Just not on

Sapien

Talliesin wrote:

BC's post condemned the actions of the doorsteppers in this regard, which shows the compassion and decency I'm speaking off.

Your posts however have pushed the matter, and that does not.

As I have explained, I consider BC's condemnation to be hypocritical. Perhaps my expectation of consistency is not shared by other posters. I don't see how compassion relates to my treatment of BC and I can't see how I might be accused of indecency.

While we're bandying about judgements so, I'll say that I consider my detractors on this matter, aside from those obviously defending their own religious commitments, as squeamish, struthious and insincere.

Zombrex

Sapien wrote:

As I have explained, I consider BC's condemnation to be hypocritical. Perhaps my expectation of consistency is not shared by other posters. I don't see how compassion relates to my treatment of BC and I can't see how I might be accused of indecency.

While we're bandying about judgements so, I'll say that I consider my detractors on this matter, aside from those obviously defending their own religious commitments, as squeamish, struthious and insincere.

I think BC's position is that yes we are going to hell but it is not his place to be constantly reminding us that we are and upsetting people.

Personally I don't care if BC or anyone thinks I'm going to hell, since I don't think hell exists in the first place, and while I respect his beliefs and right to believe them, I also respect his position when he says that he or others do not need to push this position on others.

To a Christian like BC it is not the Christian churches that are sending me to hell, it is God. BC would probably claim that me going to hell is actually nothing to do with him, or the church he belongs to, but is in fact a matter between myself and God. Therefore it is none of his business and there would be no need for him to even get involved.

Its like if you want to pay your TV licence or not. It is not my responsibility to make sure you pay your TV license, even if I think you should and know you will get in trouble if you don't. It is a matter between you and the license inspector.

If more Christians took BC's stance the world would be a lot more pleasant place. Unfortunately a lot of Christians aren't like this, as the OP has discovered, and feel the need to by religous "busy-bodies" constantly informing others of the nature of their view of the world, despite the fact that Bible actually teaches you that you shouldn't do this, that your religon should be a private matter. Personally I think this is down to insecurity in their faith, and through pushing it on others they re-affirm to themselves that they have made the correct choice.

We should be applauding that BC does not approve of this behaviour, not turning on him for being hypocritical.

Sapien

Wicknight wrote:

I think BC's position is that yes we are going to hell but it is not his place to be constantly reminding us that we are and upsetting people.

Personally I don't care if BC or anyone thinks I'm going to hell, since I don't think hell exists in the first place, and while I respect his beliefs and right to believe them, I also respect his position when he says that he or others do not need to push this position on others.

To a Christian like BC it is not the Christian churches that are sending me to hell, it is God. BC would probably claim that me going to hell is actually nothing to do with him, or the church he belongs to, but is in fact a matter between myself and God. Therefore it is none of his business and there would be no need for him to even get involved.

Its like if you want to pay your TV licence or not. It is not my responsibility to make sure you pay your TV license, even if I think you should and know you will get in trouble if you don't. It is a matter between you and the license inspector.

If more Christians took BC's stance the world would be a lot more pleasant place. Unfortunately a lot of Christians aren't like this, as the OP has discovered, and feel the need to by religous "busy-bodies" constantly informing others of the nature of their view of the world, despite the fact that Bible actually teaches you that you shouldn't do this, that your religon should be a private matter. Personally I think this is down to insecurity in their faith, and through pushing it on others they re-affirm to themselves that they have made the correct choice.

We should be applauding that BC does not approve of this behaviour, not turning on him for being hypocritical.

I disagree fundamentally, and suspect, Wicknight, that you have not been keeping abreast of BrianCalgary's conduct in this forum. He has on several occasions unabashedly pronounced that some of our most venerable posters are destined for an eternity in Hell. He is not reticent on the matter of damnation, and has no hesitation in making such judgements for himself and is, as robindch has shown just yesterday, absolutely resolute in his conclusions. So you see, he considers it very much his business, and has no qualms about conducting this business on the forum he moderates.

Another point. He has taken responsibility over the Christianity forum, having been a prominent poster prior to that. A strange thing to do if one is not willing to discuss ones faith. One cannot discuss ones faith without exploring the mechanisms of salvation and damnation - especially when one is an evangelical christian.

Another point. BC is an evangelical christian. This means that he considers it his duty to evangelise - to win other people over to his faith. To help them achieve salvation. To save them from damnation. A very difficult thing to do without mentioning to people every now and then that they are presently bound for Hell.

BC believes that many people are damned - has informed many of these people himself, and without a hint of reticence. The difference in this case? He had not met the person, and the person in already dead. The claim that these facts prevent BC from making the same judgements he has about robin and others is utterly unconvincing, rather mealy-mouthed, evasive hair-splitting of the most desperate kind. Regardless - it would be understandable that BC refrain from rendering judgement in this instance. Indeed we would all have considered very odd, unwholesome and inappropriate if he had. Rather, indeed, that he leave it well alone.

He did not. He was the first to condemn these doorstepping christians, while, as the only person of whom I'm aware to personally herald the damnation of fellow posters, he is in fact the last person in a position to disapprove. Hypocritical and deeply inappropriate. Had he simply absented himself from the thread - had a little bit of common sense - this would never have arisen. But as he did, I would have felt it a smear on the face of this forum, and patch on its integrity, had such an ignoble choice gone unrecognised.

Talliesin

Sapien wrote:

I don't see how compassion relates to my treatment of BC and I can't see how I might be accused of indecency.

It relates to your treatment of the OP.

Zombrex

Sapien wrote:

I disagree fundamentally, and suspect, Wicknight, that you have not been keeping abreast of BrianCalgary's conduct in this forum. He has on several occasions unabashedly pronounced that some of our most venerable posters are destined for an eternity in Hell.

This is a forum about the Christian faith. According to the christian faith they (and myself) are destined for hell. There is a difference between stating that on a thread about the subject and calling on someones door to inform them of such a fact.

I think BC has actually informed myself that I'm destined for hell (don't remember exactly the discussion), but if I can't deal with his beliefs I probably shouldn't be on the internet discussing them.

Sapien wrote:

He is not reticent on the matter of damnation, and has no hesitation in making such judgements for himself and is, as robindch has shown just yesterday, absolutely resolute in his conclusions.

As is his right to do so. Would it not be more hypocritical of him if he told me that I was not going to hell when he clearly believes I am.

There is a big difference believing someone is destined to go to hell and calling around to their door to inform them of said fact.

