Venting in 3,2,1 *mushroom cloud*

Phototoxin

Hi Guys,
I'm still up at 5am as my blood sugar dropped to 2.2 mm/L. For the non doctors/scientists amongst you it means BAD.

As I cannot sleep I decided to check a few forums and things. There is a christian one that a freind asked me to join (she's an admin or mod or something) and I used to be on the older incarnation when I was in my 'questioning but compliant' phase.

The thread is on Contraception, anyway the main premise (other than the RCC says so) is that its not natural and supressing the way your body is intended to be. This thread is about 5 pages long. Anyway this guy just posts this and rather than being snotty and going blitzkreig I'm going to vent here and hopefully ask how do you cope with things like this. You must realise that I'm not an athiest although to be honest after tonights hypogylcemic incident I really am wondering about the jump from agnostic to atheist. I'm still open minded but I'm also critically minded and questioning (and I haven't gotten clear, satisfactory answers from the 2000 year old infallible magisterium yet either despite my looking)

Anyway this guy goes :

You argue what is the differnce between using NFP and contacetion if in both cases you can not be open to life at a particuar time. That's true. But maybe, just maybe, God made everything with a divine purpose and the reason a woman has a monthly period was not because God likes when she cries out in pain but because he wanted a husband and wife to work together for the betterment of their family. NFP is the natural way of doing it that gives glory to God;s Wisdom for making a woman in this way. Maybe, using condoms is not natural way therefore not the way God intended it in the beginning. And as we see in Genisis anytime things don't go according to God's plan everything falls down.
You argue what is the differnce between using NFP and contacetion if in both cases you can not be open to life at a particuar time. That's true. But maybe, just maybe, God made everything with a divine purpose and the reason a woman has a monthly period was not because God likes when she cries out in pain but because he wanted a husband and wife to work together for the betterment of their family. NFP is the natural way of doing it that gives glory to God;s Wisdom for making a woman in this way. Maybe, using condoms is not natural way therefore not the way God intended it in the beginning. And as we see in Genisis anytime things don't go according to God's plan everything falls down.


My response:
Sorry but the 'natural' argument fails to convince me. Naturally speaking I should have been dead 9 months ago and injecting myself 4 times per day while using a machine to check various chemicals in my blood is not 'natural' nor is it the way God intended it to be either apparently. So by that logic I'm ruining gods plan (and hence sinning) to have me die in a slow and painful manner as my blood becomes acidic until I go into a coma and die from brain and cardiac failure.

Also I'm not exactly in favour of artifical contraception.. but I dont exactly agree with the RCC's justification of NFP and it seems like double standards.

In addition we are told that Satan is the master of lies. What happens if the 'God' people worship is actually Satan who is puppeting the church and deceiving everyone and meek actual God is being screwed out of followers? Though if that were the case I'm sure he'd have a backup plan seeing as he is God after all. But it would make sense in some ways.

But its not the reason I posted here its more that in case anyone hasn't noticed I think I have issues in terms of being Type 1 Diabetic and religion. I question religion I'm not rewarded with answers but instead a busted endrocrine system...cause and effect? So I wonder that if God does exist perhaps he is capricious and not worthy of worship? I think that the last time I prayed properly was when I was in hospital and it was for a guy two beds down who had gone into what we thought was cardiac arrest. But he was ok, it was a tumour pressing on a vein or something. However since then religion has just been a total no go. After tonights incident I was thinking how can God be real with things like that. Its a bit like the eyeball eating worm argument I guess.

chozometroid

We are not a perfect race, so there are diseases and disorders. Life is not fair, but this life is not our final destination. When it's all said and done, justice will be served. You will get to spend eternity with God, if that is what you choose to go for, or be separated from Him forever, if you reject Him.

So, RCC is anti-condom, and you think it's a double standard?
I'm not Catholic, but I don't see a condom being equivalent to insulin.
One is a way for people to have "no consequences" sex, and the other is a medical treatment for life threatening disease.
So, if they have do have a problem with condoms, but do not have a problem with insulin, it shouldn't be considered hypocritical.

edanto

I'm not that familiar with the bible as a book, but one thing that the guy on the other forum said struck me as a bit odd..

"not the way God intended it in the beginning. And as we see in Genisis anytime things don't go according to God's plan everything falls down."

Does he mean that there is a certain single plan to which we must to our utmost best to follow (I assume he means following the morals and the norms of his preacher) and that if we don't we will be punished by plagues?

