Okay, for everyone that thinks going to hell is unfair:

 

 

 

I believe it is the heart behind the choice - saying no to God is saying "I can do life on my own" - the whole message of Christianity is "I can't do life on my own, I need God" - and this independent attitude of doing life

 

It's not just atheists who go to hell, but also people who believe in other gods.

double post.

I don't see it fair for atheists who think they should be able to choose "not God" during life - and then find it unfair when that's what they get after life - to expect God to put them in heaven (which by defintion, is the presence of God - the very thing an atheist would abhorr). This seems ludicrous to me.

 

 

 

 

I don't find that unfair at all. I find the idea that some hold of hell being an eternal agony unfair. And I wouldn't be opposed to being in the presence of god. If there comes a time when that actually happens, I welcome it.

 

Okay, for everyone that thinks going to hell is unfair:

 

 

 

I believe it is the heart behind the choice - saying no to God is saying "I can do life on my own" - the whole message of Christianity is "I can't do life on my own, I need God" - and this independent attitude of doing life

 

It's not just atheists who go to hell, but also people who believe in other gods.

 

 

 

It's irrelevant to my point, but yeah, you are correct from a Christian standpoint.

Hm.. you could interpret it that way:

 

 

 

Believing in god and accepting the teachings of Jesus is a "metaphysical" necessity for the soul to be in a healthy state. As long as you don't the soul will suffer. Like it is a necessity to eat healthy and keep in shape. Otherwise your body will suffer. Nobody complains about this, or think it's unfair in any way. So maybe love and faith is nourishment for the soul and Jesus kindly points out that "fact" (fact in the sense of this interpretation). Different gods might contain too much sugar or fat and aren't healthy. You may eat them, but it will harm you in the long run.

 

 

 

I'm not religious at all, but imo that is the only way it would make sense.

 

Okay, for everyone that thinks going to hell is unfair:

 

 

 

I believe it is the heart behind the choice - saying no to God is saying "I can do life on my own" - the whole message of Christianity is "I can't do life on my own, I need God" - and this independent attitude of doing life without God is what God so strongly dislikes, or hates, if you will.

 

 

 

All of this "It's my life, I can do what I want, worship what I want, believe what I want", I believe is coming from a selfish and flawed mindset - if God exists (which is what this topic assumes), then it's not *your* life - God is creator, and you belong to Him whether you like it or not.

 

 

 

I would agree, if that was the case. However we both know that is not true, your assumption that atheism is a rejection of God is incorrect and your reasoning that they can live life on their own and have no need for God is also incorrect. The lack of belief does not come from some selfish ideal. It comes from just a lack of faith, like you have a lack of faith in Scientology or Islam, and to reject something that something first must have to exist. Otherwise you're rejecting merley an idea of it.

 

 

 

What i find to be the main factor in this is that God seems not to want to be seen to exist. He's nothing more than a collection of contradictions we are led to beleive exist because he is infinite, beyond us, and beyond our intellect. If he exists he is the biggest paradox we can imagine. What does this point to? Surley the road to belief should be quite an easy one or as easy as a lack of belief. Not 100% dependant on faith, with no evidence and nothing even pointing to his existance. Only a book written two thousand years ago to tell us to believe and have faith, against logic through circular reasoning we are led to need to believe in God or we are to be without him. Yet this is a free choice to you? The scales are weighed equally in each direction for you?

 

if the bad things outweights the good, you go to hell... and stays there for different lenghts, depending on how bad your sins was, before you go to heaven

 

 

 

Nowhere in the Bible does anyone state this. Not Jesus, not an appostle, not God, no-one from the old testament either. But please, challenge me on it...give me the verse.

 

 

 

 

the second point he was making about the different lengths of time spent in hell is totally wrong and should not be taken seriously.

 

 

 

okay... you might have missed me there, the last part i wrote that, was in answer to the guy that said that "and allah" comment... i have read their holy writings, and have a lot of muslimic friends... and this was what ISLAMIC TRADITION says...

 

 

 

The point of christianity is pretty much the opposite... so the way i was quoted made this sound wrong

 

----------------------

 

 

 

A lot of speaking about hell now... i would like to say what my PERSONALL sight about this is... The "judging day" (don't really know the english word) will be the day God stops looking over the earth, and takes all that accept Jesus (and thus is pure) up to heaven...