Do you have any knowledge of BC telling someone this when they were not discussing it already?

Sapien wrote:

So you see, he considers it very much his business, and has no qualms about conducting this business on the forum he moderates.

Thats because it is his business on the forum he moderates.

If he was saying that someone is going to hell on the PI forum, or on the gambling forum, or on the sex forum (if anyone can actually get onto that) you might have a point. But this is a Christianity forum, and according to the Christian faith we are going to hell.

Sapien wrote:

A strange thing to do if one is not willing to discuss ones faith.

He seems quite happy to discuss his faith any time I've talked to him.

What he seems reluctant to do is to be goated into the response you wish just so you can attack him more.

You are complaining that he is constantly informing people they are going to hell, yet you spend the first page of this discussion trying to get him to state that the OP's father was in hell. It would actually be very arrogant (religon wise) of him to give you a definate answer to that question, because his belief would be that it is a matter between the father and God.

From a christian point of view the proper answer is "I don't know", which is what BC said. But you were not happy with this answer, probably because it didn't give you an avenue to attack him more.

Sapien wrote:

A very difficult thing to do without mentioning to people every now and then that they are presently bound for Hell.

It is pretty pointless to be discussing how you think BC goes about his business. Have you ever actually seen him being evangelical?

Sapien wrote:

He did not. He was the first to condemn these doorstepping christians, while, as the only person of whom I'm aware to personally herald the damnation of fellow posters, he is in fact the last person in a position to disapprove.

Are you claiming that BC calls around to doors informing people that their dead relatives are in hell?

Sapien wrote:

Had he simply absented himself from the thread - had a little bit of common sense - this would never have arisen.

"This" arose because you spend a number of posts attempting to goat BC into stating the OPs father was in hell.

Even though BC probably though it was likely, considering it was stated that he died an atheist, he attempted to withdraw from such a discussion, I would imagine because the idea seemed to greatly upset the OP. He also stated he didn't know, which is true. BC, despite that fact he is a mod of this forum, is not God. To a Christian God knows who is in hell or not, and that is about it.

The OP wasn't seeking BC's advice on the afterlife status of the dead father, and BC didn't give it. The topic of the thread wasn't even if the father is or is not in hell, the topic was the behaviour of the people who called to the door, behaviour BC clearly disapproves of.

BC condeemed the JWs not because they believe the OP's father is in hell, but because they called around to the house and upset the sister by stating this.

Sapien you are giving out that BC didn't do the one thing you claim it is inapproprate of him to do.

Sapien

Talliesin wrote:

It relates to your treatment of the OP.

...

Sapien wrote:

Do you believe the father is in Hell?

BrianCalgary wrote:

I don't know, because I don't know the dad or anything about his relationship to God.

Sapien wrote:

Apparently he was a non-practicing Protestant. So, presumably, he was baptised at birth but had no religious involvement or interest in adulthood. Correct me if I'm wrong, FullOf..IT.

FullOf..IT wrote:

You have it about right. He wasnt an athesist as he believed in a higher being but as I said he didnt practice christianity. I myself cannot stand organised religion as most of the vealots are very hypocritical and do not truely practice the teachings of christ / mohammed / buddha etc.

That was FullOf..IT's last contribution to the thread, and he seemed, don't you think, rather supportive of my prosecution of the question.

BrianCalgary

Sapien wrote:

I disagree fundamentally, and suspect, Wicknight, that you have not been keeping abreast of BrianCalgary's conduct in this forum. He has on several occasions unabashedly pronounced that some of our most venerable posters are destined for an eternity in Hell. He is not reticent on the matter of damnation, and has no hesitation in making such judgements for himself and is, as robindch has shown just yesterday, absolutely resolute in his conclusions. So you see, he considers it very much his business, and has no qualms about conducting this business on the forum he moderates.

Robin asked where he was headed if he chooses to stay on thi spath.

Sapien wrote:

Another point. He has taken responsibility over the Christianity forum, having been a prominent poster prior to that. A strange thing to do if one is not willing to discuss ones faith. One cannot discuss ones faith without exploring the mechanisms of salvation and damnation - especially when one is an evangelical christian.

I have and will continue to discuss my faith and the reasons for that faith as well as the theology surrounding salvation, afetr all the Bible is about the salvation offered to mankind.

Sapien wrote:

Another point. BC is an evangelical christian. This means that he considers it his duty to evangelise - to win other people over to his faith. To help them achieve salvation. To save them from damnation. A very difficult thing to do without mentioning to people every now and then that they are presently bound for Hell.

Dead right here, pardon the pun, not intended. All thoses who have asked where they are headed have been so informed, but the deceased in question has never asked now has he?

Sapien wrote:

BC believes that many people are damned - has informed many of these people himself, and without a hint of reticence. The difference in this case? He had not met the person, and the person in already dead. The claim that these facts prevent BC from making the same judgements he has about robin and others is utterly unconvincing, rather mealy-mouthed, evasive hair-splitting of the most desperate kind. Regardless - it would be understandable that BC refrain from rendering judgement in this instance. Indeed we would all have considered very odd, unwholesome and inappropriate if he had. Rather, indeed, that he leave it well alone.

Sapien there is a huge difference between faith and judgement. Some members of this forum have asked where they are headed, they have been informed based upon the biblical instructions given by God. The questioners have an opportunity to read the Bible for themselves and as wicknight pointed out make their own peace with God. It is my position as an evangelical to help people find that path to Heaven and to wealk alongside them as they pursue their relationship with God. We obviously have a different perspective on the role of the evangelical. It appears as though you would wish us all to be bible thumpers imposing our will upon unsuspecting folk.

That is not the case as I see it. Peoiple in todays world are seeking spiritual answers, my role as an evangelical is to give answers based on my Christian understanding and to walk with people in a journey of discovery and increased relationship with God.

It is not my role to judge the dead and it will never be. That is the role of God.

Sapien wrote:

He did not. He was the first to condemn these doorstepping christians, while, as the only person of whom I'm aware to personally herald the damnation of fellow posters, he is in fact the last person in a position to disapprove. Hypocritical and deeply inappropriate. Had he simply absented himself from the thread - had a little bit of common sense - this would never have arisen. But as he did, I would have felt it a smear on the face of this forum, and patch on its integrity, had such an ignoble choice gone unrecognised.

