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

245

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 5,026 ✭✭✭kelly1


    djpbarry wrote: »
    I don't think anyone is "whining" about not going to Heaven, just trying to understand the logic behind the selection process.
    How can a person remain stubbornly attached to sin and expect to get into Heaven? You might as well say I want to drive my car at 100mph regardless of the consequences.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    kelly1 wrote: »
    How can a person remain stubbornly attached to sin and expect to get into Heaven? You might as well say I want to drive my car at 100mph regardless of the consequences.
    Not sure about that analogy - I am not endangering anyone's life by not subscribing to Christianity.

    And how exactly am I "stubbornly attached to sin", bearing in mind that my definition of sin is likely to be different to yours? But then, you don't know what god's definition of sin is, so that doesn't really matter seeing as he's the one who is ultimately going to judge us (apparently), which doesn’t really make sense actually.

    Let’s assume for a second that a god exists. Let’s also assume that she is perfect in every way. So, one day she decides to create humans. Seeing as god’s perfect, she could have chosen to make a carbon copy of herself, but she chose to create an infinitely inferior model. She also decides that when humans die, only those who have lead lives morally comparable to her own may enter Heaven. But, she also knows that this is totally impossible, given our infinitely inferior understanding of the universe. Consequently, all humans are damned to Hell.


  • Registered Users Posts: 106 ✭✭JACK BE NIMBLE


    Ok, it has turned into a very broad spectrumed question i initially posted by the looks of the responses, been doing a little bit of my own research and have come up with this, seems very compelling - http://www.tentmaker.org/articles/ifhellisreal.htm:)


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,026 ✭✭✭kelly1


    Ok, it has turned into a very broad spectrumed question i initially posted by the looks of the responses, been doing a little bit of my own research and have come up with this, seems very compelling - http://www.tentmaker.org/articles/ifhellisreal.htm:)

    I sincerely hope you're not serious but I presume not with the smiley faces?

    If you doubt the existence of Hell, you doubt Christ.


  • Registered Users Posts: 106 ✭✭JACK BE NIMBLE


    Kelly1, I am extremely serious, did you read it?
    I would be very interested to know your thoughts on this


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,247 ✭✭✭stevejazzx


    kelly1 wrote: »
    I sincerely hope you're not serious but I presume not with the smiley faces?

    If you doubt the existence of Hell, you doubt Christ.

    That's scare tactics surely? All you want to achieve is belief thorugh fear. Do you think that's logical and fairminded of you? BELIEVE IN HELL..BE AFRAID..why? Why the necessity for such fear, what kind of a life is that. Do you go around every day fearing that this deity is watching all your actions and constantly judging you? Again what kind of life is that? You know regardless of spirituality and the afterlife and your own personal beliefs, living this life is what you should be doing. Be kind and moral, there's no need for fear and there's certainly no need to project fear onto other people.
    And what about the much disputed limbo? If I doubt that do I doubt Christ too?


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,196 ✭✭✭BrianCalgary


    Wicknight wrote: »
    "Man" didn't mess it up Splendour, a man messed it up. A single man. And paradise only fell because God decided that it should fall as punishment. He condemned the entire human race to punish a single man, Adam.

    It really puzzles me this group blame concept you guys love so much. I don't get blamed for what Hitler did, I don't get blamed for what Pol Pot did, despite them also being men. "Mankind" isn't blamed for the actions of single individuals, except bizarrely when it comes to Adam.

    Why exactly do Christians expect me to be blamed for what Adam did, one man "born" 6,000 years before I was.

    You are not being blamed for what Adam did. You are being held responsible for you rown actions and inactions.

    You are the one rejecting God. Adam had his opportunity to make his peace with God, as do you.

    Adam made a covenenat with God.

    God has made a deal with you as well. You are choosing not to sign it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    God has made a deal with you as well. You are choosing not to sign it.
    I am not aware of any deal I have made with God. Seeing as any deal between God and myself has been drawn up by God without my knowledge, the deal does not meet the requirements of common law and is therefore unenforceable.