 

 

 

hell, I think is a picture about how the earth is after EVERY good thing in it doesn't exsist anymore. When a lot of people imagines a fiery pit or something about hell has very much to do with how it was preached about in 1000-1500. So if you can manage to imagine a world without any good, then you've got hell... what i think at last

 

Okay, for everyone that thinks going to hell is unfair:

 

 

 

I believe it is the heart behind the choice - saying no to God is saying "I can do life on my own" - the whole message of Christianity is "I can't do life on my own, I need God" - and this independent attitude of doing life

 

It's not just atheists who go to hell, but also people who believe in other gods.

 

 

 

It's irrelevant to my point, but yeah, you are correct from a Christian standpoint.

 

It is relevant to your point. It is not just atheists but also people of other religions who feel it would be unfair to go to a Christian hell.

 

 

 

 

 

You say that I should accept Jesus or burn in hell, but a muslim dude would say that I should accept allah or burn in hell. Aren't you guys stepping all over each other on this issue? Maybe one of you should change the rules on this and let the other one have the "burn in hell" concept.

 

What? We both think that we're right. What you seem to be doing is grouping all religions as "religions". That's like grouping religions and atheism as "worldviews" and expecting atheism to have an organized following.

 

 

 

I guess we are stepping over each other on the issue if you mean that we're both trying to say that we're right. The whole thing between Islam and Christian's heaven/hell is very, very different.

 

 

 

Christians can ONLY get to heaven through accepting Jesus as LORD and SAVIOR, which means that they accept what he says and follow him.

 

From what I understand of Islam, it's how much good vs how much bad you have that lets you into heaven or not. If you do more good than bad, you're in. If you do more bad than good, you're out.

 

 

 

See the difference?

 

The Islamic judgment of good vs. bad only applies to people who are already Muslims. Christians and people of other faiths (or no faiths) automatically go to hell. This directly parallels and contradicts Christianity.

 

 

 

Also, you're taking it wrong. Christianity doesn't say "accept or burn". It says, "For all have fallen short of the glory of God" and "For God so loved the world that he sent his only son that whoever believes in him shall recieve eternal life."

 

It sounds like you've been exposed to too many "ACCEPT, YOU SINNER, OR YOU'LL BURN!!" people.

 

 

 

That's not what Christianity's about. Christianity is about, "You're a sinner, but God loved you so much that he gave his only son so that YOU can be forgiven and go to heaven."

 

 

 

It's totally different.

 

It's not different at all. No matter how gently you phrase it by adding in the concept of jesus, your belief remains the same: you think that the majority of the world's population will go to hell because they are not christians.

[Views are of my own]

 

 

 

I do count myself as a Christian and believe that God is the ultimate being that loves and watches over me. I have accepted this as my belief on my own account.

 

 

 

Now if you can honestly go out and see everything that is around you and not think that something great has done this, then good for you. I am not one to press my beliefs on someone nor one to condemn someone for being a "non-Christian". I believe people to have a free will to choose what they want to believe in. Everytime I read a Christian or Bible topic, I see ones that basically mock what I believe in. They are yelling that you are going to hell or what not if you are not saved. Single me out if you want but I show my love to the world by giving them their space and stand out if people want to come to me and ask. You will hardly see me the one standing on a soap box holding a sign "The World is Coming to an End!"

 

 

 

Then what is Christianity? I see it as a belief in God and Him sending His son to die for us. We have the free will to choose this or to deny it. I personally have accepted this and lived my life after an example as such.

 

 

 

(PM me for rebutle or comments because I most likely wont make it back to this topic)

Mirror pretty much said what I think. I don't force my beliefs on anyone. I do believe you're going to hell if you don't repent, but there's a good chance you'll have more than one opportunity, so it's really your choice. If you ask me, I'll tell you all that I know. But I won't bug you with what I think is real or true.

 

 

 

None of us can know everything, or have all the answers. That's where faith comes in. In fact, I doubt any sane person would become a real Christian without being touched by Jesus. His love is hard to understand at all, let alone without actually experiencing it.

 

 

 

Inside every person soul is a gap. A gap that can only be filled by Jesus. Everyone is looking for a way to fill that gap. We find temporary ways to patch it up for a while. Some people think Islam is the way, some thing it's Buddhism, some think it's atheism. In the end, the gap can only be filled by Jesus' love.

 

 

 

These are my views, feel free to rip them apart, mock them, say they're good, or anything. They won't change. Also, no one has to believe what I believe. This doesn't necessarily have to be true either, but it's what I believe. Thanks for reading this. God bless you, even if you don't believe in him. :)

I don't see it fair for atheists who think they should be able to choose "not God" during life - and then find it unfair when that's what they get after life - to expect God to put them in heaven (which by defintion, is the presence of God - the very thing an atheist would abhorr). This seems ludicrous to me.

