiassa :cool:
Originally posted by tiassa
I just wanted to make sure that you were, indeed, relying on your assumption of salvation in these arguments.
Not relying on assumption of salvation, relying on this...
But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
(Romans 10:8-10, KJV).
... you're relying on something that you must choose to believe is true. You have no way of knowing.
The reason I point this out--and, also, so that you know what you are automatically objecting to--is that this concept has motivated more people to damage their salvation, has brought them to fear that they need salvation. It is the motivating force of the most negative aspects of the religion. And it is something that those negative manifestations--those people who would misrepresent your church and your Savior--would justify themselves by. History demonstrates this process from the beginning, when the Christian apologists retreated straight into a nest of slander, their venom aimed primarily at their Jewish neighbors. Even Jesus' ministry had political overtones.
And these people who wrongly believe, who base their confidence in salvation in a book, choose to believe it is true for no better reason than they choose to believe that they have no choice.
And they are all as confident and assured of their salvation as you seem to be.
--Tiassa :cool:
Originally posted by tiassa
... you're relying on something that you must choose to believe is true. You have no way of knowing.
Likewise.
If materialists were "right" and knowing were simply a matter of having a bunch of chemicals reacting a certain way, then you could never be sure of knowing anything because of the possibility of some other cause producing a chemical effect.
If philosophers were "right" and knowing were a simple matter of observing phenomena and reaching conclusions based on certain agreed-upon rules, then you could never be sure of knowing anything because of the possibility of failing to observe something which is necessary for a correct conclusion or of the possibility of reaching the wrong conclusion or of the possibility of an incorrect rule.
Thus, nobody knows anything anyway.
I, on the other hand, have chosen to believe something wherein lies knowledge.
The difference between our situations is that you wish to "know" something first, even though that is impossible, and then believe that, whereas I have chosen to believe that which is true since that leads to knowing for sure.
The reason I point this out--and, also, so that you know what you are automatically objecting to--is that this concept has motivated more people to damage their salvation, has brought them to fear that they need salvation.
So, your suggestion is that it is better to ignore the need for salvation?
And these people who wrongly believe, who base their confidence in salvation in a book, choose to believe it is true for no better reason than they choose to believe that they have no choice.
Well, there's a difference. I don't base my "confidence in salvation" in a book.
There is a fundamental difference in how you and I view books.
You appear to view a book as a pile of paper with ink blobs of various shapes scattered here and there, with the meaning incidental to the existence of the book.
I view a book as a series of thoughts with some meaning, with the fact that it is ink and paper incidental to the meaning.
Thus, when I quote something from a particular book, you see, and react to, the letters independent of meaning.
But what I am actually doing is giving you the meaning in written form.
Thus, nobody knows anything anyway.
Congratulations, Tony! You've figured out a very important key to being human!
I, on the other hand, have chosen to believe something wherein lies knowledge.
Nobody ever said there wasn't knowledge in the Bible. I mean, critics of Christianity generally point out that the Bible is inconsistent with the publicly expressed Christianity; that the Bible is contradictory unto itself if taken literally; and that all Christian "knowledge" seems to ensconce itself amid the illusion that this book which orders the reader to believe it as truth claims to be true.
The difference between our situations is that you wish to "know" something first, even though that is impossible, and then believe that, whereas I have chosen to believe that which is true since that leads to knowing for sure.
You're assumptive on both counts. Slightly less about me. I like to know why things happen; what we do in this Universe is more important than what may be. I would like to know, for instance, that if my tax dollars are being spent locking people up for smoking pot, that there's a reason; thus far, nobody has provided an adequate reason, as most are based in racism, greed, and superstition. I would like to know, for instance, that if I am going to contribute my money to a war effort, that this war reflects a just cause.
If I am going to adopt the Bible as my guide to reality, I would like to know that it at least does not reject observable reality. If I am going to replace observable reality with the Bible, it would be nice to have some inward assurance that this new reality will not compel me to behave in a manner deviating from the standard my new, Biblical reality requires.
If it were not for the hateful exclusivity the Jealous God of the Bible demands; were it not for the, "Worship me or burn" element of the alleged free choice of faith, much of that Bible would not be in conflict with reality. And its church would be better off today, and thus all of the peoples for whom history has had such distaste as to cause them to encounter the religion.
If I wish to know something as relates to a moral quandary, it is because I wish to resolve the quandary correctly. The religion of the Bible does not necessarily allow for this. If I wish to settle a moral quandary as pertains to another person, I should seek equity, instead of a Bible phrase that tells me what equity is regardless of the circumstances. The difference there is doing the best you can, or being lazy enough to look it up in a book and call it real because it feels good enough that way.
So, your suggestion is that it is better to ignore the need for salvation?
Actually, my most direct suggestion would be that people seek salvation somewhere where they don't have to grovel for it. Better yet, yeah, ignore the need for salvation. If you're doing something to be saved, you won't be; this much is clear to many of us who do not choose the faith; in fact, it is the reason many of us have left the faith--even saved, we were still doomed to spiritual blackmail, and the eventual condemnation of having given in. One cannot shoot for salvation; it's dishonest. It puts a false motive behind all your good works.
On the other hand, if you do something simply because it is the right thing to do ... well, you've done an honest, right thing.
You appear to view a book as a pile of paper with ink blobs of various shapes scattered here and there, with the meaning incidental to the existence of the book.
I view a book as a series of thoughts with some meaning, with the fact that it is ink and paper incidental to the meaning.
I will offer as polite a warning as I can: Books are a special thing to me. Nobody who believes a book simply because it's convenient can tell me how I regard a book. Your inability to assert anything nearly representing reality demonstrates your lack of perspicacity toward the human nature. Get your nose out of your God's butt and start dealing with real people; you might learn a thing or two about them. My predecessors have tried to explain the whole of what a book is, and none have accomplished this. Next I suppose you'll be playing Stryper songs and telling me how I perceive rock and roll. :rolleyes:
Thus, when I quote something from a particular book, you see, and react to, the letters independent of meaning.
I, unlike you, am aware that the Bible takes on a different context when read as a whole as compared to when it is presented as aphorisms, witticisms, or the whole of a rhetorical argument.
Furthermore, I, unlike you, recognize that the Bible applies a critical standard to itself which rarely comes up. It demands that it is perfect; it demands that it is true; and it threatens the reader who chooses not to believe it. Part of the standard of viewing the Bible involves considering these factors. If Emma Goldman's essays did the same, I would regard her with the same critical eye. You dare speak of how you view books when you cannot even see the nature of the book you worship?
But what I am actually doing is giving you the meaning in written form.
If that is what you are doing, it is one of the most offensive assumptions one can make at this board. What you have then assumed is that your sparse and cowardly commentary makes sense, and that another individual reading your Bible quote will perceive it identically as you, and thus understand your irrelevance as something important. Stop assuming you know what people are thinking. Your best efforts to reduce people's minds to your level only demonstrates the level of your own mind.
--Tiassa :cool:
pragmathen
03-12-01, 10:08 PM
When Christians think of Hell, they envision a place that perpetually torments those that chose not to believe in Christ. It is impossible for them to think that others, despite what they chose <i>not</i> to believe in, will be enjoying an afterlife. Either follow and embrace Christ or go to Hell. Literally.
And, why do most Christian religions make it a point to focus most of their energies on the consequences of <i>not</i> following the doctrines and principles of their respective sect? Would it be surprising if the average Christian actually knew more about Hell than Heaven?
Let's say that Christians end up going to Heaven. And, for the sake of argument, let's say that they are given the opportunity to become as God, i.e. all-powerful and able to create worlds and such. Given the opportunity, would these same Christians say that they would then create a different world than the one on which they were reared? There is a point to be made by this. If they believe in free will (that they have a choice, by their actions, between Heaven and Hell) and they become as God, they still can<i>not</i> deviate from that which God has set forth on this planet. So, even if they become as God, they <i>still</i> have no choice in the matter but to do the same as God did before them.
Now, how does all of this relate to Hell being an actual place?
Hell is the great eugenics movement of Christians. They <b>live</b> for the day "when" Christ will come back and cut everyone down to stubble that does not believe in Him. They long for a return to the Old Testament days when entire cultures were wiped out because they chose to think differently and worship someone else. A Christian wouldn't be a Christian unless they had a well-developed sense and definition of Hell. If they had no consequences for <i>not</i> following, would they? Tough question. Thankfully, they don't have to answer. They just have to follow.
Oh, Hell is an actual place, all right. Just not exactly geographically- or quantum-oriented. Nowhere is Hell more defined than in one's own mind. Besides, no one can really be happy without Christ in their lives, can they?
How about, "Hallelujah!"
thanx much, prag,
Tiassa, :cool:
Well, i seem to still be stuck with the same question, tony1. What happened? Don't have an answer?