The following verse is my guideline regarding evangelical approach:

1 Peter 3:15
But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,

Dades

Sapien wrote:

He did not. He was the first to condemn these doorstepping christians, while, as the only person of whom I'm aware to personally herald the damnation of fellow posters, he is in fact the last person in a position to disapprove.

Let's not forget the "judgement" of the doorsteppers was completely unsolicited - and was given to somebody who was not prepared for such a damnation.

Knowledge of our own damnation, and that of others in this forum has come from badgering and throwing ourselves in the firing line of judgement (read: opinion) of BC and others. We're all grown up here - we all like a debate. Neither the OPs sister - nor the OP himself - were guilty of soliciting judgement like we are, no matter how many times you call for it.

edit: overlapped with BC

Sapien

Wicknight wrote:

There is a difference between stating that on a thread about the subject and calling on someones door to inform them of such a fact.

Absolutely.

Wicknight wrote:

Would it not be more hypocritical of him if he told me that I was not going to hell when he clearly believes I am.

Indeed. I was trying to persuade him to be as clear with his beliefs with regards to FullOF**IT's father. This would have demonstrated that the only difference between him and the doorsteppers is a little tact and pro-activeness.

Wicknight wrote:

There is a big difference believing someone is destined to go to hell and calling around to their door to inform them of said fact.

Yes, yes, yes. I agree.

Wicknight wrote:

Do you have any knowledge of BC telling someone this when they were not discussing it already?

I have no idea. What difference does that make?

Wicknight wrote:

Thats because it is his business on the forum he moderates.

Exactly. Please Wicknight, try to remember the context in which I make my comments. I am not opining that it is wrong that BC says these things - quite the opposite. I was countering your suggestion that BC keeps his beliefs on the damnation of others to himself, and that "the world would be a better place" et cetera, if more people were like him.

Wicknight wrote:

He seems quite happy to discuss his faith any time I've talked to him.

Except when it could be embarrassing. Such as in this thread.

Wicknight wrote:

What he seems reluctant to do is to be goated into the response you wish just so you can attack him more.

I was goading him into nothing, rather attempting to force him to be honest. And I would not have attacked him - I wouldn't have needed to. His own behaviour, inconsistency and hypocrisy, would become self-evident. Indeed, as far as I'm concerned, it has.

Wicknight wrote:

You are complaining that he is constantly informing people they are going to hell, yet you spend the first page of this discussion trying to get him to state that the OP's father was in hell.

Then it seems that you have completely missed the point of my questions. I thought I had been quite clear. I don't know how I might rephrase it so that you could better understand. I do not complain that he pronounces that people are damned. I accept that. I find it sad, discomforting, lamentable, but I realise that it would be pointless to try to disabuse BC of his beliefs. What I am complaining about is the double-standard, double-speak, inconsistency and hypocrisy that BC's first post in this thread highlighted.

Wicknight wrote:

From a christian point of view the proper answer is "I don't know", which is what BC said. But you were not happy with this answer, probably because it didn't give you an avenue to attack him more.

I was not happy, because he does appear to know an awful lot of the time. He claims that in this instance that he does not know because he has not met the man. I think that it is clear that that is rubbish. I think the difference in this case is that the man is already dead, which makes everything so much less hypothetical, and because, when it comes down to it, BC is embarrassed to speak his beliefs in the presence of someone whom they materially and emotionally affect - such as FullOF**IT.

Wicknight wrote:

It is pretty pointless to be discussing how you think BC goes about his business. Have you ever actually seen him being evangelical?

He has confirmed his commitment to evangelising.

Wicknight wrote:

Are you claiming that BC calls around to doors informing people that their dead relatives are in hell?

No. Though I don't think him very much better than people who do.

Wicknight wrote:

Even though BC probably though it was likely, considering it was stated that he died an atheist, he attempted to withdraw from such a discussion, I would imagine because the idea seemed to greatly upset the OP.

He should not have entered the thread in the first place. He should have avoided the issue. Having entered it, he should have been prepared to face the consequences of the beliefs he so willingly propounds. Knowing his beliefs someone should have asked the question I asked.

Wicknight wrote:

He also stated he didn't know, which is true.

I do not believe it is. I believe that he is as certain about FullOF**IT's father's fate as he is about yours, mine or robindch's.

Wicknight wrote:

The OP wasn't seeking BC's advice on the afterlife status of the dead father, and BC didn't give it. The topic of the thread wasn't even if the father is or is not in hell, the topic was the behaviour of the people who called to the door, behaviour BC clearly disapproves of.

And BC is the closest thing to those doorsteppers that we have here on this site. He is not in a position to condemn them. All that they are guilty of and he is not is intrusiveness. The substance of their beliefs are identical to the substance of his. We should be far less concerned with people going door to door, whether to sell raffle tickets or pronounce cosmic fate, than with the existence and acceptance of religious beliefs of the kind that BC and the doorsteppers expound.

The Atheist wrote:

Knowledge of our own damnation, and that of others in this forum has come from badgering and throwing ourselves in the firing line of judgement (read: opinion) of BC and others. We're all grown up here - we all like a debate. Neither the OPs sister - nor the OP himself - were guilty of soliciting judgement like we are, no matter how many times you call for it.

I would expect the same maturity and preparedness to accept the consequences of ones involvement in these discussions from the christians as well. I am happy to be told that I will end up in Hell, so long as I can expect the teller to be consistent. It is an ugly thing they do, and occasionally it should make for distasteful situations. It sickened me, just a little bit, to see BC swoop in with compassion, consolation and righteous reproach, when, in fact, he was pretty sure that the doorsteppers were right.

Guys, I'm pretty much done with this. I think you are all far too concerned with getting along, and are letting some inexcusable trends develop. This is a discussion form, but the issues we discuss belong to the real world. Occasionally things will get uncomfortable. Try not to be such a bunch of girls' blouses when they do.

Dades

Would you tell someone their wife was ugly if they asked for the truth?
Maybe. Heck, they asked for the truth.

Now if they had never mentioned it, would you tell them anyway?

Zombrex

Sapien wrote:

I have no idea. What difference does that make?

Sapien you are kinda missing the point of the bad thing the JWs did

The bad thing isn't that they believe that the OPs father is in hell. The problem was that they called around to his house and told the OP's sister that her father was in hell, which clearly upset her greatly.

Even if BC believed that the OPs father was in hell there would be nothing particularly wrong about that. BC has the right to believe anything he likes, though as he says he don't know either way. He isn't expressing this opinion in an unsolicited way.