 

The definition of "afterlife" has no mention of God or His presence. There are plenty of atheistic and polytheistic views on the afterlife which differ from your own opinions.

 

 

 

Now if you can honestly go out and see everything that is around you and not think that something great has done this, then good for you.

 

If you're implying atheists can't appreciate life, you're mistaken. :)

Now if you can honestly go out and see everything that is around you and not think that something great has done this, then good for you.

 

If you're implying atheists can't appreciate life, you're mistaken. :)

 

No not at all. :) I meant if you can go out, and see nature for instance and not think that someone or something was behind it, then good for you. People perceive things how they want to, and I dont want to bash anyone for that.

 

Okay, for everyone that thinks going to hell is unfair:

 

 

 

I believe it is the heart behind the choice - saying no to God is saying "I can do life on my own" - the whole message of Christianity is "I can't do life on my own, I need God" - and this independent attitude of doing life

 

It's not just atheists who go to hell, but also people who believe in other gods.

 

 

 

Yes for it is written clearly in the Ten Commandments "Thou shall not have any other idols/Gods before me".

 

Okay, for everyone that thinks going to hell is unfair:

 

 

 

I believe it is the heart behind the choice - saying no to God is saying "I can do life on my own" - the whole message of Christianity is "I can't do life on my own, I need God" - and this independent attitude of doing life

 

It's not just atheists who go to hell, but also people who believe in other gods.

 

 

 

Yes for it is written clearly in the Ten Commandments "Thou shall not have any other idols/Gods before me".

 

You didn't read insane's post.

Oh geez, this is moving much faster now. It's going to be hard to keep up with my schoolwork/sports.

 

 

 

Continuing off the discussion so far...

 

 

 

I don't find that unfair at all. I find the idea that some hold of hell being an eternal agony unfair. And I wouldn't be opposed to being in the presence of god. If there comes a time when that actually happens, I welcome it.

 

You wouldn't welcome it if you suddenly realized how filthy your sins made you compared to utter perfection. It's a bit different than you think (no offense to you, though you're obviously mature enough to understand what I mean). Also, could you state why it's unfair? I made a big post for you on that and other things. Did you read it?

 

 

 

[hide=kelem_ryu]

Believing in god and accepting the teachings of Jesus is a "metaphysical" necessity for the soul to be in a healthy state. As long as you don't the soul will suffer. Like it is a necessity to eat healthy and keep in shape. Otherwise your body will suffer. Nobody complains about this, or think it's unfair in any way. So maybe love and faith is nourishment for the soul and Jesus kindly points out that "fact" (fact in the sense of this interpretation). Different gods might contain too much sugar or fat and aren't healthy. You may eat them, but it will harm you in the long run.

[/hide]Pretty much. Ecclesiastes 3:11 - "For God has set eternity in the hearts of man. "

 

We need God to be healthy in the long run of eternity.

 

 

 

The Islamic judgment of good vs. bad only applies to people who are already Muslims. Christians and people of other faiths (or no faiths) automatically go to hell. This directly parallels and contradicts Christianity.

 

Ok? I just suddenly realized that you're contesting Islam and Christianity in "who's right". Isn't this off-topic a bit? We're discussing what Christianity is. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that way

 

 

 

About the "burn" or "Jesus" problem you have with Christianity: Wrong, wrong, wrong. You're obsessing over the thing that people go to hell if they refuse to accept God's gift. No. Christianity is about: People fail, God loves them and gave them a choice, and they can go to heaven, but if they ultimately choose to not accept, THEN they go to hell. That's not THE point of Christianity; it is a side-effect of REFUSING Christianity.

 

 

 

Let me make this clearer. People are not meant to go to hell. However, they are marred by sin and cannot help themselves, and need God all the more. Thus [John 3:16], and God sent Jesus to save people from sin through acceptance of him as Lord and Savior. Christianity does NOT say that people are meant for hell.

 

 

 

[hide=deejay]

None of us can know everything, or have all the answers. That's where faith comes in. In fact, I doubt any sane person would become a real Christian without being touched by Jesus. His love is hard to understand at all, let alone without actually experiencing it.

 

 

 

Inside every person soul is a gap. A gap that can only be filled by Jesus. Everyone is looking for a way to fill that gap. We find temporary ways to patch it up for a while. Some people think Islam is the way, some thing it's Buddhism, some think it's atheism. In the end, the gap can only be filled by Jesus' love.

 

[/hide]

 

My Bible teacher taught me that "God initiates (starts the converation), you respond, God responds back."