I know its fruitless tiassa but I'm pressing on anyway.
daktaklakpak
03-16-01, 07:33 PM
Originally posted by tony1
The two choices are live forever or die.
Does die mean to cease to exist? If yes, then where is the suffering in hell? If no, then you should change your sentence to:
The two choices are live in heaven or hell forever.
Since it's forever, does it really matter if there is suffering? People can detect strange odor during early encounters. But if they stay long enough, they won't notice anymore. I am pretty sure that if they stay forever, they can't tell any difference anymore.
I am athiest so I am totally immune to your bible talk :)
Not everything is the same as your sense of smell; it's unfair to generalize everything in existance to a simple sense.
Originally posted by tiassa
You've figured out a very important key to being human!
Well then, try taking it one step farther.
You don't know anything either.
Thus, every time you question the word of God, or the existence of God, you are wrong.
Nobody ever said there wasn't knowledge in the Bible. I mean, critics of Christianity generally point out that the Bible is inconsistent with the publicly expressed Christianity; that the Bible is contradictory unto itself if taken literally; and that all Christian "knowledge" seems to ensconce itself amid the illusion that this book which orders the reader to believe it as truth claims to be true.
Of course, there is this...
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
(1 Corinthians 2:14, KJV).
If I am going to adopt the Bible as my guide to reality, I would like to know that it at least does not reject observable reality. If I am going to replace observable reality with the Bible, it would be nice to have some inward assurance that this new reality will not compel me to behave in a manner deviating from the standard my new, Biblical reality requires.
Unfortunately, you seem to be defining observable reality as the reality you expect to see prior to observing it.
If it were not for the hateful exclusivity the Jealous God of the Bible demands; were it not for the, "Worship me or burn" element of the alleged free choice of faith, much of that Bible would not be in conflict with reality. And its church would be better off today, and thus all of the peoples for whom history has had such distaste as to cause them to encounter the religion.
Now you're just channeling.
If I wish to know something as relates to a moral quandary, it is because I wish to resolve the quandary correctly. The religion of the Bible does not necessarily allow for this. If I wish to settle a moral quandary as pertains to another person, I should seek equity, instead of a Bible phrase that tells me what equity is regardless of the circumstances. The difference there is doing the best you can, or being lazy enough to look it up in a book and call it real because it feels good enough that way.
Of course, doing the best you can is pretty much worthless, given the "not knowing anything" problem that you agreed with earlier.
Actually, my most direct suggestion would be that people seek salvation somewhere where they don't have to grovel for it. Better yet, yeah, ignore the need for salvation. If you're doing something to be saved, you won't be; this much is clear to many of us who do not choose the faith; in fact, it is the reason many of us have left the faith--even saved, we were still doomed to spiritual blackmail, and the eventual condemnation of having given in. One cannot shoot for salvation; it's dishonest. It puts a false motive behind all your good works.
The real reason people leave the faith...
The sower soweth the word.
And these are they by the way side, where the word is sown; but when they have heard, Satan cometh immediately, and taketh away the word that was sown in their hearts.
And these are they likewise which are sown on stony ground; who, when they have heard the word, immediately receive it with gladness;
And have no root in themselves, and so endure but for a time: afterward, when affliction or persecution ariseth for the word's sake, immediately they are offended.
And these are they which are sown among thorns; such as hear the word,
And the cares of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the lusts of other things entering in, choke the word, and it becometh unfruitful.
And these are they which are sown on good ground; such as hear the word, and receive it, and bring forth fruit, some thirtyfold, some sixty, and some an hundred.
(Mark 4:14-20, KJV).
On the other hand, if you do something simply because it is the right thing to do ... well, you've done an honest, right thing.
And the moon is made of green cheese.
I, unlike you, am aware that the Bible takes on a different context when read as a whole as compared to when it is presented as aphorisms, witticisms, or the whole of a rhetorical argument.
Most probably not.
So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.
(Isaiah 55:11, KJV).
You really do not know what God sends his word out to do.
Furthermore, I, unlike you, recognize that the Bible applies a critical standard to itself which rarely comes up. It demands that it is perfect; it demands that it is true; and it threatens the reader who chooses not to believe it. Part of the standard of viewing the Bible involves considering these factors. ... You dare speak of how you view books when you cannot even see the nature of the book you worship?
You've identified the Bible as a book that is different from other books, and you appear to be complaining that it is different.
What you have then assumed is that your sparse and cowardly commentary makes sense, and that another individual reading your Bible quote will perceive it identically as you, and thus understand your irrelevance as something important. Stop assuming you know what people are thinking. Your best efforts to reduce people's minds to your level only demonstrates the level of your own mind.
I don't claim to know what God sends his word out to do.
What God wants his word to accomplish is his business.
At the same time, don't expect me to believe a word of what you are channeling.
If you state what you think, that is not a problem, but a lot of what you are saying is cookie-cutter style demonic "rhetoric."
As I mentioned earlier, demons are smarter than some people in a dim sort of way.
They are smarter in the sense that they can easily convince you to believe any old thing.
They are dim in the sense that it is always the same old thing.
pragmathen:
It's obvious why you "left" the faith, you were never there.
When Christians think of Hell, they envision a place that perpetually torments those that chose not to believe in Christ.
You couldn't possibly have gotten that out of any known Bible, so that means that you couldn't have been reading it, which in turn means that whatever religion you were following wasn't Christianity.
FA_Q2:
Well, i seem to still be stuck with the same question, tony1. What happened? Don't have an answer?
What question is that?
Originally posted by daktaklakpak
Does die mean to cease to exist? If yes, then where is the suffering in hell?
Nowhere. It's not in the Bible.
Even the suffering in the lake of fire only lasts until the person turns into a puff of smoke.
But the wicked shall perish, and the enemies of the LORD shall be as the fat of lambs: they shall consume; into smoke shall they consume away.
(Psalms 37:20, KJV).
Since it's forever, does it really matter if there is suffering? People can detect strange odor during early encounters. But if they stay long enough, they won't notice anymore. I am pretty sure that if they stay forever, they can't tell any difference anymore.
Good point.
But it doesn't make any difference, since no matter what kind of hell you think there is, when the smoke clears (pun intended) there is no more suffering.
And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
(Revelation 21:4, KJV).
Presumably, "former things" includes hell.
Originally posted by tetra
I am athiest so I am totally immune to your bible talk
Riiiight.
For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.
(Romans 14:11, KJV).
Since you're going to confess that Jesus is Lord anyway, do it when it will get you eternal life.
Well then, try taking it one step farther.
You don't know anything either.
Thus, every time you question the word of God, or the existence of God, you are wrong.
The detail that you're missing, Tony, is that I'm not threatening people's immortal existence by my philosophy. Certainly, it rests on its own a priori truths, but compare these two assumed truths:
* Being that we've seen no signs of impending instability in the star, I figure the sun will rise tomorrow.
* By the grace of God, the sun will rise tomorrow.
If someone objects to my a priori, that we've seen no signs of impending instability, it would be to demonstrate that I am wrong in that assumption. To object to the a priori of God's grace is, by the consistent example of history, heretical and worthy of all sorts of unpleasant extremes, death included.
Try a more relevant a priori:
* I cannot perceive the God described in this book; I can only conclude that there is no God to see.
* I cannot perceive the God described in this book; therefore, he must be greater than my perception, and deserves to be feared and worshipped.
To employ one or the other as a fundamental reality vastly affects the moral principle by which one chooses their actions. I think it is much more healthy to do the right thing because all signs indicate that this is what is best for as many people as the situation accounts for, as opposed to doing what God says because I've assumed that I need to be afraid of His wrath of I've done the wrong thing.
It reminds me of one of the dumbest slogans I've ever read, on the marquee of a church in Belltown, Seattle: Liberty is not the freedom to do what you want, but the freedom to do what God says is right.
Given what we've convinced ourselves God thinks is right, this is a scary concept. Manifest Destiny, encomienda, misogyny ....
How about, Liberty is the freedom to think for your own self, and to do what is best for your own self.
Even that liberty has its abusive pitfalls; just watch the Capitalists play. As Marx noted, they'll sell you the rope, but it doesn't change the fact that they choose to do this because they truly think that it's what is best for them. They do not sell you the rope to hang them with because God says so. In Marx's extreme, the Capitalist is an idiot. In the God-structure, the Captialist is a slave.
There's nothing wrong with being an idiot.
But nobody should be a slave. Period.
Of course, there is this...
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
(1 Corinthians 2:14, KJV).
Which is exactly why I wonder how Christians come to put so much stock in the Bible.
Unfortunately, you seem to be defining observable reality as the reality you expect to see prior to observing it.
