Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Heaven/Hell/Purgatory
Options
Comments
-
djpbarry wrote:But is the concept of original sin not derived from Adam's actions? If so, then the Christian God is holding me responsible for his actions.It wasn't a defence, it was a question.
It was a question followed by a defence. If it was a question then you would have used a question mark in the second sentence and placed the verb before the subject - ie "If so, then is the Christian God holding me responsible for his actions?"0 -
in fairness pdn i think youre nitpicking0
-
Presumably, being immortal, God would be asexual, so "she" is as accurate a description as "he".
It is a matter of supreme indifference to me whether you choose to talk about God as 'he', 'she', or 'it'. However, I have an annoying habit of picking people up on random and illogical statements.
'Immortality' means not to be subject to death. How is this related in any way to gender? Is there some obscure definition of immortality that says a male or female entity cannot be immortal?0 -
-
PDN wrote:If someone sincerely believes that God has given a revelation, then you can argue that they are mistaken, but that doesn't make them arrogant for stating said belief.PDN wrote:I state that some of my relatives regularly break the speed limit. Am I thereby being "arrogant" by believing myself to speak with the authority of the civil authorities in this country?
In every one of these points, your analogy fails, sometimes amazingly so.PDN wrote:Either way, I may be mistaken, but I am not being arrogant.0 -
Advertisement
-
It was a question followed by a defence.
Anyway, enough of this grammatical nonsense...'Immortality' means not to be subject to death. How is this related in any way to gender? Is there some obscure definition of immortality that says a male or female entity cannot be immortal?
Well, seeing as I am not aware of any immortal beings, I do not have a frame of reference for this. But, in my opinion, an immortal would be a being that lives forever and would not reproduce as mortals do (presumably). As such, I would imagine they would have little need for different sexes.
Anyway, this is way OT.0 -
I see nothing at all humble about somebody thinking that they speak on behalf of the creator of the universe. I see it as delusional and immensely arrogant. But in this we disagree, possibly because you believe that you speak with this authority too?
Can you not see that there is a world of difference between saying, "Robin said x" and saying, "I declare, speaking on Robin's behalf, that x"? If I believe that God has spoken in His Word, and I tell others what God has said (and what they can go and check for themselves in any Bible) that is totally different from making any statement I wish and claiming to speak on God's behalf.
My analogy holds in its central point, namely that it is not arrogant to tell others what an authority figure has said if you sincerely believe that said figure has made a public statement. Everything else you raise is irrelevant to this point, something I suspect you are intelligent enough to be fully aware of.A bit of honorable humility like you've written here, but with respect to religious beliefs, would go a long way.0 -
in fairness pdn i think youre nitpicking
Not at all. It is a fairly common trick in debating to frame a point in question form, then if your opponent responds you dismiss their response by claiming you were just asking a question. For example, I could post: "But aren't all atheists child abusers anyway?" Then, when my opponent indignantly responds, I can say, "Calm down, I was only asking a question."
Do you see what I have done? I have tried to dodge the implications of my loaded question, and I am attempting to paint my opponent as oversensitive.
Such a tactic is superficially clever but easily spotted by anyone who thinks about posts for more than three seconds. However, I must admit that this is the first time I have actually encountered someone who tried to use the "I was only asking a question" trick when the statement in question wasn't actually a question. Truly stunning.0 -
I see nothing at all humble about somebody thinking that they speak on behalf of the creator of the universe. I see it as delusional and immensely arrogant.
It is delusional to think that PDN has spoken as a claimed voice of God and hugely condescending (which is a close cousin to arrogance).0 -
However, I must admit that this is the first time I have actually encountered someone who tried to use the "I was only asking a question" trick when the statement in question wasn't actually a question. Truly stunning.But is the concept of original sin not derived from Adam's actions?
I find it amazing that one would spend so much time and energy pointing out perceived flaws in my grammar rather than addressing the rather simple question that was posed.0 -
Advertisement
-
JACK BE NIMBLE wrote: »Kelly1, I am extremely serious, did you read it?
I would be very interested to know your thoughts on this
Just to point out a few error in the article:
Regarding the doctrine of Hell in the O/T, before the resurrection of Christ, everyone who died went to Sheol which is mentioned numerous times in the O/T. According to Luke 16:19-31, Sheol was divided into two halves. The just resided in "Abraham's Bosom" awaiting their redemption and the rest lived in a place of torment.
Hell is also alluded to in a few places:Isiah 33:14 The sinners in Sion are afraid, trembling hath seized upon the hypocrites. Which of you can dwell with devouring fire? which of you shall dwell with everlasting burnings?