 

 

 

For your gap thing, Ecclesiastes 3:11 - For God has set eternity in the hearts of men; yet they cannot fathom what God has done from beginning to end.

 

We are reliant on God for our eternal existence (soul)

 

 

 

[hide=Hume]

I would agree, if that was the case. However we both know that is not true, your assumption that atheism is a rejection of God is incorrect and your reasoning that they can live life on their own and have no need for God is also incorrect. The lack of belief does not come from some selfish ideal. It comes from just a lack of faith, like you have a lack of faith in Scientology or Islam, and to reject something that something first must have to exist. Otherwise you're rejecting merley an idea of it.

 

 

 

What i find to be the main factor in this is that God seems not to want to be seen to exist. He's nothing more than a collection of contradictions we are led to beleive exist because he is infinite, beyond us, and beyond our intellect. If he exists he is the biggest paradox we can imagine. What does this point to? Surley the road to belief should be quite an easy one or as easy as a lack of belief. Not 100% dependant on faith, with no evidence and nothing even pointing to his existance. Only a book written two thousand years ago to tell us to believe and have faith, against logic through circular reasoning we are led to need to believe in God or we are to be without him. Yet this is a free choice to you? The scales are weighed equally in each direction for you?

[/hide]

 

Atheism - "No + God". Directly or indirectly, it seems to be a rejection of God. Lack of faith can be one factor, but selfish ideals are one of the things that can BLIND people to any such faith. Also, your "you need to reject something that is real" is correct, although to some atheists, Christianity IS just an idea.

 

 

 

I really don't think the Bible is the only factor. Assume that people really DO need God. Wouldn't this lead people to God anyways, if it IS a necessity for a soul?

 

 

 

...man...that was a lot of stuff. Did I miss something? (I left insane's discussion for insane to answer.)

 

 

 

Edit: 4 PAGES OF NO FLAMES!!! : GOOD JOB, PEOPLE.

 

 

 

The Islamic judgment of good vs. bad only applies to people who are already Muslims. Christians and people of other faiths (or no faiths) automatically go to hell. This directly parallels and contradicts Christianity.

 

Ok? I just suddenly realized that you're contesting Islam and Christianity in "who's right". Isn't this off-topic a bit? We're discussing what Christianity is. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that way

 

Yes, you are wrong. When we discuss what something is, no matter what the thing is, we must include evidence that would contradict, nullify, or cancel certain aspects of it.

 

 

 

About the "burn" or "Jesus" problem you have with Christianity: Wrong, wrong, wrong. You're obsessing over the thing that people go to hell if they refuse to accept God's gift. No. Christianity is about: People fail, God loves them and gave them a choice, and they can go to heaven, but if they ultimately choose to not accept, THEN they go to hell. That's not THE point of Christianity; it is a side-effect of REFUSING Christianity.

 

 

 

Let me make this clearer. People are not meant to go to hell. However, they are marred by sin and cannot help themselves, and need God all the more. Thus [John 3:16], and God sent Jesus to save people from sin through acceptance of him as Lord and Savior. Christianity does NOT say that people are meant for hell.

 

Let me break this down for you and save 2 more pages of text. I'm red and you're blue.

 

 

 

The Jewish elder priests at Jesus' trial think that God gave Jesus a choice too. His crucifixion was merely a side-effect of his refusal to accept their God's love. Why does your religion focus on this side-effect while you tell me not to focus on mine?

 

 

 

The Jewish elder priests were misguided. Their concept of God had not been updated to the Christian version, which is the right one. Thus, Jesus, through his crucifixion, was affirming God's love rather than refusing it.

 

 

 

You say that Christianity does not think people are meant for hell, but God made all of us, so that means he was responsible for making me a non-believer.

 

 

 

God gave us free will to decide whether or not we want to accept his love. He didn't make you a non-believer. You made the choice to become one, just like you still have the choice to become a believer.

 

 

 

But God could have just made all of us Christians.

 

 

 

God's aim is to have fellowship with those who truly love him. If we had been made as inherently good robots, without the potential for the opposite character, evil, we would not have the capacity for true love. For only love that comes from a free choice of the will is true love.

 

 

 

But God is the omnipotent creator. He created everyone's being, actions, and decisions. That means he created the series of decisions that led my grandfather to be a non-believer on his deathbed, just like how he created the series of decisions that led your grandfather to be a believer on his deathbed.

 

 

 

Ok, so we don't have free will, but part of my argument still stands. It is necessary for God to make both non-believers and believers, because true love cannot exist without evil. The non-believers are part of the environment for making believers. The majority of the world's population are God's necessary victims for creating the conditions that make a minority of the population into the true believers that he wants.