Without the handbook to reality, one has the opportunity to discover what is real. With the handbook, one is required to believe in reality as it is dictated.
Now you're just channeling.
Yes, I speak for Hunk-Ra. :rolleyes:
Of course, doing the best you can is pretty much worthless, given the "not knowing anything" problem that you agreed with earlier.
It's people who think like you do who constitute enough of the population to make that exactly the problem. Would you rather just bitch about how stupid you are, or go out and find some answers? Get over your poor, embittered self, man!
The real reason people leave the faith...
The sower soweth the word.
And these are they by the way side, where the word is sown; but when they have heard, Satan cometh immediately, and taketh away the word that was sown in their hearts.
And these are they likewise which are sown on stony ground; who, when they have heard the word, immediately receive it with gladness;
And have no root in themselves, and so endure but for a time: afterward, when affliction or persecution ariseth for the word's sake, immediately they are offended.
And these are they which are sown among thorns; such as hear the word,
And the cares of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the lusts of other things entering in, choke the word, and it becometh unfruitful.
And these are they which are sown on good ground; such as hear the word, and receive it, and bring forth fruit, some thirtyfold, some sixty, and some an hundred.
(Mark 4:14-20, KJV).
You're right. The real reason people have faith is because it is easier to believe whatever their psyches can make of that kind of religion as opposed to going out and learning what exactly those things mean. I mean, if I could just sit back and cast out a Bible phrase as the solution without ever giving it much thought, I would. However, such intellectual sloth leaves me feeling somewhat irresponsible in my regard for my fellow humans. It's tougher to find a right path than just take one and call it right, but I think it's more beneficial for myself and my community.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the other hand, if you do something simply because it is the right thing to do ... well, you've done an honest, right thing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
And the moon is made of green cheese.
You're going to have to expand on that.
I'll even give you a place to start, if you like:
* If I have given a homeless man money for food because God reminds me to charity, then I have given a homeless man money in duty to God.
* If I have given a homeless man money for food because I don't want him to starve, then I have given him money because it is what I think is the right thing to do, regardless of what God wants.
Most probably not.
So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.
(Isaiah 55:11, KJV).
You really do not know what God sends his word out to do.
I'm speaking of context in that which you're objecting to. You have not grasped the concept to which you are objecting.
You've identified the Bible as a book that is different from other books, and you appear to be complaining that it is different.
Which is my evidence of the above assertion I've made that you have not grasped the concept to which you object.
The Bible is a different book than others. It belongs in a fairly narrow class of books which do not lie within the grasp of the reader's liberty: they challenge the reader by demanding acceptance and infallibility. The Bible does not accomplish what it sets out to via religious practice; it has failed to meet the standards of veracity that it demands. Certainly Emma Goldman writes with a certain sense of authority, but she does not claim to be the end-all of credible existence. The Bible and its religion have wished such credibility issues upon themselves. They have failed to answer the challenges they have placed upon themselves.
I don't claim to know what God sends his word out to do.
What God wants his word to accomplish is his business.
So it troubles God none, then, that He is being misrepresented?
And I think you do claim to know what God sends his word out to do. After all, you've decided a few things about the Catholics that it seems that God would disagree with. You seem to know who is and isn't Christian.
--Tiassa :cool:
daktaklakpak
03-19-01, 04:03 PM
Originally posted by tony1
... the wicked shall perish ...
Heh heh! I heard the same thing said by specie 8472. Guess what happened at the end? :)
Originally posted by tiassa
The detail that you're missing, Tony, is that I'm not threatening people's immortal existence by my philosophy.
What immortal existence?
* Being that we've seen no signs of impending instability in the star, I figure the sun will rise tomorrow.
* By the grace of God, the sun will rise tomorrow.
If someone objects to my a priori, that we've seen no signs of impending instability, it would be to demonstrate that I am wrong in that assumption. To object to the a priori of God's grace is, by the consistent example of history, heretical and worthy of all sorts of unpleasant extremes, death included.
The Catholics were an irritable bunch at times.
* I cannot perceive the God described in this book; I can only conclude that there is no God to see.
Oddly, you'd be right, since God is invisible.
* I cannot perceive the God described in this book; therefore, he must be greater than my perception, and deserves to be feared and worshipped.
Oddly, you'd be wrong, since he isn't to be feared and worshipped because he is invisible.
I think it is much more healthy to do the right thing because all signs indicate that this is what is best for as many people as the situation accounts for, as opposed to doing what God says because I've assumed that I need to be afraid of His wrath of I've done the wrong thing.
Here you'd be wrong simply because you have no idea what would be best.
Which is exactly why I wonder how Christians come to put so much stock in the Bible.
Since you don't understand it, I'm not surprised.
Without the handbook to reality, one has the opportunity to discover what is real. With the handbook, one is required to believe in reality as it is dictated.
You can also disregard the information in your car owner's manual, too.
I wonder why more people believe in their car's manual without question, than believe in their own owner's manual?
There is much more reason to disregard a car manufactuirer's recommendations than to disregard your manufacturer's recommendations.
It's people who think like you do who constitute enough of the population to make that exactly the problem. Would you rather just bitch about how stupid you are, or go out and find some answers? Get over your poor, embittered self, man!
I've had my fill of "scientific" answers.
What it boils down to is that, according to you, I should pay attention to some idiot who has three or four random letters after his given name.
The fact that he might not know how to think his way in out of the rain shouldn't, apparently, matter at all.
You're right. The real reason people have faith is because it is easier to believe whatever their psyches can make of that kind of religion as opposed to going out and learning what exactly those things mean.
That's easier said than done. You talk about going out and learning something, but I suspect the marijuana smoke around your head is just thick enough to prevent actual movement in the direction of this "learning" you speak of.
It's tougher to find a right path than just take one and call it right, but I think it's more beneficial for myself and my community.
It's impossible, because you have to be on the right path in order to find out which path is right.
You're going to have to expand on that.
I'll even give you a place to start, if you like:
* If I have given a homeless man money for food because God reminds me to charity, then I have given a homeless man money in duty to God.
* If I have given a homeless man money for food because I don't want him to starve, then I have given him money because it is what I think is the right thing to do, regardless of what God wants.
Ypu are just dreaming if you think you can be the only truly altruistic human on the face of the earth.
And I think you do claim to know what God sends his word out to do.
I've seen some of what he sends his word out to do.
After all, you've decided a few things about the Catholics that it seems that God would disagree with.
Such as?
daktaklakpak:
You're suggesting that the wicked will live forever?
What immortal existence?
Yeah, I doubt you have a clue.
In as few words as possible so you have a chance of understanding it: You know, the one your Bible threatens? :rolleyes:
The Catholics were an irritable bunch at times.
I thought that was the point of the Reformation. To fix that kind of crap. In this country, we put a man on trial for the crime of teaching something that wasn't in the Bible. Actually, many times. Hell, in California, of all places, you could get jailed for tarot cards into the 1970s.
Oddly, you'd be right, since God is invisible.
Do you actually have anything of value to say?
Oddly, you'd be wrong, since he isn't to be feared and worshipped because he is invisible.
Apparently not.
Something about superstition ....
.... And something about a lake of fire. But God must be there, and the evidence is this book says that I can't see him. I can't, so God must be there.
It didn't work for Anselm, it won't work for you.
Here you'd be wrong simply because you have no idea what would be best.
I don't know where to begin on what's wrong with that. Save to say that you're starting to sound like a child about to have a tantrum.
You can also disregard the information in your car owner's manual, too.
The information in my car owner's manual has a practical application that is explicit and simple: to operate the car. If I follow the instructions in that manual, the car runs better than if I disregard all maintenance standards. The Bible does not read that way. The Bible claims to be definitive, and threatens to deliberately punish you if you fail to obey it. The difference 'twixt that and my car breaking down is that my car breaking down is the natural result of something. By the Bible's standards, an angel of God would have to come down and yank my spark plugs; real natural.
I wonder why more people believe in their car's manual without question, than believe in their own owner's manual?
Because the former is demonstrably reliable. The latter is not.
There is much more reason to disregard a car manufactuirer's recommendations than to disregard your manufacturer's recommendations.
But why tune my car with a lawn mower manual? Why tune myself with a book unsuitable for that purpose?
What it boils down to is that, according to you, I should pay attention to some idiot who has three or four random letters after his given name.
No, the letters designate words which have conventional definitions. But, since you're part of the fellowship of Christ, you might want to wake up and realize that fellowship implies other people. You write as if you're the only Christian with the right take on it. You dismiss anything that you have no answer for instead of giving it any thought. At least, I hope lines that short don't take a whole lot of thought. Otherwise, I think I see the problem.
That's easier said than done. You talk about going out and learning something, but I suspect the marijuana smoke around your head is just thick enough to prevent actual movement in the direction of this "learning" you speak of.