Isiah 66:24 24 And they shall go out, and see the carcasses of the men that have transgressed against me: their worm shall not die, and their fire shall not be quenched: and they shall be a loathsome sight to all flesh.
Jeremiah 15:14 And I will bring thy enemies out of a land, which thou knowest not: for a fire is kindled in my rage, it shall burn upon you.
Judith 16:20 Woe be to the nation that riseth up against my people: for the Lord almighty will take revenge on them, in the day of judgment he will visit them. 21 For he will give fire, and worms into their flesh, that they may burn, and may feel for ever.
Hell is without question mentioned loads of times in the NT.
In the online Douay bible, Hell is mentioned 24 times and fire 77 times (not all in reference to Hell). One example:
Matt 25:41 Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels.
See also:
Hell
----
Matt 5:22-30
Matt 10:28
Matt 11:23
Matt 16:18
Matt 18:9
Matt 23:15,33
Mark 9:42,44,46
Luke 10:15
Luke 12:5
Luke 16:22
Acts 2:24,27,31
James 3:6
2 Pet 2:4
Rev 1:18
Rev 6:8
Rev 20:13-14
Fire
----
Matt 3:12
Matt 7:19
Matt 13:40,42,50
Matt 18:8
Matt 25:41
Mark 9:43-48
Luke 3:9
Luke 3:17
John 15:6
This is article is so full of holes I'm really not inclined to go refuting all of it. It's straight out of the devils handbook on how to seduce souls to their destruction!
God bless,
Noel.0 -
Can you point to one post, on this or the A&A board, where I have ever claimed to speak on behalf of God?
In your work, you also appear to have made yourself responsible for spreading the message you believe came from him. I think it's reasonable to conclude from this that you probably believe that you are speaking on his behalf -- your job would make little sense if you didn't -- and that's why I asked you if you actually believe that you are. I'd like to know.PDN wrote:My analogy holds in its central point, namely that it is not arrogant to tell others what an authority figure has said if you sincerely believe that said figure has made a public statement. Everything else you raise is irrelevant to this point, something I suspect you are intelligent enough to be fully aware of.
Anyhow, given that there is some debate about whether or not the rules you assert are actually the rules of the creator of the universe, I must ask how much time you devote in your efforts to propagate the message, to the idea that you could be wrong. Is it 5%, 10%, 50%? Certainly, around here, it's virtually nil.PDN wrote:I have clearly stated, much to the annoyance of some Catholics, that no church or individual (myself included) are 100% in their beliefs.0 -
Excelsior wrote:It is delusional to think that PDN has spoken as a claimed voice of God and hugely condescending (which is a close cousin to arrogance).
And I'll be thrilled to hear an answer!
.0 -
JACK BE NIMBLE wrote: ».
Then one of you family members dies who has murdered or done some other extremely unchristian act and being totally unremorseful for what he/she has done.
God is torturing that person (yes I do mean torturing, punishment is a penalty for breaking rules, everlasting hell with no chance of redemption is torture) for existing. If somebody commits a murder, it is their circumstances that are to blame. So if you were looking at them from heaven you would have every right to feel the most terrible anger towards god and the deepest pity towards your family member. But if heaven is a perfect place, surely no negative emotions can exist there, especially not anger towards god. This is just another failing of the whole christian belief system which its followers ignore. Intellectual dishonesty is too small a word0 -
You're not 100% sure that you're right? Ok, great! So, in that case do I understand correctly that (for example) in the post above about who's going to hell and who's not, that you're not actually sure about it? And that you might be completely wrong?
This reminds me of the post where some people demanded from others (no names mentioned) for their thoughts on whether the OP's recently deceased father was, in their opinion, going to hell or not.0 -
I didnt realise that people could second guess the Christian God and could tell what memembers of their own family are on the way to Hell. That almost sounds prideful doesnt it?
You seal your destiny in this life. I know well that my brother is on the road to hell because he is an athiest and denies Christ as his saviour, his only way out of it is to repent in this life.0 -
Moderators, Category Moderators, Politics Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 81,310 CMod ✭✭✭✭Join Date:Posts: 79126
Run_to_da_hills wrote: »Its the truth, You are told present tence that you are condemed already. "He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God". John 3 vs 18
You seal your destiny in this life. I know well that my brother is on the road to hell because he is an athiest and denies Christ as his saviour, his only way out of it is to repent in this life.
Does this affect your relationship with your brother?0 -
But is the concept of original sin not derived from Adam's actions? If so, then the Christian God is holding me responsible for his actions.
The concept is derived from that. Adam and Eve commited the first and original sin. We in turn continue to sin.
And as stated God is holding you responsible for YOUR actions, no one elses.0 -
How certain are you?