 

 

 

In other words, God sacrifices most of the world's people so that a certain minority can feel a heightened sense of love for him, because he would rather have a minority of conditioned love (with the majority serving as non-believers that are required for the conditioning) than a majority of automatic love.

 

 

 

There it is. I get to prove that God means for people to be in hell, and you get to explain Creation to its furthest, most truthful extent.

 

 

 

It ends as a tie, and a bittersweet one at that, because there are many other religions with more benevolent gods who do not desire to condition their believers with the same intensity and the same sacrificial methods as the Christian god does.

 

 

 

I really hope your god doesn't turn out to be the right one.

 

I don't find that unfair at all. I find the idea that some hold of hell being an eternal agony unfair. And I wouldn't be opposed to being in the presence of god. If there comes a time when that actually happens, I welcome it.

 

(1) You wouldn't welcome it if you suddenly realized how filthy your sins made you compared to utter perfection. It's a bit different than you think (no offense to you, though you're obviously mature enough to understand what I mean). (2) Also, could you state why it's unfair? I made a big post for you on that and other things. Did you read it?

 

 

 

[hide=Hume]

I would agree, if that was the case. However we both know that is not true, your assumption that atheism is a rejection of God is incorrect and your reasoning that they can live life on their own and have no need for God is also incorrect. The lack of belief does not come from some selfish ideal. It comes from just a lack of faith, like you have a lack of faith in Scientology or Islam, and to reject something that something first must have to exist. Otherwise you're rejecting merley an idea of it.

 

 

 

What i find to be the main factor in this is that God seems not to want to be seen to exist. He's nothing more than a collection of contradictions we are led to beleive exist because he is infinite, beyond us, and beyond our intellect. If he exists he is the biggest paradox we can imagine. What does this point to? Surley the road to belief should be quite an easy one or as easy as a lack of belief. Not 100% dependant on faith, with no evidence and nothing even pointing to his existance. Only a book written two thousand years ago to tell us to believe and have faith, against logic through circular reasoning we are led to need to believe in God or we are to be without him. Yet this is a free choice to you? The scales are weighed equally in each direction for you?

[/hide]

 

 

 

(3) Atheism - "No + God". Directly or indirectly, it seems to be a rejection of God. Lack of faith can be one factor, but selfish ideals are one of the things that can BLIND people to any such faith. Also, your "you need to reject something that is real" is correct, although to some atheists, Christianity IS just an idea.

 

 

 

 

(1) Yes I would... Then I could be a believer and go to heaven. If I'm a sinner and that becomes apparant, why would I be upset about that? I would be glad that I had realised truth.

 

 

 

(2) Sorry, I think I did respond to your post. My point was there is no justice in an eternal punishment for finite crimes, no matter how bad those crimes may be. Add to that the fact that any crimes coming from me would be miniscule and you've effectively just tortured and executed me for stealing candy. Unjust, is what I'm saying here.

 

 

 

(3) Please, don't assume that by lacking faith I'm rejecting your god as if he were real. I don't know that at all and I don't assume he is then reject him based on that. And I don't appreciate the insinuation that atheists have selfish ideals either. Not true.

double post. scroll up.

was going to say the same thing as adventurer said now...

 

 

 

christianity believes that ANYONE, no matter what believe you have, will go to heaven if you are pure... the only problem is that noone is pure.

 

 

 

everyone have sinned, don't come here and say that you've never done anything wrong. The payment for sinning is death,

 

( this was mentioned first in genesis... with adam and eve, that where immortal, until they ate of the forbidden fruit. )

 

but the point is, that Jesus, took this death penalty for us, even though he didn't need to, as he was 100% human, but also 100% god, so he didn't sin.

 

 

 

Therefore, christians believe that it's just to accept that Jesus should take your punishment instead of you... and you'll go to heaven...

The Jewish elder priests at Jesus' trial think that God gave Jesus a choice too. His crucifixion was merely a side-effect of his refusal to accept their God's love. Why does your religion focus on this side-effect while you tell me not to focus on mine?

 

 

 

The Jewish elder priests were misguided. Their concept of God had not been updated to the Christian version, which is the right one. Thus, Jesus, through his crucifixion, was affirming God's love rather than refusing it.

 

 

 

You say that Christianity does not think people are meant for hell, but God made all of us, so that means he was responsible for making me a non-believer.

 

 

 

God gave us free will to decide whether or not we want to accept his love. He didn't make you a non-believer. You made the choice to become one, just like you still have the choice to become a believer.