Sapien wrote:

I was countering your suggestion that BC keeps his beliefs on the damnation of others to himself, and that "the world would be a better place" et cetera, if more people were like him.

As far as I can see BC does keep his belief on the damnation of others to himself unless it is within the context of the discussion or unless he is asked.

I have never seen BC head out to the other Boards.ie forums and start informing people who haven't asked that they are going to hell. Maybe he does, but I've never seen him do this.

Sapien wrote:

Except when it could be embarrassing. Such as in this thread.

It wouldn't be embarrashing, it would be upsetting. The OP just came on saying that the belief that his father might be in hell was greatly upsetting. You think this is the perfect time for BC to start a post on who is and is not in hell? I don't think so, and seemingly neither did BC.

You are also ignoring the fact that BC answered your question, and number of times, with "I don't know", which is true.

Sapien wrote:

I was goading him into nothing, rather attempting to force him to be honest.

He was honest and answered your question. But it wasn't an answer you wanted so you continued to ask him it over and over.

Sapien wrote:

What I am complaining about is the double-standard, double-speak, inconsistency and hypocrisy that BC's first post in this thread highlighted.

A double-standard that only you apparently can see.

I see a deeply religious person who despite this does not feel it is approprate to unsolicitly express his religious beliefs when they could upset someone.

Sapien wrote:

He claims that in this instance that he does not know because he has not met the man. I think that it is clear that that is rubbish.

How would he possibly know if this man is or is not in hell?

He could guess, but that would be equally pointless, and as the OP seems quite upset at the idea and never asked BC or anyone for the opinion of if his father is or is not in hell, why in the world would BC post a guess that the OP's father is actually in hell.

Sapien wrote:

BC is embarrassed to speak his beliefs in the presence of someone whom they materially and emotionally affect - such as FullOF**IT.

You are confusing embrassment with humility.

Sapien wrote:

He has confirmed his commitment to evangelising.

And he has clarified that to him evangelising is teaching those who want to learn, not calling around to door steps informing people their dead relatives are in hell.

Sapien wrote:

No. Though I don't think him very much better than people who do.

Why? If you don't like hearing BCs beliefs on a matter DON'T ASK HIM WHAT THEY ARE :rolleyes:

Sapien wrote:

He should not have entered the thread in the first place. He should have avoided the issue.

Why? He clearly disagrees with the way the JWs carried on.

Sapien wrote:

Having entered it, he should have been prepared to face the consequences of the beliefs he so willingly propounds.

BC didn't put forward his beliefs in this thread, and the OP didn't ask him. You asked him. He then rather diplomatically answered you, but you were not satified by his answer and continued to ask him it over and over.

Sapien wrote:

Knowing his beliefs someone should have asked the question I asked.

And he answered. I still fail to see the relivence of your question to the topic, BC as mod would actually have been perfectly entitled to tell you that your post was off topic.

Sapien wrote:

I do not believe it is. I believe that he is as certain about FullOF**IT's father's fate as he is about yours, mine or robindch's.

Then why did you ask him?

Sapien wrote:

And BC is the closest thing to those doorsteppers that we have here on this site. He is not in a position to condemn them.

He would only not be in a position to condemn them if he practiced the same behavior. He doesn't, or at least you have completely failed to show he does.

Sapien wrote:

All that they are guilty of and he is not is intrusiveness.

What do you mean by "all" ... that is the entire point of the objection, the intrusiveness.

Sapien wrote:

The substance of their beliefs are identical to the substance of his.

That is probably true, but their beliefs aren't the problem, it is the way they express these beliefs.

Sapien wrote:

We should be far less concerned with people going door to door, whether to sell raffle tickets or pronounce cosmic fate, than with the existence and acceptance of religious beliefs of the kind that BC and the doorsteppers expound.

Why? Religious belief is a fundamental human right. It only becomes a problem when people negatively effect others based on such rights. I've never seen BC do this.

Sapien wrote:

It sickened me, just a little bit, to see BC swoop in with compassion, consolation and righteous reproach, when, in fact, he was pretty sure that the doorsteppers were right.

Again you are completely missing the point.

Whether the doorsteppers were right or wrong in their religous beliefs is not the issue. It is the way they acted.

John Doe

Wicknight has paraphrased my own views on this thread more effectively than I had managed myself. Maybe at this stage we should stop going so far off topic, and see if anyone has something to add about abusive door-to-door sermonising.

Sapien

Wicknight wrote:

Sapien you are kinda missing the point of the bad thing the JWs did

The bad thing isn't that they believe that the OPs father is in hell. The problem was that they called around to his house and told the OP's sister that her father was in hell, which clearly upset her greatly.

I am missing no "point". I think there is a far more interesting "point" raised by BC's contribution. I think that BC did a "bad thing", though it appears that it was too subtle for you to recognise. I have tried to explain to you what it is I believe that BC has done that is "bad", but you seem unable to understand. I am frustrated to the point of anger and must conclude that you are more interested in seeming peaceable to the moderator than you are in understanding the nature of my complaint.

Wicknight wrote:

Even if BC believed that the OPs father was in hell there would be nothing particularly wrong about that.

Well here we are. Do you really believe that? I think there is something deeply wrong with it. I think that the commonality shared by BC and the doorsteppers is far more significant than the doorsteppers intrusiveness.

Wicknight wrote:

It wouldn't be embarrashing, it would be upsetting. The OP just came on saying that the belief that his father might be in hell was greatly upsetting. You think this is the perfect time for BC to start a post on who is and is not in hell?

No. Clearly I do not. I have said a number of times already that I do not. Have you really not understood, or have you simply not read what I wrote?

Wicknight wrote:

You are also ignoring the fact that BC answered your question, and number of times, with "I don't know", which is true. He was honest and answered your question.

I do not believe that that is true. I do not believe that that is true. I do not believe that that is true. That was my point for my first dozen posts on this thread. How could you possibly have missed that? Why should I bother to continue engaging with you? What are your motivations in questioning me? - because clearly it has nothing to do with understanding what I think.

Wicknight wrote:

A double-standard that only you apparently can see.

That is incorrect. A number of people have echoed my concern. Perhaps if you were less concerned with the appeasement of the christians amongst us, you might be in a position to understand why I am troubled. But then, you don't seem to remember what I say from one post to the next. Why should you? All you need to do is flood the thread with piecemeal, out-of-context and willfully misunderstood rebuttals of what I write, sentence by sentence, and everyone will think you're valiantly taking on the big nasty man with his cruel questions.