  • Registered Users Posts: 106 ✭✭JACK BE NIMBLE


    Kelly 1, by the way i dont doubt Christ, just man and his own agendas.
    Christ went through his life loving and helping all he could, he knowingly as a human, with human emotions, accepted a horrific death from people whom he knew were murderers, cheaters, haters, etc.
    He must have been frightened out of his wits, yes he knew he would have everlasting life but he still had to endure the extraordinary pain for us who by the looks of things wouldnt have made a piss on him if he were on fire(excuse the expression). This all adds up to my inability to understand how Jesus in the same token would be happy in the knowledge that these same said people would be happy to see some of us burn in torment forever!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    djpbarry wrote: »
    I am not aware of any deal I have made with God. Seeing as any deal between God and myself has been drawn up by God without my knowledge, the deal does not meet the requirements of common law and is therefore unenforceable.

    True .. there isn't exactly a negotiation period.

    Its more "Do this or else .." type of deal ... think the Mafia had a name for those types of deals ...


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    You are not being blamed for what Adam did. You are being held responsible for you rown actions and inactions.

    I am being blamed for what Adam did because God cast all of humanity into this sinful imperfect world as a punishment of what Adam did. In fact that world/universe was created specifically to hold humanity as punishment for Adam.

    Otherwise we would all still be in paradise and probably not having this conversation.

    I am born with sin because God wanted to punish Adam for something Adam did. And for some reason I have to be held responsible for that fact.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,523 ✭✭✭✭Nerin


    True .. there isn't exactly a negotiation period.

    Its more "Do this or else .." type of deal ... think the Mafia had a name for those types of deals ..

    as i stated,that doesnt sound like a logical god.
    do this or else???thats really mature of god.
    if i was god id be extremely insulted people are following me and describing me like this


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,196 ✭✭✭BrianCalgary


    robindch wrote: »
    I think you're really missing the point here by many miles.

    None of us are rejecting god per se, but instead rejecting YOUR beliefs about god in much the same way that you reject the findings of modern biology.

    Hence, you can see why we might think that one poster claiming that his deity is going to send another poster to burn in hell for all eternity, is delivering a message of the most monstrous arrogance.


    The understanding I have of God comes to us via His communications through teh Bible.

    We have had this conversation before, many times.

    If you accept God's deal, you end up serving Him in this life and being in communion with Him for eternity. That communion with Him happens in a plce called Heaven.

    If you reject God's deal and spend your life serving yourself, or anyone else, you get an deternity without God (which many posters here have freely said that it is their will) and that place is called Hell and is described in the pages of teh Bible.

    I fail to see arrogance.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    If you accept God's deal, you end up serving Him in this life and being in communion with Him for eternity. That communion with Him happens in a plce called Heaven.

    If you reject God's deal and spend your life serving yourself, or anyone else, you get an deternity without God (which many posters here have freely said that it is their will) and that place is called Hell and is described in the pages of teh Bible.
    What is this "deal" you are referring to?

    Ok, I'm agnostic. Let's say I spend my entire life curing disease and as a result millions are saved. Let's say my brother devotes his life to prayer, preaching and bible-study, or whatever, which helps no-one. Are you saying that he is going to get into Heaven because he has devoted his life to God, but I'm going to go to Hell because I rejected him? Where is the logic in that? That tells me that God is an extremely egotistical being.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    I fail to see arrogance.

    I think from Robin's point of view the arrogance comes from the idea that you know all this

    How certain are you that this is actually the way it works?


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,196 ✭✭✭BrianCalgary


    Wicknight wrote: »
    I think from Robin's point of view the arrogance comes from the idea that you know all this

    How certain are you that this is actually the way it works?

    Because I am certain that the Bible is God's communication with us, the owners manual for humanity.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Because I am certain that the Bible is God's communication with us, the owners manual for humanity.

    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    You are not being blamed for what Adam did. You are being held responsible for you rown actions and inactions.
    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 21,191 ✭✭✭✭Latchy


    Wonder is there a points system for getting into Heaven ,like on a scale system of 100, anything below 78 and your out ???


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    latchyco wrote: »
    Wonder is there a points system for getting into Heaven ,like on a scale system of 100, anything below 78 and your out ???