 

 

 

But God could have just made all of us Christians.

 

 

 

God's aim is to have fellowship with those who truly love him. If we had been made as inherently good robots, without the potential for the opposite character, evil, we would not have the capacity for true love. For only love that comes from a free choice of the will is true love.

 

 

 

But God is the omnipotent creator. He created everyone's being, actions, and decisions. That means he created the series of decisions that led my grandfather to be a non-believer on his deathbed, just like how he created the series of decisions that led your grandfather to be a believer on his deathbed.

 

 

 

Ok, so we don't have free will, but part of my argument still stands. It is necessary for God to make both non-believers and believers, because true love cannot exist without evil. The non-believers are part of the environment for making believers. The majority of the world's population are God's necessary victims for creating the conditions that make a minority of the population into the true believers that he wants.

 

 

 

In other words, God sacrifices most of the world's people so that a certain minority can feel a heightened sense of love for him, because he would rather have a minority of conditioned love (with the majority serving as non-believers that are required for the conditioning) than a majority of automatic love.

 

 

 

There it is. I get to prove that God means for people to be in hell, and you get to explain Creation to its furthest, most truthful extent.

 

 

 

It ends as tie, and a bittersweet one at that, because there are many other religions with more benevolent gods who do not desire to condition their believers with the same intensity and the same sacrificial methods as the Christian god does.

 

 

 

I really hope your god doesn't turn out to be the right one.

 

 

 

I find it hard that you can fill in words for a Christian because I thought earlier we discussed that we can not generalize, because truthfully, I did not agree to some if not all the answers you gave in blue. The one that got to me the most was the very last point. It goes into a whole part that even myself don't agree in. I said I won't press my beliefs on anyone but the argument you had can not be completed with a right or wrong answer. It goes into the debate of Predestination and Free Will, so I highly doubt a straight answer could be given like you have provided.

 

 

 

It ends as a tie, and a bittersweet one at that, because there are many other religions with more benevolent gods who do not desire to condition their believers with the same intensity and the same sacrificial methods as the Christian god does.

 

Sorry I just had to go and point out on this paragraph. Alot of people follow by the Golden Rule (Do unto others as you would have done unto you) as a general statement for their lives. If this is such a strong intensity, I would fear what you count as mild or strong. Also what kind of sacrificial methods are you asking for as a Christian? I personally haven't sacrificed anything like a blood offering. :lol: I may have sacrificed that "fun" weekend with the booze but thats more of a morality issue rather than something with a "Christian god".

[hide=PaperClipsYaaaar]

Yes, you are wrong. When we discuss what something is, no matter what the thing is, we must include evidence that would contradict, nullify, or cancel certain aspects of it.

 

 

 

Let me make this clearer. People are not meant to go to hell. However, they are marred by sin and cannot help themselves, and need God all the more. Thus [John 3:16], and God sent Jesus to save people from sin through acceptance of him as Lord and Savior. Christianity does NOT say that people are meant for hell.

 

Let me break this down for you and save 2 more pages of text. I'm red and you're blue.

 

 

 

The Jewish elder priests at Jesus' trial think that God gave Jesus a choice too. His crucifixion was merely a side-effect of his refusal to accept their God's love. Why does your religion focus on this side-effect while you tell me not to focus on mine?

 

 

 

The Jewish elder priests were misguided. Their concept of God had not been updated to the Christian version, which is the right one. Thus, Jesus, through his crucifixion, was affirming God's love rather than refusing it.

 

 

 

You say that Christianity does not think people are meant for hell, but God made all of us, so that means he was responsible for making me a non-believer.

 

 

 

God gave us free will to decide whether or not we want to accept his love. He didn't make you a non-believer. You made the choice to become one, just like you still have the choice to become a believer.

 

 

 

But God could have just made all of us Christians.

 

 

 

God's aim is to have fellowship with those who truly love him. If we had been made as inherently good robots, without the potential for the opposite character, evil, we would not have the capacity for true love. For only love that comes from a free choice of the will is true love.

 

 

 

But God is the omnipotent creator. He created everyone's being, actions, and decisions. That means he created the series of decisions that led my grandfather to be a non-believer on his deathbed, just like how he created the series of decisions that led your grandfather to be a believer on his deathbed.

 

 

 

Ok, so we don't have free will, but part of my argument still stands. It is necessary for God to make both non-believers and believers, because true love cannot exist without evil. The non-believers are part of the environment for making believers. The majority of the world's population are God's necessary victims for creating the conditions that make a minority of the population into the true believers that he wants.