First off, marijuana does not claim to be my moral judge. Secondly, you write as if you don't actually know much about marijuana at all. Best not to start relying on your superstitions about the sweet leaf.
It's impossible, because you have to be on the right path in order to find out which path is right.
And therein lies the stupid trap of Christianity. I was out the door before I even figured out that small device. But it's a terrible argument. It reminds me of friends who own guns who tell me I'd actually enjoy hunting. I see no reason to go out and kill something just to prove that I don't like killing anything. In Christianity, before you have the proper faith, you have to cease asking the questions that weaken faith. That accomplishes the sole effect of not having to care about the answers.
Ypu are just dreaming if you think you can be the only truly altruistic human on the face of the earth.
No, sir. I, uh ... have a good deal of faith that I'm not the only one. And I've never achieved altruism completely.
I've seen some of what he sends his word out to do.
Whatever, Senator.
After all, you've decided a few things about the Catholics that it seems that God would disagree with.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Such as?
You're the one who expresses that they're not Christian. Otherwise, those argumentative points are merely smoke blown to cover for not having an answer; that is, they have no relevant value otherwise.
--Tiassa :cool:
Bobby Lee
03-23-01, 01:56 PM
Welcome To Heaven and Hell? Where you dwell inside is the ultimate decider of which it will be " heaven or hell"? Where the Mind is the heart soon follows!
Just my Opinion
Bob
Originally posted by tiassa
In as few words as possible so you have a chance of understanding it: You know, the one your Bible threatens?
So, now you think you're going to live forever?
The Bible promises eternal life.
And this is the promise that he hath promised us, even eternal life.
(1 John 2:25, KJV).
I can't tell from here what book(s) you've been reading, that threatens eternal life.
The information in my car owner's manual has a practical application that is explicit and simple: to operate the car. If I follow the instructions in that manual, the car runs better than if I disregard all maintenance standards. The Bible does not read that way. The Bible claims to be definitive, and threatens to deliberately punish you if you fail to obey it. The difference 'twixt that and my car breaking down is that my car breaking down is the natural result of something. By the Bible's standards, an angel of God would have to come down and yank my spark plugs; real natural.
How is your car breaking down natural?
Don't the manufacturers actually design cars to run rather than break down?
But, since you're part of the fellowship of Christ, you might want to wake up and realize that fellowship implies other people. You write as if you're the only Christian with the right take on it.
There are plenty of others.
First off, marijuana does not claim to be my moral judge. Secondly, you write as if you don't actually know much about marijuana at all. Best not to start relying on your superstitions about the sweet leaf.
That's quite all right. I know more about it pro and con than you do.
And therein lies the stupid trap of Christianity. I was out the door before I even figured out that small device. But it's a terrible argument. It reminds me of friends who own guns who tell me I'd actually enjoy hunting. I see no reason to go out and kill something just to prove that I don't like killing anything. In Christianity, before you have the proper faith, you have to cease asking the questions that weaken faith. That accomplishes the sole effect of not having to care about the answers.
Of course, you've got it exactly backwards.
I see no reason to burn in the lake of fire just to prove that I wouldn't like it.
No, sir. I, uh ... have a good deal of faith that I'm not the only one. And I've never achieved altruism completely.
So which is it? You aren't the only one, or you aren't there yet?
You're the one who expresses that they're not Christian. Otherwise, those argumentative points are merely smoke blown to cover for not having an answer; that is, they have no relevant value otherwise.
How would you know that God thinks they're Christian?
Originally posted by Bobby Lee
Welcome To Heaven and Hell? Where you dwell inside is the ultimate decider of which it will be " heaven or hell"? Where the Mind is the heart soon follows!
Of course, the Bible says something slightly different...
For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.
(Luke 12:34, KJV).
So, now you think you're going to live forever?
The Bible promises eternal life.
And this is the promise that he hath promised us, even eternal life.
(1 John 2:25, KJV).
I can't tell from here what book(s) you've been reading, that threatens eternal life.
Without various religions to assert the idea of life after our mortal death, there would be no afterlife to threaten. To the other, yes, the Bible does threaten that eternal life. You've quoted bits about the grave before, and we all know that God will severely affect the condition of your afterlife based on seemingly subjective and worthless criteria.
I can't tell what books you've been reading, either. But it ain't the same one you're preaching.
How is your car breaking down natural?
Don't the manufacturers actually design cars to run rather than break down?
Um ... well, it's symptomatic of its use, the same way death is symptomatic of life. Things wear out, Tony. They break. Sometimes they can't be repaired, and you're only left with a wish for some E.T. glowing finger to heal it all and make it better. To debate whether manufacturers design products to work is another issue entirely, though not entirely removed from the sentiments that inspire the people who make those decisions, and those sentiments might find some of their justifications in faith. In fact, history demonstrates that many such justifications of expedience over quality are warranted by religious faith.
But, since you're part of the fellowship of Christ, you might want to wake up and realize that fellowship implies other people. You write as if you're the only Christian with the right take on it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are plenty of others.
Does that include you, or exclude you? You will be asked, if you choose to include yourself, to detail that "right" or proper take on the issue.
First off, marijuana does not claim to be my moral judge. Secondly, you write as if you don't actually know much about marijuana at all. Best not to start relying on your superstitions about the sweet leaf.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's quite all right. I know more about it pro and con than you do.
Any day you care to continue with your narrowminded assertions about a plant that your God put here, go for it.
Anyway, the issue you're dodging with that:
That's easier said than done. You talk about going out and learning something, but I suspect the marijuana smoke around your head is just thick enough to prevent actual movement in the direction of this "learning" you speak of.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First off, marijuana does not claim to be my moral judge. Secondly, you write as if you don't actually know much about marijuana at all. Best not to start relying on your superstitions about the sweet leaf.
* Marijuana as a moral judge: You seem to resent the idea that marijuana smokers can learn new ideas. This is your own problem. But relative to the issue, why bring marijuana up? Are you looking to undermine the credibility of an argument because the proponent smokes pot? It's kind of non-sequiter. But if you want to compare marijuana to the issues of salvation relative to the topic, then I will stand simply on the notion that marijuana claims no moral supremacy. In order to use marijuana correctly, you have no obligation to declare your moral supremacy. Under the influence of Christianity, one is obliged by their Bible.
* As we've already discussed, in part, the italic portion of the citation, I stand by it. You seem to treat marijuana as a weapon, as something you can throw out into an argument and slip away unnoticed in the haze. Do you have anything useful to say regarding marijuana and salvation? Get over yourself.
Of course, you've got it exactly backwards.
I see no reason to burn in the lake of fire just to prove that I wouldn't like it.
And I see no reason to believe I'm going to burn in a lake of fire just to prove I'm a second-rate idiot. Something comes to mind about threats against the afterlife.
No, sir. I, uh ... have a good deal of faith that I'm not the only one. And I've never achieved altruism completely.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So which is it? You aren't the only one, or you aren't there yet?
Something about reading comprehension, as well. Try it again.
How would you know that God thinks they're Christian?
I think the stewardship of the Word of the Lord Jesus Christ qualifies the Catholics as Christians in God's opinion. You'll notice that he did not entrust the Gospels to the Buddhists. :rolleyes:
Of course, the Bible says something slightly different...
For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.
(Luke 12:34, KJV).
The Bible says many things that are slightly different, even from other parts of the Bible. Did you have a point, or are you just wasting Mr Lee's time?
--Tiassa :cool:
Originally posted by tiassa
Without various religions to assert the idea of life after our mortal death, there would be no afterlife to threaten. To the other, yes, the Bible does threaten that eternal life. You've quoted bits about the grave before, and we all know that God will severely affect the condition of your afterlife based on seemingly subjective and worthless criteria.
Do you believe what you just wrote or don't you?
Either there is an afterlife or there isn't.
This mumbo-jumbo about religions "creating" afterlives makes no sense at all.
I can't tell what books you've been reading, either. But it ain't the same one you're preaching.
It could be that THC-laden haze, but is it possible that you have the Catholic Catechism confused with the Bible to the extent that you don't have any idea what the Bible says at all?
Um ... well, it's symptomatic of its use, the same way death is symptomatic of life. Things wear out, Tony. They break. Sometimes they can't be repaired, and you're only left with a wish for some E.T. glowing finger to heal it all and make it better.
In your view then, this is natural?
To debate whether manufacturers design products to work is another issue entirely, though not entirely removed from the sentiments that inspire the people who make those decisions, and those sentiments might find some of their justifications in faith. In fact, history demonstrates that many such justifications of expedience over quality are warranted by religious faith.
Yours, anyway.
Does that include you, or exclude you? You will be asked, if you choose to include yourself, to detail that "right" or proper take on the issue.
Include.