Say God exists but the Bible isn't anything to do with him (the real God). How certain are you that this is not the case
BTW I don't necessarly agree with Robin that you are arrogant, I'm simply explaining the issue. Rejecting God and rejecting the Christian interpretation of how God wants us to be are not actually the same things.
Because there is no where else that God communicates with us, except through the Bible.
I don't think robin thinks I'm arrogant either.0 -
BrianCalgary wrote: »And as stated God is holding you responsible for YOUR actions, no one elses.
How true can that be?
Until recently un baptised babies were not allowed go to heaven, is this a fault or a failing of the babies?
What crime did tribal people commit? The crime of being born into a place where Gods word isn't mentioned so they idolise false Gods and so end up in hell, how are they to blame?
What crime did people commit before the time of Jesus? Yet they too won't be in heaven?
What crime did the people living in Muslim countries commit? Been born into a Muslim country?
What crime have I commited? Using my brain?... surely not to use it would be a bigger crime?
What crime do atheists commit? Failing to believe in a fantastical story equivelent to fairies and magic?
I wonder how Jesus would have got on if he had been in the position of most humans, i.e requiring faith? He clearly wasn't born as man, he seemed to have direct knowledge of his father, this is something none of us have. It would be funny indeed if Jesus had been born ignorant like us, had failed to believe in the tyrannical God of the old testament and God had been forced to send one third of himself to Hell for ever.
A poster made the excellent point that hell is torture, so god is clearly not forgiving, he is a terrorist and a torturer, a dictator and a bully... how is that attractive?
I feel sorry for people who refuse to see the truth...0 -
Advertisement
-
Rolling back two hours or so on this thread, you posted this, in which you asserted rules for who was going to hell and who wasn't. In your religion, I understood this was god's job, and not yours.
This is getting rather surreal. In that post, on a forum devoted to the discussion of Christianity, you have a Christian explaining Christian teaching concerning salvation. In my religion it is perfectly acceptable for people to explain Christian teachings to others and, contrary to your misconceptions, God has not demanded that he alone is allowed to offer such explanations.In your work, you also appear to have made yourself responsible for spreading the message you believe came from him. I think it's reasonable to conclude from this that you probably believe that you are speaking on his behalf -- your job would make little sense if you didn't -- and that's why I asked you if you actually believe that you are. I'd like to know.
I have already stated that, in giving my opinions and beliefs on these boards, I have never claimed to speak on God's behalf, nor, I believe, have Brian or any of the other Christian posters.Unfortunately, everything I raised is entirely relevant to your poorly chosen analogy, all the more so because you insinuate that I am being dishonest about it. It would be ungentlemanly of me to suggest that you are doing this intentionally.Anyhow, given that there is some debate about whether or not the rules you assert are actually the rules of the creator of the universe, I must ask how much time you devote in your efforts to propagate the message, to the idea that you could be wrong. Is it 5%, 10%, 50%? Certainly, around here, it's virtually nil.You're not 100% sure that you're right? Ok, great! So, in that case do I understand correctly that (for example) in the post above about who's going to hell and who's not, that you're not actually sure about it? And that you might be completely wrong?
Of course I may be completely wrong. All I am doing is explaining the Christian teaching on a subject as I understand it to be revealed in the Bible. If you are looking for us Christians, alone on boards.ie, to be the only group who are not allowed to express our views without always having to qualify them by saying, "Well, I might be wrong about this, but ..." then I think you are likely to be disappointed.
It is not arrogant for posters on the Soccer forum to state that Cesc Fabregas is the best midfielder in the Premiership this season. They are not claiming to speak on behalf of the Premier League and are not being arrogant.
It is not arrogant for posters to state that a particular scientific theory has demonstrated certain results. They are not claiming to speak on behalf of science and are not being arrogant.
It is not arrogant for a poster on the Motorcycle forum to state their belief that the police will not prosecute motorcyclists who fail to display insurance discs. They are not claiming to speak on behalf of the police and are not being arrogant.
But when a Christian, on the Christianity forum, states their opinion then they are accused of being arrogant and of claiming to speak on God's behalf.0 -
JoeBallantine wrote: »Until recently un baptised babies were not allowed go to heaven, is this a fault or a failing of the babies?What crime did tribal people commit? The crime of being born into a place where Gods word isn't mentioned so they idolise false Gods and so end up in hell, how are they to blame?What crime did people commit before the time of Jesus? Yet they too won't be in heaven?What crime did the people living in Muslim countries commit? Been born into a Muslim country?I feel sorry for people who refuse to see the truth
Yes, Joe, I too feel sorry for those who refuse to see the truth.0 -
BrianCalgary wrote: »The concept is derived from that. Adam and Eve commited the first and original sin. We in turn continue to sin.