Wicknight wrote:

I see a deeply religious person who despite this does not feel it is approprate to unsolicitly express his religious beliefs when they could upset someone.

I see a dangerous zealot who does not have the courage of his convictions, and desires to pose as the reasonable and compassionate third party in a situation caused by people just like him. But then I have made that clear countless times already.

Wicknight wrote:

How would he possibly know if this man is or is not in hell?

Just as he can know that we will be in Hell when we die.

Wicknight wrote:

He could guess, but that would be equally pointless, and as the OP seems quite upset at the idea and never asked BC or anyone for the opinion of if his father is or is not in hell, why in the world would BC post a guess that the OP's father is actually in hell.

He shouldn't. He should have stayed away. However, once he entered the thread, and placed himself in a position of moral superiority over the doorsteppers, he had to expect to be challenged. But, I have said this a number of times already, and yo are no more likely to understand it now. Why do I bother?

Wicknight wrote:

You are confusing embrassment with humility.

The humility we witness when he divines the will of God himself on these boards, without so much as a hint of uncertainty. No, I'm pretty sure it's cowardice.

Wicknight wrote:

Why? If you don't like hearing BCs beliefs on a matter DON'T ASK HIM WHAT THEY ARE :rolleyes:

I don't "[not] like hearing his beliefs on the matter". I have explained countless times that I am familiar with his beliefs, and am, in fact, eager to hear them. I have never once said that he should keep them to himself. I have said the opposite. I said he should declare himself, and not contribute to a discussion in such a way that implicitly misrepresents his beliefs. But then, I have said that a number of times already, from the beginning, quite clearly.

Wicknight wrote:

Why? He clearly disagrees with the way the JWs carried on.

Because I am far more concerned with people believing their fellow men to be damned to Hell than I am with the intricacies of evangelical etiquette. And they were Catholic, not Jehova's Witnesses.

Wicknight wrote:

BC didn't put forward his beliefs in this thread, and the OP didn't ask him. You asked him. He then rather diplomatically answered you, but you were not satified by his answer and continued to ask him it over and over.

Leave out "diplomatically", replace it with "evasively", and you have it about right.

Wicknight wrote:

And he answered. I still fail to see the relivence of your question to the topic, BC as mod would actually have been perfectly entitled to tell you that your post was off topic.

What tremendously boring discussions you would have use conduct. You really don't think a poster's opinion on the mechanisms of damnation are salient to this thread? Bizarre. Well, I do.

Wicknight wrote:

Then why did you ask him?

Because he would not admit as much himself. As I have explained before. Repeatedly.

Wicknight wrote:

He would only not be in a position to condemn them if he practiced the same behavior. He doesn't, or at least you have completely failed to show he does.

I have not attempted to show that he does. I have said that he believes exactly what they believe.

Wicknight wrote:

What do you mean by "all" ... that is the entire point of the objection, the intrusiveness.

Whose point? It's not my point. FullOF**IT was complaining about doorsteppers coming uninvited to his home and telling his sister that her father was in Hell. So there's the uninvited element, and the damnation element. The intrusiveness wasn't very nice - but if, say that had come uninvited and told FullOF**IT's sister that her porch was an unpleasant colour, would we care? I don't care about the intrusiveness. Not very nice, I agree, but it's what they said, what they believe, that makes this important. And BC shares those beliefs. But I have said this many, many times already, and you didn't take notice then. Perhaps this will help:

Whose point? It's not my point. FullOF**IT was complaining about doorsteppers coming uninvited to his home and telling his sister that her father was in Hell. So there's the uninvited element, and the damnation element. The intrusiveness wasn't very nice - but if, say that had come uninvited and told FullOF**IT's sister that her porch was an unpleasant colour, would we care? I don't care about the intrusiveness. Not very nice, I agree, but it's what they said, what they believe, that makes this important. And BC shares those beliefs.

Wicknight wrote:

That is probably true, but their beliefs aren't the problem, it is the way they express these beliefs.

My problem is what they believe. And what BC believes. I think it's far more important to discuss that. And I think that BC's moral superiority over the doorsteppers is sliver-thin. As I have said.

Wicknight wrote:

Why? Religious belief is a fundamental human right. It only becomes a problem when people negatively effect others based on such rights. I've never seen BC do this.

If you don't think it is a negative thing that BC imagines that you, robin and I are going to Hell because we believe in the scientific process, then perhaps that simplicity of outlook explains why you cannot grasp my point.

Wicknight wrote:

Again you are completely missing the point.

I have yet to see you once get the point on this thread, Wicknight.

Wicknight wrote:

Whether the doorsteppers were right or wrong in their religous beliefs is not the issue. It is the way they acted.

I have raised another issue, Wicknight. That's the kind of thing people do on discussion fora. It makes things more interesting, you know, and means that we explore issues more fully. If you would rather just deal with the simpler aspects of the OP's post, then you need not bother with my posts. It's not as though you get very much from them anyway.

John Doe

Sapien wrote:

if, say that had come uninvited and told FullOF**IT's sister that her porch was an unpleasant colour, would we care? I don't care about the intrusiveness. Not very nice, I agree, but it's what they said, what they believe, that makes this important.

That isn't a relevant point. It might seem like one, but consider this: if someone had posted on the internet in a random blog that I was going to hell, would I care? No. I would if they came to my door, though. In fact, if Brian knew all the details of my life and my beliefs he'd tell me that he believes I'm going to hell. It wouldn't particularly bother me, any more than it would bother me if he came to my house and insulted my exterior design.

Zombrex

Sapien wrote:

I think that BC did a "bad thing", though it appears that it was too subtle for you to recognise.

You think BC expressing that he is sorry for what happened to the OP's sister, and expressing that those people were not really Christians in his view, was a bad thing?

Sapien wrote:

Well here we are. Do you really believe that?

Yes.

BC can (and has the legal and moral right to) believe anything he likes. He can believe the OP's father is a reincarnated goat or the ghost haunting his next door neighbours basement for all I care. He can believe that I am going to spend eternity having doughnuts shoved into my face.

If I don't wish to know BC's beliefs I wouldn't ask him. But if I did ask him I would not attack him for believing them.

Sapien wrote:

Have you really not understood, or have you simply not read what I wrote?

I clearly haven't understood because I cannot possibly understand your objection.