 

 

 

In other words, God sacrifices most of the world's people so that a certain minority can feel a heightened sense of love for him, because he would rather have a minority of conditioned love (with the majority serving as non-believers that are required for the conditioning) than a majority of automatic love.

 

 

 

There it is. I get to prove that God means for people to be in hell, and you get to explain Creation to its furthest, most truthful extent.

 

 

 

It ends as a tie, and a bittersweet one at that, because there are many other religions with more benevolent gods who do not desire to condition their believers with the same intensity and the same sacrificial methods as the Christian god does.

 

 

 

I really hope your god doesn't turn out to be the right one.

[/hide]

 

First of all, I thought he was being tried for blasphemy. He MEANT for this to happen too, so it was not a side-effect; it was fulfillment of prophecy for Messiah + his own decision.

 

 

 

Are you implying that he's keeping the choice away from you? You can still pick, which you obviously picked up upon with the blue me. You also seemed to have ignored everything I said about how MAN MESSED HIMSELF UP. MAN SINNED WITH HIS CHOICE. HE ATE THE FRUIT!!

 

 

 

Yup about the robots.

 

 

 

For your last point: You assumed too much about an argument I never made. Also, I think YOUR statements are wrong. You're stating that God basically made people without choice, which contradicts the creation of man itself.

 

 

 

There WAS LOVE AND FREE WILL ever since Adam! Adam was once perfect, and he had two choices: obey, or eat the fruit (FREE WILL). God loved Adam and Eve even before they sinned, seeing as he chose to spend time with them and stuff (part of any good relationship). He also would've loved them if they hadn't disobeyed. Thus, I think that both love and free will were there and your argument is totally void.

 

 

 

Oh, and PLEASE do not assume any arguments for me. You are not me. I'm me. Make some points, but DO NOT argue FOR ME.

 

 

 

[hide=warri0r45]

 

(1) Yes I would... Then I could be a believer and go to heaven. If I'm a sinner and that becomes apparant, why would I be upset about that? I would be glad that I had realised truth.

 

 

 

(2) Sorry, I think I did respond to your post. My point was there is no justice in an eternal punishment for finite crimes, no matter how bad those crimes may be. Add to that the fact that any crimes coming from me would be miniscule and you've effectively just tortured and executed me for stealing candy. Unjust, is what I'm saying here.

 

 

 

(3) Please, don't assume that by lacking faith I'm rejecting your god as if he were real. I don't know that at all and I don't assume he is then reject him based on that. And I don't appreciate the insinuation that atheists have selfish ideals either. Not true.

[/hide]

 

(Thanks for the numbering)

 

1. You want God to come personally to you before you die so that you can see him as though he was a person in front of your physical eyes? Before I answer, I really want to make sure that's what you're asking.

 

 

 

2. I think you missed my point. My point is: you sinned and marred your soul into imperfection. When you die, your soul faces two paths: perfect heaven, or imperfect hell. Because you're not perfect, there's only one alternative. Again, it's not about how finite your crimes are in how they affect others; it's about how they have marred YOUR soul. If you DID understand that, I'm not sure exactly what you're telling me.

 

 

 

3. Disregard this :lol:. It was meant for Hume, not you.

It goes into the debate of Predestination and Free Will, so I highly doubt a straight answer could be given like you have provided.

 

I didn't just give a straight answer on predestination. I gave you the entire debate. You are welcome to point out flaws within the debate, but to say that I did not delve sufficiently into the debate is puzzling considering that I gave you the entire debate, from start to end, in the form in which it has been rehashed over and over again.

 

 

 

 

Sorry I just had to go and point out on this paragraph. Alot of people follow by the Golden Rule (Do unto others as you would have done unto you) as a general statement for their lives. If this is such a strong intensity, I would fear what you count as mild or strong. Also what kind of sacrificial methods are you asking for as a Christian? I personally haven't sacrificed anything like a blood offering. :lol: I may have sacrificed that "fun" weekend with the booze but thats more of a morality issue rather than something with a "Christian god".

 

 

 

You obviously did not read the last answer that you so deeply doubt. Both the intensity of conditioning and the sacrifice refer to the last answer about the majority serving as victims for the minority to witness. They have nothing to do with the Golden Rule or blood offering or whatever else you wish to fill in without first reading, in its entirety, what you are quoting.

 

Are you implying that he's keeping the choice away from you? You can still pick, which you obviously picked up upon with the blue me.

 

Read the whole debate, all the way to the end. Don't stop at the part that you agree with.