The right take would be that offered in the Bible, as compared to other books, such as the CCC which purports to be Christian but contradicts the Bible or such as the Koran which purports to improve on the Bible, while contradicting it, or such as the Book of Mormon which purports to add to the Bible in direct contradiction to it.
Any day you care to continue with your narrowminded assertions about a plant that your God put here, go for it.
Well, let me see. One of my assertions is that I know more about it than you do. If that is narrow-minded, then your mind must be quite narrow indeed.
Marijuana as a moral judge: You seem to resent the idea that marijuana smokers can learn new ideas. This is your own problem.
Watch the movie "Reefer Madness." Aside from the somewhat exaggerated end result of smoking pot, you will notice some of the "new" ideas are actually quite stale given that the movie dates back to 1933 or so.
But relative to the issue, why bring marijuana up? Are you looking to undermine the credibility of an argument because the proponent smokes pot?
Well, you smoke it because it affects your mind.
In your world, all of pot's effects are good ones, somewhat like tobacco ads from the 50's.
You believe that pot is good.
You vastly overestimate the "good" effects of pot and vastly underestimate the bad.
You have no clue, but you think you have them all.
This the case with every addiction, even that of "non-addictive" pot.
Since your mind is this inaccurate in evaluating the effect of pot in your life, I propose that it is equally inaccurate in other areas.
But if you want to compare marijuana to the issues of salvation relative to the topic, then I will stand simply on the notion that marijuana claims no moral supremacy.
Of course it doesn't.
In order to use marijuana correctly, you have no obligation to declare your moral supremacy.
You must be new.
The standard moral supremacy declaration in marijuana use is: there's nothing wrong with using pot.
And I see no reason to believe I'm going to burn in a lake of fire just to prove I'm a second-rate idiot.
So, unless you change your mind, you'll do it proving you're a complete idiot.
Something comes to mind about threats against the afterlife.
Man, if religions "create" afterlives as you say, then what possible threat could you perceive in all this?
I think the stewardship of the Word of the Lord Jesus Christ qualifies the Catholics as Christians in God's opinion.
Since you don't believe any of this, what could that possibly mean?
OTOH, SINCE the Bible specifically pronounces the addition of all the plagues, including a trip thru the lake of fire, to those who add to the Word of God, how does the existence of the CCC, which is almost as big as the Bible and contradicts it, affect the Catholics?
Did you have a point, or are you just wasting Mr Lee's time?
The point is in the verse.
Perhaps you didn't read it.
Anyway, your heart is where your treasure is, not where your mind is.
Remind yourself of the spasmodic effect on your heart of realizing that you've misplaced your stash.
That is what that verse is talking about.
Do you believe what you just wrote or don't you?
Either there is an afterlife or there isn't.
This mumbo-jumbo about religions "creating" afterlives makes no sense at all.
Sorry, Tony, I'm just assessing the slipshod state of the afterlife as described by you and your Bible.
If the Bible wasn't there to tell people they must believe it, and to promise them eternal life with God or in fire, there would be no concept of a threatened afterlife. Without any of the factors involved, there is no product. Hello? It's pretty simple to figure out.
It could be that THC-laden haze, but is it possible that you have the Catholic Catechism confused with the Bible to the extent that you don't have any idea what the Bible says at all?
Tony, you're the one who lies about what's in the Bible. Like in the other thread where you said Of course, such punishment is not to be found in the Bible, and I demonstrated that it is. You're off on another anti-Catholic bender because you can't justify the fact that you just asserted there is no eternal punishment prescribed in the Bible and I just showed you to be lying. So give up your desperate flailing. You're even inventing inner serpents from somewhere.I'm not really into the psychobabble aspects of the "inner serpent" thing you're presenting. (Tony1, Judgement of God, 4/1/2001)
What are you even talking about anymore? Have you really run out of arguments that you cannot do anything but hammer home on my use of marijuana and deny the Bible you have chosen for yourself?
In your view then, this is natural?
Even the composite stuff of ourselves must recycle itself from its most fundamental form. The water in our bodies is constantly in transition; elements and compounds are made anew within our bodies because the nature of their existence is that they cannot last. Some elements have ridiculous half-lives, but even in that fundamental sense they eventually must change. So the corpse decays, breaks down into more and more fundamental parts, until the gases have gone away to be consumed or recycled by nature; electrochemcial change of you occurs inside the organisms that consume your mortal coil. There is a finite amount of time that this stuff of you can last before it has been reconstituted in some form in the Universe. The Universe itself cannot stop this consumption and rebirth, else time would stop and all would cease to exist. Our human role in this comes about by chance and necessity; I have said that I believe the Universe must, necessarily, get around to creating life at some point. But in the vast scale of the Universe, that event is merely a flicker of an electron passing between two particles stirred by the moving of a stream. To call us sediment, at that scale, would be overstating our presence. But life is compelled to continue itself at the stake of the living. Salmon die for future generations; no two ways about it--you get laid, and then you die. Life is a variable factor to the finite conception; it seems that we may be able to extend ourselves to the end of time as a living, evolving species. But something tells me that when humanity got near the end, they would realize that the absurdity of billions of generations of history could only have taken place exactly that way. Why do people want to live forever? It makes this process a hell of a lot easier. But the way of the Universe is that everything dies. And, yes, everything is reborn, but not necessarily in a way that matters to those seeking to live forever.
One needs no drugs to figure this out, but I'm told it doesn't hurt in this case. Oh, well, I'm told that caffeine addiction and a glass of beer or wine are what generally make at last paragraph more palatable. Nicotine helps if you go through it over caffeine after alcohol late at night in a diner with fried starch and tomato-vinegar sauce.
Well, let me see. One of my assertions is that I know more about it than you do. If that is narrow-minded, then your mind must be quite narrow indeed.
That's why you have to lie about the Bible. :rolleyes:
Watch the movie "Reefer Madness." Aside from the somewhat exaggerated end result of smoking pot, you will notice some of the "new" ideas are actually quite stale given that the movie dates back to 1933 or so.
Hands down: music, fashion, theatre, cinema. The best people working in those fields are high. Simpsons, or 90210? Floater, or Poppa Roach? The strange thing is that I think drugs are responsible for horrible movies like the nightmare Look Who's Talking sequels. But, strangely, the best writers in Hollywood are stoned. In that sense, Hollywood's a great microcosm of what's good and bad about drugs. Watch who's doing what, wrecking which, or dying, and you can pretty much figure out what's good and what's bad about drugs. But Reefer Madness has absolutely nothing to do with your willingness to lie about the Bible in order to avoid an argumentative point.
Well, you smoke it because it affects your mind.
In your world, all of pot's effects are good ones, somewhat like tobacco ads from the 50's.
You believe that pot is good.
You vastly overestimate the "good" effects of pot and vastly underestimate the bad.
You have no clue, but you think you have them all.
This the case with every addiction, even that of "non-addictive" pot.
Since your mind is this inaccurate in evaluating the effect of pot in your life, I propose that it is equally inaccurate in other areas.
Your entire argument is ill-advised and based in assumption. Yes, I believe that marijuana is generally a positive thing in my life and the lives of many around me. I do not overestimate the good effects of marijuana but describe what I experience and what I observe in those around me. As to the bad, if it was really so bad, what's with the sixty-four years and counting of lying in an attempt to suppress the plant? What I'm after there is that the people who point out the bad effects of marijuana usually do it according to superstition. Your cheap retreat to cliche insults further demonstrates that you have no basis for your declarations. You have no proof that the inaccuracy of my evaluations are any greater than your own. Furthermore, your reliance on moralist superstition when denouncing marijuana gives me cause to wonder about your motives. I think you're just trying to escape the corner you've backed yourself into.
You shouldn't let your pride get the best of you like that.
--Tiassa :cool:
Originally posted by tiassa
I'm just assessing the slipshod state of the afterlife as described by you and your Bible.
And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.
And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
(Revelation 21:3,4, KJV).
Looks pretty shipshape to me.
If the Bible wasn't there to tell people they must believe it, and to promise them eternal life with God or in fire, there would be no concept of a threatened afterlife. Without any of the factors involved, there is no product. Hello? It's pretty simple to figure out.
Apparently, it isn't.
For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
(Romans 6:23, KJV).
You're so Catholic-bound that you can't see that there is no eternal life in fire.
You're arguing against the wrong product.
The product you say isn't there, actually isn't there.
But you're putting a lot of effort into it.
Tony, you're the one who lies about what's in the Bible. Like in the other thread where you said Of course, such punishment is not to be found in the Bible, and I demonstrated that it is.
You didn't demonstrate it.
You quoted the verse Catholics quote, but you didn't read it.
It doesn't say what either you or the Catholics say it says.