BC didn't do exactly what you think would have been inapproprate for him to do, yet you are still spending a number of posts giving out about his behaviour. It seems you just want to attack him no matter what his response is.

Sapien wrote:

I do not believe that that is true.

I don't care, and as far as I can see no one else here does either.

He answered your question, if you do not accept his answer that is your problem.

What do you think is going to happen the 5th time you ask the exact same question that didn't happen the 4th time you asked it?

Sapien wrote:

That is incorrect. A number of people have echoed my concern.

Your "concern" ... what are you concerned about? You brought this topic up.

Sapien wrote:

to understand why I am troubled.

The only reason I can see you are troubled is that BC believes in hell. Welcome to the Christian forum :rolleyes: A lot of people here believe in hell.

Sapien wrote:

I see a dangerous zealot who does not have the courage of his convictions

If he doesn't have the courage of his convictions he is hardly a dangerous zealot is he? :rolleyes:

Sapiean your entire point is a contradiction. You are attacking BC for being a zealot, yet you do this by trying to goat him into condemning the OP's father, something BC was not prepared to do.

That is called entrapment. You wanted BC to state something he was not going to state, just so you can give out to him. And then you call him a dangerous zealot. What does that make you?

Sapien wrote:

However, once he entered the thread, and placed himself in a position of moral superiority over the doorsteppers, he had to expect to be challenged.

You wish to challange his post then challange what he said in his post.

Do you disagree with what he said? Do you think they doorsteppers were right to call around to the OP's house? Do you think they were right to tell the girl her father is in hell?

All you want to do is challange him on something he didn't say.

Sapien wrote:

Because I am far more concerned with people believing their fellow men to be damned to Hell than I am with the intricacies of evangelical etiquette.

You have no right to tell people what they should and should not believe.

If you think it would be better for them that people didn't follow the Christian religion you aren't going to convert any Christians by attacking them.

What exactly do you hope to achieve? Are you attempting to show BC that his beliefs are wrong?

Sapien wrote:

Leave out "diplomatically", replace it with "evasively", and you have it about right.

He wasn't evasive, he answered your question.

This is despite that fact that he would have been prefectly right to be evasive since it was rather inapproprate of you to ask the question in the first place, or to be discussing the afterlife status of the father when such as discussion was the inital problem.

Sapien wrote:

You really don't think a poster's opinion on the mechanisms of damnation are salient to this thread?

No they aren't, because the status of the OPs father isn't the issue here, it is the way the doorsteppers behaved.

Sapien wrote:

I have not attempted to show that he does. I have said that he believes exactly what they believe.

Even if he does, that is irrelivent. He can believe what he likes. This is despite that fact that a number of times he has said he doesn't know either way.

What are you, the thought police?

Sapien wrote:

I don't care about the intrusiveness.

Well you should.

Would the sister have been upset if the doorstepper were at home having dinner while believing her father was in hell? I seriously doubt it.

There are billions of people around the world who believe in hell. I find it very hard to believe that the sister is not aware of this fact. It isn't that people believing in hell that upset her, it is the fact that 2 of these people called round to her house and told her that her father was in hell. If they had not done this would she have been upset?

As BC himself pointed out they had no right or reason to do so. They don't know her father is in hell, and neither does BC, and even if they did upsetting the poor girl is in itself a sinful act.

Sapien wrote:

My problem is what they believe. And what BC believes. I think it's far more important to discuss that.

Then start a new thread along the lines of "Christian belief is stupid and you shouldn't believe it" ... that will probably go down a treat on this forum :rolleyes:

Sapien wrote:

And I think that BC's moral superiority over the doorsteppers is sliver-thin.

So far you have completely failed to show that BC carries out such behavior, or even supports it.

So as far as I can see BC's opinion on the matter was largely in keeping with his own beliefs.

Sapien wrote:

If you don't think it is a negative thing that BC imagines that you, robin and I are going to Hell because we believe in the scientific process, then perhaps that simplicity of outlook explains why you cannot grasp my point.

I think BC, just like anyone on this earth, has the right to believe anything they wish.

If you think that people do not have this right, if people whould be attacked for their personal beliefs when they are asked for them, then I wonder why exactly you feel superior to the doorsteppers when you are in fact doing exactly the same as them?

Sapien wrote:

I have yet to see you once get the point on this thread, Wicknight.

The point of this thread is that doorsteppers called around to the OPs house and upset his sisters. Something you seem to have no intention of discussing.

Sapien wrote:

I have raised another issue, Wicknight.

You didn't raise any issue Sapien, you damned BC tell you he believes the OPs father is in hell, and when he said he couldn't because he doesn't know either way you just attacked him and called him a coward and a hypocrate.

That is hardly an "issue"

Sapien

Wicknight wrote:

I clearly haven't understood because I cannot possibly understand your objection.

Indeed.

Zombrex

Sapien wrote:

Indeed.

Your main object seems to be simply that BC believes in hell, and believes that people go to hell.

Attacking BC simply because of his religous beliefs is as bad as a Christian attacking the OPs sister because she does not follow their religion.

If BC attempts to unsolicadly push his beliefs onto others (as many Christians do) I would be the first to criticise this behaviour. But he has not done so as far as I can see, and you have utterly failed to show that he was attempting to do so.

In your quest to rid the world of religous intolerance and bigotry I would just be very careful that you don't use the same tactics you claim to despise. Otherwise what is the point, one form of thought control is as bad as another

Sapien

Wicknight wrote:

Your main object seems to be simply that BC believes in hell, and believes that people go to hell.

Attacking BC simply because of his religous beliefs is as bad as a Christian attacking the OPs sister because she does not follow their religion.

If BC attempts to unsolicadly push his beliefs onto others (as many Christians do) I would be the first to criticise this behaviour. But he has not done so as far as I can see, and you have utterly failed to show that he was attempting to do so.

In your quest to rid the world of religous intolerance and bigotry I would just be very careful that you don't use the same tactics you claim to despise. Otherwise what is the point, one form of thought control is as bad as another

No Wicknight, you were right the first time. You haven't understood my point, and I am satisfied that I have done as much as I can to explain it.

Zombrex

Sapien wrote:

No Wicknight, you were right the first time. You haven't understood my point, and I am satisfied that I have done as much as I can to explain it.

:rolleyes:

Ayla

Ok, so I've read through this entire thread and I think there is a lot of very basic misunderstanding happening from every angle. Regardless of the fact that this thread has completely veered away from the OP's point, I think everyone needs to take a deep breath, clear away what they think everyone else is saying and re-read some very crucial posts.