And the connection being that somehow contraception might cause this, that by being responsible and realising 'now' is not a suitable time for you to have kids but you'd still rather prefer to have sex, and by choosing contraception we are hastening the advent of such plagues(or whatever else is in genesis)?

On that line of thinking, us mortals would be constantly weighing up every little decision, "well, what would God want me to do?", wondering if any bad luck was God punishing us for going off the path and even though the plan was hidden, trying to outsmart God and stay on track?

I dunno, if I'm understanding him right, he seems a little arrogant.

He's probably not worth arguing with. If there is a God, she probably wants you to make the best decision for you and the people around you at any particular moment. The thing is, even if there isn't a God, that type of decision is the best for all the people around you anyways.

You were asking about Satan and God and deception - from where I'm looking, I would have to wonder what created them, and why just two overlords with plans? Are they equally powered? Who decided?

I've found that the answers to the moral questions that I've faced are clear when I think about everyone involved. For example, whether or not to use contraception - if I hadn't used it when I started going out with people, I could well be a dad a few times over now and that wouldn't be good for me, the girls or the babies.

But from the church's point of view, if the congregation don't use contraception then the numbers grow and more people are introduced to the faith. That is a bit mean of me, but it could be one small reason. Like the way that RCC priests and nuns aren't allowed to have partners and children and potentially thin the wealth of the church via inheritance.

Rev Hellfire

Phototoxin wrote: »

So I wonder that if God does exist perhaps he is capricious and not worthy of worship?

I think its a fair question.
Personally I believe nothing is worth worshiping, especially something which demands it. A trait which features predominately when the topic of the monotheist Christian god is mentioned.

As one agnostic to another I'd say that existence or non-existence of deities is something we really should ignore.
On the one hand if they don't exist then no harm has been done. But even if they do, I would prefer to be judged on my actions alone. And not live my life like some nervous child looking over their shoulder constantly for parental approval (a situation no parent would wish for by the way).

As for reconciling this with your own situation I've no answers, its human to be angry and focus on what you've lost. For me I try to acknowledge what I have and take comfort in knowing it could be worse. (there's always someone worse off than you )
I don't mean that in a flippant sort of way.

MrPudding

chozometroid wrote: »

So, RCC is anti-condom, and you think it's a double standard?
I'm not Catholic, but I don't see a condom being equivalent to insulin.
One is a way for people to have "no consequences" sex, and the other is a medical treatment for life threatening disease.

The arguement put forward by the poster in the other forum was not that condoms lead to "no consequence" sex, but they the use of them goes against god's plan.

The OPs point is a valid one, medical intervention would appear to go against god's plan. There are hundreds of thousands of people that, according to you gods plan, should be dead. Should we stop treating them? Should I throw my glasses away? After all, god's plan seems to be that I don't have perfect vision. Perhaps if I could not see so well I would not have lustful thoughts. Maybe that is why god created vision problems and glasses mess with his plan.

MrP

MrPudding

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

As for reconciling this with your own situation I've no answers, its human to be angry and focus on what you've lost. For me I try to acknowledge what I have and take comfort in knowing it could be worse. (there's always someone worse off than you )
I don't mean that in a flippant sort of way.

And don't forget folks... you reward is not in this life but the next. So no matter how badly done by you are in this life, things will be better in the next. (Terms and conditions apply*)

MrP





* Offer only available to those that live in areas covered by christianity, other restrictions may apply.

Rev Hellfire

MrPudding wrote: »

And don't forget folks... you reward is not in this life but the next. So no matter how badly done by you are in this life, things will be better in the next. (Terms and conditions apply*)

My point is not that there's some reward in the next life or not (why live your life hostage to some vague promise of a future reward), simply that inevitably it can always be worse in the here and now.

chozometroid

MrPudding wrote: »

The arguement put forward by the poster in the other forum was not that condoms lead to "no consequence" sex, but they the use of them goes against god's plan.

The OPs point is a valid one, medical intervention would appear to go against god's plan. There are hundreds of thousands of people that, according to you gods plan, should be dead. Should we stop treating them? Should I throw my glasses away? After all, god's plan seems to be that I don't have perfect vision. Perhaps if I could not see so well I would not have lustful thoughts. Maybe that is why god created vision problems and glasses mess with his plan.

MrP

What the other poster said does not matter. I was replying to the OP's post in this forum, which actually went beyond what the other poster said. My point is that what he considered to be going against God's plan, was not accurate. Perhaps choosing not to have sex when your wife is "ripe" could be against God's plan. The thing is, we don't know what His plan is. You cannot say that according to His plan, all those people should be dead.