You're off on another anti-Catholic bender because you can't justify the fact that you just asserted there is no eternal punishment prescribed in the Bible and I just showed you to be lying.
I didn't assert "no eternal punishment." I asserted the wages of sin is death, not eternal torment.
Even the composite stuff of ourselves must recycle itself from its most fundamental form. The water in our bodies is constantly in transition; elements and compounds are made anew within our bodies because the nature of their existence is that they cannot last. Some elements have ridiculous half-lives, but even in that fundamental sense they eventually must change. So the corpse decays, breaks down into more and more fundamental parts, until the gases have gone away to be consumed or recycled by nature; electrochemcial change of you occurs inside the organisms that consume your mortal coil. There is a finite amount of time that this stuff of you can last before it has been reconstituted in some form in the Universe. The Universe itself cannot stop this consumption and rebirth, else time would stop and all would cease to exist. Our human role in this comes about by chance and necessity; I have said that I believe the Universe must, necessarily, get around to creating life at some point. But in the vast scale of the Universe, that event is merely a flicker of an electron passing between two particles stirred by the moving of a stream. To call us sediment, at that scale, would be overstating our presence. But life is compelled to continue itself at the stake of the living. Salmon die for future generations; no two ways about it--you get laid, and then you die. Life is a variable factor to the finite conception; it seems that we may be able to extend ourselves to the end of time as a living, evolving species. But something tells me that when humanity got near the end, they would realize that the absurdity of billions of generations of history could only have taken place exactly that way. Why do people want to live forever? It makes this process a hell of a lot easier. But the way of the Universe is that everything dies. And, yes, everything is reborn, but not necessarily in a way that matters to those seeking to live forever.
I'll take that as a "yes."
Your entire argument is ill-advised and based in assumption. Yes, I believe that marijuana is generally a positive thing in my life and the lives of many around me. I do not overestimate the good effects of marijuana but describe what I experience and what I observe in those around me. As to the bad, if it was really so bad, what's with the sixty-four years and counting of lying in an attempt to suppress the plant? What I'm after there is that the people who point out the bad effects of marijuana usually do it according to superstition. Your cheap retreat to cliche insults further demonstrates that you have no basis for your declarations. You have no proof that the inaccuracy of my evaluations are any greater than your own. Furthermore, your reliance on moralist superstition when denouncing marijuana gives me cause to wonder about your motives. I think you're just trying to escape the corner you've backed yourself into.
You shouldn't let your pride get the best of you like that.
OTOH, maybe my assertions are based on first-hand experience and half a cemetery full of ex-friends.
Emerald
04-01-01, 05:30 PM
Tony,
You seem to be picking and choosing bible verses that describe hell as you would prefer it to be. From what I can tell, it's intended to be a place of eternal torment, "where their worm dieth not" - accomodations thoughtfully provided by <i>your</i> loving god. :rolleyes:
Check out "<a href="http://www.reformed.com/pub/hell.htm">The Biblical Doctrine of Hell Examined</a>".
So Tony, how badly do you want to live forever?
Emerald
OTOH, maybe my assertions are based on first-hand experience and half a cemetery full of ex-friends.
Please feel free to post a topic on the lethal nature of marijuana. Killer pot has been a sticking point for our nation's drug warriors for a few years, at least since Herer demonstrated by actuarial statistics, coroners' reports, and other data that marijuana has not been the official cause of anyone's death. Understandably, the revocation of that notion would be a significant consideration for me.
--tiassa :cool:
Originally posted by tiassa
Please feel free to post a topic on the lethal nature of marijuana. Killer pot has been a sticking point for our nation's drug warriors for a few years, at least since Herer demonstrated by actuarial statistics, coroners' reports, and other data that marijuana has not been the official cause of anyone's death. Understandably, the revocation of that notion would be a significant consideration for me.
Killer pot wasn't what I was suggesting.
Killer lifestyle was more like it.
No dead friend, as I recall, was killed directly by pot.
It was more the bullets and whatnot.
Originally posted by Emerald
You seem to be picking and choosing bible verses that describe hell as you would prefer it to be. From what I can tell, it's intended to be a place of eternal torment, "where their worm dieth not" - accomodations thoughtfully provided by <i>your</i> loving god.
"seem" would be the operative word.
Of course, I have no problem with the fact that the fire is indeed everlasting.
It seems to be a bit of a stretch claiming that this fire would be unable to burn ordinary flesh.
A hotdog falling into a campfire only lasts seconds or minutes before it is gone.
So, you're either wanting me to believe that this fire is unusually cold, or that the sinners in it have been converted into asbestos.
I have to admit the eternal worm concept is a question-provoking item.
So Tony, how badly do you want to live forever?
You're good with the questions.
I don't want to live forever "badly," I want to live forever "well."
It was more the bullets and whatnot.
... with marijuana? Or do you mean the cops shot your friends down?
I don't see how the deaths of your friends undermines anything I say.
--Tiassa :cool:
You quoted the verse Catholics quote
And on that standard, it isn't in the Bible? Tell you what, Tony ... go read the whole of the Catholic Encyclopaedia and the Catechism and cross off every Bible phrase used to justify any part of Catholic faith. When you finish, let me know what part of the Bible is untouched and therefore acceptable to use in regard to any issues you wish to discuss.
It should be interesting, at least.
--Tiassa :cool:
Originally posted by tiassa
And on that standard, it isn't in the Bible? Tell you what, Tony ... go read the whole of the Catholic Encyclopaedia and the Catechism and cross off every Bible phrase used to justify any part of Catholic faith. When you finish, let me know what part of the Bible is untouched and therefore acceptable to use in regard to any issues you wish to discuss.
I'm sure very few parts of the Bible are untouched.
In various threads, I've been answering you according to the general context of each discussion.
It has occurred to me to look at all of your posts, and it seems to me that you are the ultimate Roman Catholic apologist.
Very low maintenance, in that you probably never take up any time of any Catholic priest.
Somehow, the Roman Catholic Church has indoctrinated you with every Dogma and Doctrine that exists.
Now I understand what the communists were trying to do with their indoctrination.
Their demise, aside from denying God, seems to stem from this failure to indoctrinate people in such a way that even when the people believe they are against an "ism," they are fervent apologists for it, in spite of themselves.
Every time you quote a Bible verse, you appear to interpret it with the RC spin.
You quote the ECF in greater detail than many RC scholars.
To you the entire world is neither black nor white nor gray, it is RC or anti-RC.
And which do you defend?
On any debatable point, you either defend the RC view, propose the RC view or insist that your opponent holds the RC view but is denying it.
Is there anything in your world that is not RC-flavored?
To answer your point in general terms, the fact that a verse is quoted by Catholics to "substantiate" RC doctrine does not mean that the RC doctrine is true, or even that the verse says what RC doctrine says that it says.
Thus, when you insist that hell is eternal torment, you are essentially quoting...
The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, "eternal fire." The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.
(CCC, Part I, Sec II, Art. 12, IV, Para. 1035)
This doctrine is not taught in the Bible, although with your RC-colored glasses on, you can't see that.
Methinks, sir Tony, that you are perhaps searching too hard for a plank to smack people in the eye with.
It's very simple:
* You have attempted to classify Roman Catholics as not Christian. This is laughable. I have attempted to demonstrate this.
* Furthermore, the reason that this is important is that to discount Catholocism in an effort to avoid considerations on past mistakes made in the name of God is to exscind from the process the very means by which the Word was capable of existing long enough for you, sir, to inherit it. This is much like the fact that I am slightly perturbed at how sea to shining sea kicked the crap out of the people who lived here first; like I said in the Cult post--I am an American and I'm aware of what that means.
That's all there is to it. A pair of ideas in a larger process identifying what is perhaps the most significant cultural phenomenon ever. It's not hard to grasp, sir.
--Tiassa :cool:
The one thing that I do have to say is that it may seem to go either way. The problem I am having tony is that you cannot construct an argument at all for your position. All you say is your wrong and I'm right. You sound like a child. I have already built up quite an argument for your side as well as the opposite, I like to walk on both sides before setting an opinion. Why fight so hard for nothing. I know you could sway tiassa if you could start sounding remotely intelligent and trying to make a statement. Instead you say worthless statements and pointless plays on words. I know you have the quotes and at LEAST enough intelligence to work it through. Hell my 10yr old sister can do better than this.
Originally posted by tiassa
* You have attempted to classify Roman Catholics as not Christian. This is laughable. I have attempted to demonstrate this.
This is the Christianity forum.
You bring Roman Catholic doctrine into this forum.
Therefore you are trying to classify Roman Catholicism as Christianity.
You are attempting to blame me for doing the opposite.
* Furthermore, the reason that this is important is that to discount Catholocism in an effort to avoid considerations on past mistakes made in the name of God is to exscind from the process the very means by which the Word was capable of existing long enough for you, sir, to inherit it.