And as stated God is holding you responsible for YOUR actions, no one elses.It is not arrogant for posters on the Soccer forum to state that Cesc Fabregas is the best midfielder in the Premiership this season. They are not claiming to speak on behalf of the Premier League and are not being arrogant.It is not arrogant for posters to state that a particular scientific theory has demonstrated certain results. They are not claiming to speak on behalf of science and are not being arrogant.But when a Christian, on the Christianity forum, states their opinion then they are accused of being arrogant and of claiming to speak on God's behalf.Again, no-one will be sent to hell because they were born in a Muslim country (although living in a Muslim country might indeed seem like hell).0 -
But if I am tainted with original sin, then am I not being held accountable for Adam's actions?Please refrain from throwing insults at people whose beliefs differ from yours.0
-
Not at all. Adam is held accountable for Adam' actions. djpbarry is held accountable for djpbarry's actions.What insult? My experience of visiting Muslim countries (including time spent with people who have been beaten up and imprisoned for their faith) leads me to suggest that living in such a country might seem like hell. How is that insulting?0
-
Ok, now I'm confused . So the concept of original sin is meaningless
Most Christian traditions agree that Adam's sinful nature is inherited by all human beings. However, that does not necessarily mean that we are accountable for Adam's sin. I believe we are accountable for our own sins, nobody else's. For example, when I was a baby I had a sinful nature, even though I was too young to act in accordance with that nature. If I had died as a baby then I would have committed no sin and therefore would deserve no punishment. As I grew older my sinful nature manifested itself in the sins that I committed - sins that I, and nobody else, am accountable for.You are generalising. There is no such thing as a "Muslim country" any more than there is such a thing as a "Christian country". As it happens, my wife is Pakistani and she gets back to Lahore as often as she can - I don't think she considers it to be Hell.
No such thing as a Muslim country? I think the rulers of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, or indeed the Islamic Republic of Pakistan (the official name of your wife's country) might beg to differ.
Your wife may not consider Pakistan to be hell, but plenty of others do. The fact is that many of the posters who cry on this board about how intolerant Christianity is know that they would rot in a prison cell if they tried airing their atheist views in Saudi Arabia or Iran.
BTW, as a staunch advocate of secular government I think any attempt at a Christian country would also be like hell.That is quite different - they are quite clearly expressing an opinion. Such a statement can be nothing more than an opinion.0 -
No such thing as a Muslim country? I think the rulers of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, or indeed the Islamic Republic of Pakistan (the official name of your wife's country) might beg to differ.Your wife may not consider Pakistan to be hell, but plenty of others do.0
-
What I was trying to say is that every country is different, irrespective of religious beliefs. For example, there is a world of difference between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.
Ah, that is a different issue entirely. Plenty of places can be different from each other while still sharing common characteristics such an adherence to Islam.I'm going to have to ask you to back that up with something. I cannot imagine there are “plenty” of people who consider Pakistan a hellish place, any more than there would be a large number of people who would consider, say, the US as a hellish place.
Homosexuals in Pakistan would probably find it pretty hellish that they face the death penalty if they act upon their sexual orientation. According to this link: http://atheism.about.com/b/2005/05/18/gays-in-pakistan.htm
the Islamic Republic of Pakistan denies that any of its citizens are gay. Coincidentally, the Islamic Republic of Iran makes a similar claim.
I would also have thought that a poster with your signature line might be aware of the Ahmadis. Amnesty International highlights persecution of Ahmadis in Pakistan
Life in Pakistan sounds pretty hellish for them, doesn't it? Or maybe Amnesty are just making it all up?0 -
Thank you for that analogy.
If the settlers had created the continent and the natives in the first place then it might even make sense,
I really can't understand this attitude that because God created us he can basically do what ever he likes with us.
Do you guys really believe that?
Leaving aside the question of if he would or not, if God tortured me for no reason would that be ok because he humans? That is a serious question, because I'm trying to establish if you guys consider any action by God to humans to be moral no matter what that action is.0 -
Advertisement
-
Most Christian traditions agree that Adam's sinful nature is inherited by all human beings. However, that does not necessarily mean that we are accountable for Adam's sin. I believe we are accountable for our own sins, nobody else's. For example, when I was a baby I had a sinful nature, even though I was too young to act in accordance with that nature. If I had died as a baby then I would have committed no sin and therefore would deserve no punishment. As I grew older my sinful nature manifested itself in the sins that I committed - sins that I, and nobody else, am accountable for.
Who is accountable for you having a "sinful nature" in the first place? Who's fault is that? God's? Adam's? Mans? Yours?0
Advertisement