    Actually, there is. Anything under 100 means you're out. That means just one sin in an entire lifetime means you miss the pass mark.

    It's a pretty stiff task, I know that I've already failed by a long way. In fact there's only ever been one guy in the history of the human race who made the pass mark.

    The good news is that the one guy who did make the pass mark also worked out a way for the rest of us to get in on his guest pass. The bad news is that a lot of people would rather reject his kind offer and instead spend their time whining about how unfair the whole process is.

    It takes all sorts.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,386 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Brian wrote:
    The understanding I have of God comes to us via His communications through teh Bible.
    No, you don't understand how your own beliefs operate. You should rewrite that sentence as "The understanding I have of God comes to me via my understand of what I believe to be His communications through the translation of the Bible that I use".

    You are ignoring the fact that this is a belief, and that you do not know this to be true, any more than the pope or a muslim knows that his belief is true too.
    Brian wrote:
    If you reject God's deal and spend your life serving yourself, or anyone else, you get an deternity without God (which many posters here have freely said that it is their will) and that place is called Hell and is described in the pages of teh Bible.
    Nope. I'm not rejecting god's deal, because I have no reason to assume that the deal (such as it is) comes from god, and I have many reasons to suspect that it doesn't. I gave some of these reasons this a day or two back somewhere, but there are plenty more that I could have added. In short, I'm rejecting your interpretation of what you refer to as "god's deal".
    Brian wrote:
    I fail to see arrogance.
    I say arrogance because you write implicitly assuming that you are both able and permitted to speak on god's behalf, in condemning me to an eternity burning in hell. I can't think of any polite word other than "arrogant" to describe believing oneself to be speaking with the authority of the creator of the universe.

    I hope that's a bit clearer?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    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.

    That sounds like the defence of, "I was just obeying orders". It didn't cut much ice at Nuremberg.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,026 ✭✭✭kelly1


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Not sure about that analogy - I am not endangering anyone's life by not subscribing to Christianity.
    You are certainly endangering your eternal life by not believing in Christ and keeping His commandments. You also set an example for others by declaring that you don't follow Christ which itself is a negative influence.
    djpbarry wrote: »
    And how exactly am I "stubbornly attached to sin", bearing in mind that my definition of sin is likely to be different to yours?
    I'll let you be the judge of that by asking yourself, do you keep the commandments? Do you love God will all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind and with all your strength? Do you love your neighbour for the sake of God? Do you fornicate or take drugs or use foul language etc, etc? Do you ask God to forgive you your sins? Just some things to ask yourself.
    djpbarry wrote: »
    But then, you don't know what god's definition of sin is, so that doesn't really matter seeing as he's the one who is ultimately going to judge us (apparently), which doesn’t really make sense actually.
    Doing something which is contrary to God's will is sin. What God wants from us is clearly written in scripture.
    djpbarry wrote: »
    Let’s assume for a second that a god exists. Let’s also assume that she is perfect in every way. So, one day she decides to create humans. Seeing as god’s perfect, she could have chosen to make a carbon copy of herself, but she chose to create an infinitely inferior model. She also decides that when humans die, only those who have lead lives morally comparable to her own may enter Heaven. But, she also knows that this is totally impossible, given our infinitely inferior understanding of the universe. Consequently, all humans are damned to Hell.
    SHE??? You're just taking the p*ss now!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    robindch wrote: »
    .I say arrogance because you write implicitly assuming that you are both able and permitted to speak on god's behalf, in condemning me to an eternity burning in hell. I can't think of any polite word other than "arrogant" to describe believing oneself to be speaking with the authority of the creator of the universe.

    I hope that's a bit clearer?

    It's clearer, but still not convincing.

    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.

    For example, let's say that I believe the speed limit on Irish motorways is 120 kph. 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?

    It doesn't matter if I am mistaken or not in my belief about the speed limit. Maybe my copy of 'Rules of the Road' contained a misprint and the limit is really 240 kph. Either way, I may be mistaken, but I am not being arrogant.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    PDN wrote: »
    The bad news is that a lot of people would rather reject his kind offer and instead spend their time whining about how unfair the whole process is.