 

 

 

 

There WAS LOVE AND FREE WILL ever since Adam! Adam was once perfect, and he had two choices: obey, or eat the fruit (FREE WILL).

 

God is the omnipotent creator. When he made Adam, he also made all of Adam's future choices.

 

 

 

 

Oh, and PLEASE do not assume any arguments for me. You are not me. I'm me. Make some points, but DO NOT argue FOR ME.

 

You are probably still too young to look past your emotions, but I encourage you to do as I did, even if only in your mind. The process of internally refuting yourself dates back to those ancient philosophers, and it is still the best way to refine your arguments. If it makes you feel better to not have your name involved in my post, you can think of blue as "christianity and islam" and red as "other beliefs."

[hide=PaperClipsYaaaar]

 

Are you implying that he's keeping the choice away from you? You can still pick, which you obviously picked up upon with the blue me.

 

Read the whole debate, all the way to the end. Don't stop at the part that you agree with.

 

 

 

 

There WAS LOVE AND FREE WILL ever since Adam! Adam was once perfect, and he had two choices: obey, or eat the fruit (FREE WILL).

 

God is the omnipotent creator. When he made Adam, he also made all of Adam's future choices.

 

 

 

 

Oh, and PLEASE do not assume any arguments for me. You are not me. I'm me. Make some points, but DO NOT argue FOR ME.

 

You are probably still too young to look past your emotions, but I encourage you to do as I did, even if only in your mind. The process of internally refuting yourself dates back to those ancient philosophers, and it is still the best way to refine your arguments. If it makes you feel better to not have your name involved in my post, you can think of blue as "christianity and islam" and red as "other beliefs."

[/hide]

 

I did read it all. Did you see my responses to your other points?

 

 

 

Two things: that very statement contradicts itself, and more importantly, making a person and KNOWING all his choices doesn't mean that you make them for him. Besides, the Bible shows choices being available for the PEOPLE to make inside of time. Knowing does not equal causing.

 

 

 

No. You are wrong in this case. You said that I was hypothetically saying that "Ok, so we don't have free will, but part of my argument still stands...etc. I DID NOT SAY THAT. I AM ARGUING AGAINST THAT. Besides, you're arguing with me, not your internal imaginary opponent. You made a big mistake by assuming some arguments up for me. My emotion didn't influence this either.

 

 

 

Goodnight (in a few min. I'm having a midnight snack)

 

Edit: Goodnight. No offense to you and your respectable argument, but I think that your respectable argument is flawed. Please take the time to make sure that your argument is not biased and check to see whether it assumes that I've said something I haven't actually said.

 

Thanks

 

[hide=warri0r45]

 

(1) Yes I would... Then I could be a believer and go to heaven. If I'm a sinner and that becomes apparant, why would I be upset about that? I would be glad that I had realised truth.

 

 

 

(2) Sorry, I think I did respond to your post. My point was there is no justice in an eternal punishment for finite crimes, no matter how bad those crimes may be. Add to that the fact that any crimes coming from me would be miniscule and you've effectively just tortured and executed me for stealing candy. Unjust, is what I'm saying here.

 

 

 

(3) Please, don't assume that by lacking faith I'm rejecting your god as if he were real. I don't know that at all and I don't assume he is then reject him based on that. And I don't appreciate the insinuation that atheists have selfish ideals either. Not true.

[/hide]

 

(Thanks for the numbering)

 

1. You want God to come personally to you before you die so that you can see him as though he was a person in front of your physical eyes? Before I answer, I really want to make sure that's what you're asking.

 

 

 

2. I think you missed my point. My point is: you sinned and marred your soul into imperfection. When you die, your soul faces two paths: perfect heaven, or imperfect hell. Because you're not perfect, there's only one alternative. Again, it's not about how finite your crimes are in how they affect others; it's about how they have marred YOUR soul. If you DID understand that, I'm not sure exactly what you're telling me.

 

 

 

3. Disregard this :lol:. It was meant for Hume, not you.

 

 

 

1) I don't want god to do anything for me. I'm not demanding anything. I just wouldn't mind if he did show himself to me so I could know he exists.

 

 

 

2) I can accept that's what you/christians believe. The important thing I'm trying to get out of this is if you see hell as a place of misery and pain or merely an absence of god. If it's the former, I put forth a suggestion as to why it's unjust for me to go to hell.

 

 

 

3) I know it wasn't meant for me. You ask for people not to generalise christians yet you don't reciprocate the gesture. You insinuated that atheists have selfish morals and deny god as if we somehow know deep down inside that he's real. Neither of these things are true for most atheists I know of.