BrianCalgary wrote:

I am so sorry for what happened. People like that I think are going to have to answer for their actions.

IMO actions like that turn people away from God.

This post from BC is apparently what triggered Sapien's queries. Now, I may be wrong, but when I read this, I read that BC was saying that "people like that" (ie: the zealots who knocked on the OP's door) would have to answer for their actions, and that "actions like that" (ie: door-to-door fear-mongering) "turn people away from God."

I'm not sure that anyone here would disagree with this opinion (but of course I could be wrong).

The next post, by Sapien, then asked the (well-known by now) question of whether BC thought the OP's deceased father was in Hell. Now, again, I could be wrong, but although I understand where Sapien was coming from, I think this question would have been better brought up in another thread. It's a valid question, and I know his entire point here has been to make BC backup his beliefs/dogmas with action. But I would say that this question (as it really has nothing to do with the OP) would be better discussed elsewhere.

Now, on the other hand, I think Sapien has a (small, and a bit over-dramatized, but valid) point. Any person, of any faith, is called upon throughout their life to prove their beliefs. To preach, but not be willing to act, on their belief is not enough in the eyes of God (according to my christian teachings).

Therefore, BC believes in Heaven & Hell...fine. He believes that those who follow Christ's example and live a Christian life will go to Heaven and the rest (by their decision to not live a Christian life) will go to Hell...fine. Those are his beliefs. Now, a couple of posters have noted that, during conversations with BC, they have determined that (because of their decisions) BC believes they will go to Hell.

Now I fully respect the idea that BC would not speculate on where the OP's father now lies (as he couldn't possibly know the man's spiritual state at the time of death), however BC would not then take the question to the hypothetical example. I imagine this is why Sapien has been harping on this point so consistently. To him, this shows a lack of conviction and it appears that BC would not be willing to "act" on his belief. Obviously this has become quite the issue for him, and I therefore understand his frustration.

I don't think anyone's getting anywhere by continuing this debate. Perhaps if everyone takes awhile to re-read the thread and see where the misunderstandings started they'll understand that everyone's at a stand-off and nothing good will happen by continuing as we are.

Now go ahead and tear apart my comments line-for-line

Zombrex

Ayla wrote:

however BC would not then take the question to the hypothetical example.

And quite right too, considering the original post.

Would anyone here like it if we all started hypotetically guessing if they are going to die of cancer, or get killed in a car crash, or molested children, without them asking or involving in such a discussion?

It would be entirely inapproprate for BC to start hypoetically guessing if the OP's father is in hell or not. A little respect for the dead who are not here to discuss the topic themselves, is in order is it not?

BC should never have been asked the question in the first place, but when he was I feel he handled it with the respect towards the dead man a lot here aren't showing, and he refused to get drawn into insulting hypotheticals.

When Robin stated that he will never accept Christianity BC seemed more than happy to discuss hell and damnation with him, since he wanted the discussion and was here to actually discuss it.

I find it ridiculous that a thread about Christians showing lack of respect for a dead family member would decend into such depths.

BC seems to be one of the few who is actually respecting the dead man, refusing to get drawn into hypothetical questions about someone how is no longer with us, instead of turning his death into a way to attack Christian beliefs.

mountainyman

Sapien wrote:

My interest in what BrianCalgary believes is not arbitrary. It is worrying to me that a moderator of this forum cannot render a simple answer to a simple question about his faith.

I don't wish to seem tendentious Sapien,but I feel that it is only fair to point out that you became irritated when I asked for details of your own esoteric beliefs.

Sapien wrote:

My personal spiritual interests are of precisely no relevance to this discussion - and I find it hugely presumptuous of you to demand that I disclose such information; not to mention devious in intention. I would be entirely within decorum to refuse to lower myself to your squalid interrogations - but I have made a point of being completely open about my spirituality on these fora, and I will not allow the behaviour of a weaselly hector to change that.

MM

Sapien

mountainyman wrote:

I don't wish to seem tendentious Sapien,but I feel that it is only fair to point out that you became irritated when I asked for details of your own esoteric beliefs.

I really don't think you want to draw anyone's attention to your part in that thread. You know full well what my objection to that question was. Have you answered my questions yet?

5uspect

Ayla wrote:

Now go ahead and tear apart my comments line-for-line

I think you have cleared this up for me. I would have rather seen BC state his belief rather than simply avoid it. In fairness he did state them later when asked in a differnet way so I know now what be believes. I don't agree with his beliefs and most of his comments but that should probably be a matter for another thread.

I'll accept BC's way of avoiding the question when asked directly about the OP father as respect for the man. I think that Sapien should too and bring his concerns to a new thread where the OP's Father is not discussed as we run the risk of seriously offending the OP and his family here.

Ayla

Wicknight wrote:

It would be entirely inapproprate for BC to start hypoetically guessing if the OP's father is in hell or not. A little respect for the dead who are not here to discuss the topic themselves, is in order is it not?
BC seems to be one of the few who is actually respecting the dead man, refusing to get drawn into hypothetical questions about someone how is no longer with us, instead of turning his death into a way to attack Christian beliefs.

I completely agree that respect for the OP's deceased father is the top priority, and I never meant to insinuate otherwise. Perhaps with that in mind, Sapien's original query (as I've already stated) should have been in a new thread.

However, the point remains that if BC is willing to generally state that non-Christians go to Hell because they have decided against Christian beliefs, then there really isn't a reason why he couldn't say the same thing specifically about a person. He has made his mind up generally & categorically and if someone fits that mold then they should, automatically & by his own belief, follow the same path. Otherwise, in my opinion, he shouldn't make such general judgements. Again, I *think* this was Sapien's point and why he kept "bagering" BC.

Rev Hellfire

Ayla wrote:

However, the point remains that if BC is willing to generally state that non-Christians go to Hell because they have decided against Christian beliefs, then there really isn't a reason why he couldn't say the same thing specifically about a person. He has made his mind up generally & categorically and if someone fits that mold then they should, automatically & by his own belief, follow the same path. Otherwise, in my opinion, he shouldn't make such general judgements. Again, I *think* this was Sapien's point and why he kept "bagering" BC.