When you say "Word," you appear to mean the ink on paper form of the Bible.
This, again, is the Catholic meaning.
Christians know that isn't what it is.
That's all there is to it. A pair of ideas in a larger process identifying what is perhaps the most significant cultural phenomenon ever. It's not hard to grasp, sir.
A pair of Catholic-colored ideas in a larger Catholic process in a most significant Catholic phenomenon.
It really is not that hard to grasp.
As I said before, you are so thoroughly indoctrinated into Roman Catholicism that you can only argue for or against Roman Catholicism.
Are you aware that if Rome were so important in the large scheme of things, that it would get more than a passing mention in the Bible?
Are you aware that if Catholicism were as important in general as it is in your life that it would at least be mentioned in the Bible?
Originally posted by FA_Q2
The problem I am having tony is that you cannot construct an argument at all for your position. All you say is your wrong and I'm right. You sound like a child.
Oh no! Whatever am I going to do to fix this??!!??
I have already built up quite an argument for your side as well as the opposite, I like to walk on both sides before setting an opinion.
If you really are doing this, I'd be impressed.
I know you could sway tiassa if you could start sounding remotely intelligent and trying to make a statement.
I'm not trying to sway tiassa.
The fact that I can or can't sway someone to believe there is another way of doing things means nothing.
Only one thing is important and it is that there is a way and his name is Jesus.
Instead you say worthless statements and pointless plays on words. I know you have the quotes and at LEAST enough intelligence to work it through. Hell my 10yr old sister can do better than this.
I have to admit that this is an issue that has come up often in my life.
I decided long ago that if I can't stoop low enough to sound intelligent to someone else, I won't try.
Therefore you are trying to classify Roman Catholicism as Christianity.
Tony, what, is a Christian? How about an affirmative example, instead of an identification of what isn't?
Consider disparate church philosophies, and the people who believe them: Catholics, Kingdom Hall, Church of Christ Science, Latter-Day Saints ... I've heard various people of faith decry these churches as not Christian, though none can create a definition that A) excludes these churches, or B) isn't nitpicnkingy, ridiculously detailed.
Take a shot at it. You don't have much to lose.
This, again, is the Catholic meaning.
This reminds me of when the PMRC and other groups objected to rap lyrics. With the artists claiming the fundamental necessity of harsh forms of expression and the rights thereof, the censors merely wrote off the expressions themselves as profane.
Stop using Catholocism as a cliche retreat.
As I said before, you are so thoroughly indoctrinated into Roman Catholicism that you can only argue for or against Roman Catholicism.
You can stop running away from the actual issue at any time. You have dismissed parts of Christian history because they occurred under the stewardship of the Catholics. I gave you the Anti-Catholic League url didn't I? If not, I'll dig it up again, but it's really easy to find with any search engine.
Are you aware that if Rome were so important in the large scheme of things, that it would get more than a passing mention in the Bible?
Thank you for making me aware of your assertion.
Are you aware that if Catholicism were as important in general as it is in your life that it would at least be mentioned in the Bible?
Yeah, that almost makes an argumentative point. Do you realize that if you sir, actually had the right faith, you would be included in the Bible?
It's a dumb assertion, isn't it? That's the point. It took me two seconds to think of an assertion as dumb as yours.
I'll mail you a brown shirt for Christmas.
I know you could sway tiassa if you could start sounding remotely intelligent and trying to make a statement.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not trying to sway tiassa.
It isn't my place to speak for anybody, of course, but I would suggest that I would agree with you on the grounds that you're not trying to sway me. However, I believe myself sympathetic to FA_Q2's perspective on this: You may, Tony, stand accused of trying to sway me toward the idea that you have a point.
--Tiassa :cool:
" Oh no! Whatever am I going to do to fix this??!!??"
Start using that brain. God did give it to you for a reason.
" When you say "Word," you appear to mean the ink on paper form of the Bible.
This, again, is the Catholic meaning.
Christians know that isn't what it is."
If the bible is not the word (a set of words on paper in a book) Then what is it. I take it that it is the meaning of those words and I also take it that tiassa sees it the same way. Tell me if I am wrong.
" If you really are doing this, I'd be impressed. "
I am. It is not very difficult. Standard for anyone who ever wants a good debate.
" I'm not trying to sway tiassa.
The fact that I can or can't sway someone to believe there is another way of doing things means nothing.
Only one thing is important and it is that there is a way and his name is Jesus. "
Then what are you doing here?
" I have to admit that this is an issue that has come up often in my life.
I decided long ago that if I can't stoop low enough to sound intelligent to someone else, I won't try."
Its a matter of stepping up to your true potential. It is always a shame to see something go to waste.
OTOH it could be that the issue has popped up several times because you simply are not saying intelligent thing.
Originally posted by tiassa
Tony, what, is a Christian? How about an affirmative example, instead of an identification of what isn't?
Tough question. As I mentioned in another post, it is a word used by non-Christians to describe what they think of as believers.
I use it more for your convenience than mine, but I can see that may have been a mistake.
But if I had to define Christian so that it actually meant believer, I would say, a person who does this...
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
(Romans 10:8, KJV).
Not any Jesus, the Lord Jesus.
Not from some life in another location, from actual death.
Consider disparate church philosophies, and the people who believe them: Catholics, Kingdom Hall, Church of Christ Science, Latter-Day Saints ... I've heard various people of faith decry these churches as not Christian, though none can create a definition that A) excludes these churches, or B) isn't nitpicnkingy, ridiculously detailed.
The verse I gave excludes them.
The Catholics believe in the Lord Mary, otherwise known as the Blessed Virgin Mary.
The JW believe in Michael.
The CCC believe in the Lord Mary Baker Eddy, otherwise known as Mary Baker Eddy.
The LDS have some problem identifying Jesus as the Word, since they feel some additional need for more word.
However, there may be Christians in all of these organizations.
Stop using Catholocism as a cliche retreat.
I challenge you to show me how.
I gave you the Anti-Catholic League url didn't I?
This is the anti-RC tiassa speaking.
Just the flip side of the pro-RC tiassa.
Thank you for making me aware of your assertion.
Are you aware that if Rome were important, it might show up in the Bible,as important?
Jerusalem is mentioned 767 times in th KJV as such, with other, more veiled references to it.
Rome shows up 15 times, mostly as a return address on some letters.
Yeah, that almost makes an argumentative point. Do you realize that if you sir, actually had the right faith, you would be included in the Bible?
It's a dumb assertion, isn't it? That's the point. It took me two seconds to think of an assertion as dumb as yours.
Belief in Jesus is mentioned several times. The existence of some Rome-based organization other than the Roman government isn't mentioned at all.
The pope or even the idea of a pope isn't mentioned at all.
I think your indignant response is more proof that you are actually an undercover Catholic priest, or at least a thoroughly indoctrinated facsimile thereof.
It seems that the only time you respond sarcastically is when there is the slightest hint of anticatholicism in my comments, whether intended or not.
You, sir, are a Roman Catholic, with the Catechism for a brain.
You claim to have turned your back on Catholicism, but you can't.
It is you.
The Roman Catholic Church owns you.
You can only answer with Catechism or with antiCatechism.
Originally posted by FA_Q2
" Oh no! Whatever am I going to do to fix this??!!??"
Start using that brain. God did give it to you for a reason.
One of the things I use mine for, is to detect sarcasm.
If the bible is not the word (a set of words on paper in a book) Then what is it. I take it that it is the meaning of those words and I also take it that tiassa sees it the same way. Tell me if I am wrong.
You don't seem to have made up your mind which it is.
The words in brackets pretty much contradict any reference to meaning.
Standard for anyone who ever wants a good debate.
You're holding back just a teeny bit, then.
Then what are you doing here?
Oh, I'm sorry, I thought this was the Christianity forum.
Its a matter of stepping up to your true potential. It is always a shame to see something go to waste.
Sorry, buddy, it really would be stooping down in your case.
OTOH it could be that the issue has popped up several times because you simply are not saying intelligent thing.
I've noticed that for most people it is difficult to grasp concepts that are beyond them.
You are playing true to form so far.
No, this is a Christian debate forum. Now, considering answering anything?
You don't seem to have made up your mind which it is.
The words in brackets pretty much contradict any reference to meaning
Work on the reading comprehension.
I was answering my own question.
Originally posted by FA_Q2
No, this is a Christian debate forum. Now, considering answering anything?
The title at the top of my screen says "Christianity."
Try working on the reading, period.
I was answering my own question.
Is that how debate works?
Tough question. As I mentioned in another post, it is a word used by non-Christians to describe what they think of as believers.
I use it more for your convenience than mine, but I can see that may have been a mistake.