    It takes all sorts.

    "Kind offer" according to who exactly?

    When ever I hear something like this I am reminded of the American settlers "kind offer" to civilize the native Americans.

    No doubt the American settlers, just like you, couldn't fathom why anyone would actually reject such a patient and kind offer. The settlers could after all have just shot the natives. It must have been bewildering to them that the natives would not only reject this offer but complain about it as well. The native Americans were uncivilised. They needed to be civilised. This is just the way it was. There is no debate over this. The settlers were offering to do this, all the natives had to do was to submit to this process.

    The native Americans were, strangely, whining that it was rather unfair that the settlers were there in their land trying to civilise them in the first place. The patience that the settlers must have had to put up with this ungrateful attitude must have been quite impressive.

    It takes all sorts I guess ...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Wicknight wrote: »
    "Kind offer" according to who exactly?

    When ever I hear something like this I am reminded of the American settlers "kind offer" to civilize the native Americans.

    No doubt the American settlers, just like you, couldn't fathom why anyone would actually reject such a patient and kind offer. The settlers could after all have just shot the natives. It must have been bewildering to them that the natives would not only reject this offer but complain about it as well. The native Americans were uncivilised. They needed to be civilised. This is just the way it was. There is no debate over this. The settlers were offering to do this, all the natives had to do was to submit to this process.

    The native Americans were, strangely, whining that it was rather unfair that the settlers were there in their land trying to civilise them in the first place. The patience that the settlers must have had to put up with this ungrateful attitude must have been quite impressive.

    It takes all sorts I guess ...

    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,


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,523 ✭✭✭✭Nerin


    "Kind offer" according to who exactly?

    When ever I hear something like this I am reminded of the American settlers "kind offer" to civilize the native Americans.

    No doubt the American settlers, just like you, couldn't fathom why anyone would actually reject such a patient and kind offer. The settlers could after all have just shot the natives. It must have been bewildering to them that the natives would not only reject this offer but complain about it as well. The native Americans were uncivilised. They needed to be civilised. This is just the way it was. There is no debate over this. The settlers were offering to do this, all the natives had to do was to submit to this process.

    The native Americans were, strangely, whining that it was rather unfair that the settlers were there in their land trying to civilise them in the first place. The patience that the settlers must have had to put up with this ungrateful attitude must have been quite impressive.

    It takes all sorts I guess ...

    i thought it was a very good analogy


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    nerin wrote: »
    i thought it was a very good analogy

    Indeed, which may tell us more about you than it does about the analogy.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,523 ✭✭✭✭Nerin


    em,ok, its not a personal argument, i just think it was a valid point.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    PDN wrote: »
    That sounds like the defence of, "I was just obeying orders". It didn't cut much ice at Nuremberg.
    :confused: It wasn't a defence, it was a question.
    kelly1 wrote: »
    You are certainly endangering your eternal life by not believing in Christ and keeping His commandments.
    One life of finite length is enough for me, thanks all the same.
    kelly1 wrote: »
    You also set an example for others by declaring that you don't follow Christ which itself is a negative influence.
    I see. I did not realise I was so influential, or that the people around me were so easily influenced. Besides, I do not think it is for you to decide whether my influence on other people is positive or negative, thank you very much.
    kelly1 wrote: »
    I'll let you be the judge of that by asking yourself, do you keep the commandments?
    Eh, some of them (I think).
    kelly1 wrote: »
    Do you love God will all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind and with all your strength?
    No, I don't have much time for dictators.
    kelly1 wrote: »
    Do you love your neighbour for the sake of God?
    Why "for the sake of God"?
    kelly1 wrote: »
    Do you fornicate or take drugs or use foul language etc, etc?
    Fornicate?!? Seriously?!? :D
    kelly1 wrote: »
    Doing something which is contrary to God's will is sin.
    And how is it that you are aware of God's will?
    kelly1 wrote: »
    SHE??? You're just taking the p*ss now!
    Careful now, that looks like foul language to me.

    Presumably, being immortal, God would be asexual, so "she" is as accurate a description as "he".


Advertisement