The thing is BC did put forward his view of what happened to the OP father, it was simply that if before his moment of death he had not accepted christ then he was damned. It was pretty clear to me.
He merely prefixed it with the fact that since he could not be present at that final moment (and his possible acceptance of christ) he could answer the with total accuracy if the OP father was damned or not.

Zombrex

Ayla wrote:

However, the point remains that if BC is willing to generally state that non-Christians go to Hell because they have decided against Christian beliefs, then there really isn't a reason why he couldn't say the same thing specifically about a person.

Yes there is.

BC, quite correctly, said "I don't know" when asked was this man in hell. That was as truthful an answer as he could give.

Think of it this way. Smokers generally die of cancer, or at least there is a very high proportion of them die of cancer. I can state that as a certainty. I can also state that if you are a smoker you will probably die of cancer.

On the other hand if you told me your father was a smoker and he was dead, asking me did he die of cancer the only answer I could give is "I don't know". Even if you then told me he had cancer just before he died the most I could say is "Its likely, but I still don't know". He could have been hit buy a bus.

If you then turned around and said I should have the courage of my convictions, that I happily tell alive smokers that they should stop because they are going to die of lung cancer, but I won't make the same judgement about someone already dead (but who I don't know died of lung cancer) I would be rather puzzled as to how you make that connection. Stating "I don't know" in relation to how he died is not being hypocritical, it is being truthful. I wouldn't know, without having access to the death report.

It would also be very rude of my to state that he died of lung cancer if in fact he didn't, making unnecessary assumptions about a persons dead based on how they lived their life without them their to respond is very disrespectful.

To know if a person died of lung cancer I would have to actually know they died of lung cancer, just like to know if a person is in hell or not BC would have to know if they were in hell or not, and according to Christian belief that only person who knows if a person is in hell or not is God (and maybe the angels and devil) and the person themselves. That doesn't mean I can't state "If you smoke 6 packets a day you are going to die of cancer", or BC stating "If you turn away from God and sin you will go to hell"

The problem as I see it is the people asking BC the question don't actually believe in hell, so they aren't really taking the concept seriously. Which is fair enough, I don't believe in hell and I don't take the concept seriously. People are probably going to say my cancer methephor isn't the same thing because cancer is a real thing and hell is just a made up concept by christians, not something to take seriously.

But BC does, he takes it very seriously. For him hell is a real, and very serious, concept. It is not something to randomly guess about, any more than death by cancer is something to guess about.

People should have listened to his answer to the question and tried to understand it, instead of turning it around and using it to beat him over the head with it.

Ayla

Wicknight wrote:

BC, quite correctly, said "I don't know" when asked was this man in hell. That was as truthful an answer as he could give.

Ah-ha! This is the crux of the problem. BC was not asked if this man was in Hell. If he had been, of course the only answer would be that BC didn't know. Wicknight, I think your paralleling this situation to the cancer scenario was a good one.

But the original question, as posed by Sapien way back in the beginning, is whether BC thought the father was in Hell. There is a huge distinction in these two questions.

The first question is a condemnation or assumption on a situation which, in all reality, we don't know anything about (since none of us have been dead). The second question, however, is asking for one's opinion based on the facts at hand.

And before you jump on me, I know that the exact state of the man's spirituality could not be known to the OP or to us, however if we were to hypotetically say "a man died a non-Christian, so where do you believe him to be?" I don't think BC would hesitate to say where he went.

Since BC has no problem making statements such as "non-Christians will go to Hell", then (by that very statement) he would believe that any non-Christian would be in Hell after their death.

I completely respect everyone's opinion and my feelings toward BC are no different. He is fully entitled to believe in whatever he wants, and I am (despite what Wicknight may think) taking this issue very seriously. I'm just trying to figure out what got everyone so inflamed to begin with.

Zombrex

Ayla wrote:

There is a huge distinction in these two questions.

I fail to see how?

If I don't know either way asking me if your dad died of cancer, or asking me if I think your dad died of cancer is the same question, because either way the answer will be my opinion or guess since I don't know if your dad died of cancer and do not possess the evidence to know.

In fact, the answer "I don't know" is even more relivent and correct if BC is asked does he think the dad is in hell, since the answer acknowledges that he does not, and cannot possibly, know.

You might have a point is BC was asked "do you think the dadshould be in hell," at which point BC could have geninuely offered his opinion. Though I doubt he would have considering he doesn't know that man and it would be rather rude to form an opinion of an individual you never met and who you know very little about

I fail to see why people do not accept "I don't know" as a valid answer to this question. It is in fact the most valid, most correct and most truthful answer to the question, but because it doesn't allow some people to beat BC over the head with the answer it is not accepted as a geninue answer.

Which all seems a bit silly to me.

Ayla wrote:

"a man died a non-Christian, so where do you believe him to be?" I don't think BC would hesitate to say where he went.

Probably not, but it wasn't a hypothetical, it was a real person, and none of us know the man died a non-Chrisitan. We can assume he did, but I fail to see the point of that. We can assume he pledged allegence to Satan the moment he died, renouncing God and thinking about killing babies. He would probably be in hell then and I'm not sure may would object to that idea, but I doubt his family would be very happy with us assuming that about him.

When asked a hypothetical about Robin who was quite willing to accept the answer, BC seemed quite happy to answer

Ayla wrote:

Since BC has no problem making statements such as "non-Christians will go to Hell", then (by that very statement) he would believe that any non-Christian would be in Hell after their death.

Thats (though a rather gross simplifcation) seems to be what he believes.

Ayla wrote:

I'm just trying to figure out what got everyone so inflamed to begin with.

Sapien got inflamed because BC wouldn't hang himself with the nouse Sapien was pushing in his face.

L31mr0d

I don't even know where to begin with this thread. Whats with the bloated, dogmatic replies picking to pieces the other posters replies.

I have to address a few flaws I have seen in this thread:
1. JW's obviously wheren't at the door as they don't believe in Hell, and AFAIK refuse to speak to minors on biblical matters (I think for the same reason they don't believe children should be baptised at birth)

2. Jesus WAS a preacher and would send his apostles from door to door preaching his word, he then urged his disciples to emulate this. To say Christians shouldn't go to peoples doors to tell them about their belief is going against the basis of their belief, Christs teachings.

3. There is NO WAY of knowing if this girls father is in hell, as that judgement lies with God. Only god can see the heart and life of a person and can weigh that up when they die. Just because he died a Protestant, does not mean he is instantly in Hell. Protestants are still Christians regardless, and who knows how god will judge the interpretations of his word.