Well enough. Two questions, then:
* If you're not Christian, then what do you call the philosophy you argue on behalf of? If you feel mistakenly labeled, then I think an affirmation of your faith might possibly correct that mistake.
* If what you're arguing has nothing to do with Christianity, why is it in this forum?
But if I had to define Christian so that it actually meant believer, I would say, a person who does this...
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. (Romans 10:8, KJV).
So a Christian is defined by confession, and also by belief in the Resurrection? I'll take issue with your exclusion of Catholocism, then.
Not any Jesus, the Lord Jesus.
Not from some life in another location, from actual death.
This sounds like it's rooted in faith. Which is fine when describing a Christian, so you'll find no objection from me.
The verse I gave excludes them.
You have not explained what is wrong with the extended beliefs of these churches. You have merely enumerated some of them. Most people of faith are disqualified, then, since they believe in ideas not necessarily justified by the Bible.
I challenge you to show me how.
It's very simple, Tony. You just step up and take on a question in search of an answer. If you choose not to hide behind your Catholic-deflection excuse, you'll find it much easier to avoid Catholic-bashing in an effort to justify your faith and deeds.
This is the anti-RC tiassa speaking.
Just the flip side of the pro-RC tiassa.
Wow ... med school taught you to diagnose my schizophrenia online? :rolleyes:
Do better, Tony.
Are you aware that if Rome were important, it might show up in the Bible,as important?
Jerusalem is mentioned 767 times in th KJV as such, with other, more veiled references to it.
Rome shows up 15 times, mostly as a return address on some letters.
And what does this demonstrate other than the enumeration of words?
Belief in Jesus is mentioned several times.
Over a billion people believe in Jesus, and none of them are mentioned except as abstractions regarding future generations of faith. Some of these people disagree. Which means that of these people, some will be judged acceptable for their faith, and some will be judged unacceptable. If one of these people has the whole thing nailed just right, I can assure you with all the confidence of your own unfounded assertion, that they would be mentioned directly in the Bible.
I think your indignant response is more proof that you are actually an undercover Catholic priest, or at least a thoroughly indoctrinated facsimile thereof.
It seems that the only time you respond sarcastically is when there is the slightest hint of anticatholicism in my comments, whether intended or not.
You, sir, are a Roman Catholic, with the Catechism for a brain.
You claim to have turned your back on Catholicism, but you can't.
It is you.
The Roman Catholic Church owns you.
You can only answer with Catechism or with antiCatechism.
I think you might need to seek a professional counselor to help you deal with this phobia, mania, or neurosis ... your hatred of the Catholic Church is bursting through the thin veil of paranoia you've spun. I can say that it is seriously affecting your logical functions.
You have many issues to work out, Tony. And I wish you the best in them.
As to your slanders against me ... it's okay, Tony. I forgive you.
--Tiassa :cool:
"The title at the top of my screen says "Christianity."
Try working on the reading, period. "
Because you are such an idiot I will point out EXACTLY what the title of this page is:
sciforums.com > Religious Debate > Christianity > We're all going to hell.
Is that debate that I see there?
Now tony. R E A D
Not that hard. Try it yourself and stop bothering me every time you miss a damn word.
Originally posted by tiassa
Well enough. Two questions, then:
* If you're not Christian, then what do you call the philosophy you argue on behalf of? If you feel mistakenly labeled, then I think an affirmation of your faith might possibly correct that mistake.
I don't feel mistakenly labelled.
* If what you're arguing has nothing to do with Christianity, why is it in this forum?
It has plenty to do with Christianity, which is why it is in this forum.
I'm surprised that it took you, or anyone, this long to ask these two questions.
So a Christian is defined by confession, and also by belief in the Resurrection? I'll take issue with your exclusion of Catholocism, then.
I thought you might.
One major complaint you have about Christianity is the exclusivism.
This is where that rubber meets the road.
Christianity exclusively believes that Jesus Christ is Lord, and that God raised him up from the dead.
Catholicism allows for any other random belief to be combined with the stated belief, including the belief that one does not personally have to believe the stated belief, as long as one assents to the fact that the Catholic Church has written it down as a belief to be believed.
You have not explained what is wrong with the extended beliefs of these churches. You have merely enumerated some of them. Most people of faith are disqualified, then, since they believe in ideas not necessarily justified by the Bible.
Good point.
The extended beliefs should be backed by scripture and should also not contradict scripture.
It's very simple, Tony. You just step up and take on a question in search of an answer. If you choose not to hide behind your Catholic-deflection excuse, you'll find it much easier to avoid Catholic-bashing in an effort to justify your faith and deeds.
This would be a description, as opposed to a demonstration.
Wow ... med school taught you to diagnose my schizophrenia online?
Well, no. Your admission suffices.
And what does this demonstrate other than the enumeration of words?
Not much, if to you, counting something results only in a number.
Over a billion people believe in Jesus, and none of them are mentioned except as abstractions regarding future generations of faith. Some of these people disagree. Which means that of these people, some will be judged acceptable for their faith, and some will be judged unacceptable. If one of these people has the whole thing nailed just right, I can assure you with all the confidence of your own unfounded assertion, that they would be mentioned directly in the Bible.
They are, as the "saved".
I think you might need to seek a professional counselor to help you deal with this phobia, mania, or neurosis ... your hatred of the Catholic Church is bursting through the thin veil of paranoia you've spun. I can say that it is seriously affecting your logical functions.
Phobia, paranoia of the Catholic Church?
Don't those words have something to do with fear, either real or imagined?
What do I have to fear from the RCC?
As to your slanders against me ... it's okay, Tony. I forgive you.
What?
On the one hand, you fervently defend "the" Catholic faith.
On the other hand, you consider it slanderous to be called a Catholic.
What schizophrenia is this?
Originally posted by FA_Q2
"The title at the top of my screen says "Christianity."
Try working on the reading, period. "
Originally posted by FA_Q2
No, this is a Christian debate forum. Now, considering answering anything?
Originally posted by FA_Q2
Because you are such an idiot I will point out EXACTLY what the title of this page is:
sciforums.com > Religious Debate > Christianity > We're all going to hell.
Note the dissimilarity between your earlier assertion and your later one.
Coherence is relatively important in establishing a point.
Without it, you end up incoherent.
Is that debate that I see there?
Now tony. R E A D
Not that hard. Try it yourself and stop bothering me every time you miss a damn word.
Do you have a point in any of this, or are you trying to establish that your IQ, while higher than average in general, is lower than average on this board?
Emerald
04-14-01, 11:20 AM
Tony,
Originally posted by tony1
I have to admit the eternal worm concept is a question-provoking item.
You're good with the questions. I don't want to live forever "badly," I want to live forever "well."
Here is a bit more on the "eternal worm" concept:
<font color="blue">08438 towla` {to-law'} and (fem) towle`ah {to-lay-aw'} or towla`ath {to-lah'-ath}; or tola`ath {to-lah'-ath}
from 03216; TWOT - 2516b; n m
AV - scarlet 34, worm 8, crimson 1; 43
1) worm, scarlet stuff, crimson
1a) worm - the female 'coccus ilicis'
1b) scarlet stuff, crimson, scarlet
1b1) the dye made from the dried body of the female of the worm "coccus ilicis"
2) worm, maggot
2a) worm, grub
2b) the worm "coccus ilicis"
++++
When the female of the scarlet worm species was ready to give birth to her young, she would attach her body to the trunk of a tree, fixing herself so firmly and permanently that she would never leave again. The eggs deposited beneath her body were thus protected until the larvae were hatched and able to enter their own life cycle. As the mother died, the crimson fluid stained her body and the surrounding wood. From the dead bodies of such female scarlet worms, the commercial scarlet dyes of antiquity were extracted. What a picture this gives of Christ, dying on the tree, shedding his precious blood that he might "bring many sons unto glory" ("#Heb 2:10")! He died for us, that we might live through him! "#Ps 22:6" describes such a worm and gives us this picture of Christ. (cf. "#Isa 1:18") (from page 73, "Biblical Basis for Modern Science", 1985, Baker Book House, by Henry Morris)</font>
Hmmm...so hell is the place where "their worm dieth not", and the eternal worm is apparently Jesus. What was it you were saying about not wanting to live forever "badly"?
Emerald
Tetra,
I totally agree with you in some ways. Religion is noting, it only seqerates God's children from one and another. I wonder if religion is the Devils creation, you see all religions beleive that they are right and others are wrong, and that those who do not follow their religion are all going to Hell. This is a bunch of CRAP, and those of you who believe that and state that are only sending people to Hell. Why in the world would anyone who is not quite shure if God is real or not want to be part of such a faith where the ones who are supposed to be brothers and sister in Christ, can't even get along with each other. The Bible says that there is only one true Religion, but what is it? I think the only true religion is n