What I was saying, is that condoms and insulin should not be lumped together as things unacceptable to God. As I all ready mentioned, they are completely different. One allows for "no consequences" sex, and the other is a treatment for a disease. Medical intervention goes against God's plan? We cannot say that.
Also, we should all be dead when we sin, but it's obviously not God's plan, because His plan was salvation.

I think there is a difference between God's plan, and what events God may allow to happen. His overall plan will always be fulfilled, but we do not know the details.

I would suggest that at times, God demands unnatural actions from us. We are not to allow our flesh to rule us, but our spirit. Loving your enemy is not natural, but our ultimate goal.

Phototoxin

What the other poster said does not matter. I was replying to the OP's post in this forum, which actually went beyond what the other poster said. My point is that what he considered to be going against God's plan, was not accurate. Perhaps choosing not to have sex when your wife is "ripe" could be against God's plan. The thing is, we don't know what His plan is. You cannot say that according to His plan, all those people should be dead.

There are consequences to sex.. sharing antibodies, emotional bonding and other things beyond the exchange of chromosomes. While I dont fancy the idea of contraception myself (possibly RC indoctrination, or the fact that it seems iky, you're not sharing, its not as fun, or the fact that pumping a womans body with syntethic hormones seems bad)

"Oh no, but he *designed* (weather by popping it in 6 days or evolving or whatever) sex to make babies, therefore preventing yourself from having babies is against the will of god" is basically the argument I get which I don't understand. As you said by not having sex with your 'ripe' wife every time she's pregant you could be stopping the birth of the scientist who will cure cancer?

My problem with this is that I am 'designed' to be hormonially deficient By God's will I should die slowly and painfully and it is this that I do not understand. So 'naturally' which is interpreted as 'God's will' I should be dead.

I just cannot fathom how we can pick and choose things like taking insulin/modern medicine to cure 'natural' diseases yet contraception is against God's plan

PDN

Phototoxin wrote: »

I just cannot fathom how we can pick and choose things like taking insulin/modern medicine to cure 'natural' diseases yet contraception is against God's plan

We don't pick and choose.

You can't really expect people in this forum to engage in a debate based on something silly that somebody else said in another forum.

wolfsbane

Phototoxin said:

But its not the reason I posted here its more that in case anyone hasn't noticed I think I have issues in terms of being Type 1 Diabetic and religion. I question religion I'm not rewarded with answers but instead a busted endrocrine system...cause and effect? So I wonder that if God does exist perhaps he is capricious and not worthy of worship? I think that the last time I prayed properly was when I was in hospital and it was for a guy two beds down who had gone into what we thought was cardiac arrest. But he was ok, it was a tumour pressing on a vein or something. However since then religion has just been a total no go. After tonights incident I was thinking how can God be real with things like that. Its a bit like the eyeball eating worm argument I guess.

"Oh no, but he *designed* (weather by popping it in 6 days or evolving or whatever) sex to make babies, therefore preventing yourself from having babies is against the will of god" is basically the argument I get which I don't understand. As you said by not having sex with your 'ripe' wife every time she's pregant you could be stopping the birth of the scientist who will cure cancer?

My problem with this is that I am 'designed' to be hormonially deficient By God's will I should die slowly and painfully and it is this that I do not understand. So 'naturally' which is interpreted as 'God's will' I should be dead.

I just cannot fathom how we can pick and choose things like taking insulin/modern medicine to cure 'natural' diseases yet contraception is against God's plan

Yes, hypos are no fun. I saw my late Mum in one and have First Aided a colleague who fits in them from time to time. And diabetes carries heavier burdens in addition.

I wouldn't get upset about the natural contraception issue. It is a debatable point. Your issue is about why God would permit anyone to be sick/die.

The answer lies in the book of Genesis. God did not design us to be sick or die - that followed as a punitive sanction for our first parent's sin, and passes on to us, their sinning children.

Some of us enjoy better levels of health than others, but all of us die. Both our sufferings in this life and the knowledge we will certainly die should cause us to ask Why? - and be open to the answer. That answer will not only inform us of the reason we suffer and die, but will bring us the good news of eternal life that is possible afterwards.

As this life is so brief anyway, and eternity unending, our sufferings here are nothing in comparison to the glory we will have then - if we are right with God. God's goodness has sent you word of His offer of mercy and forgiveness to sinners, of His command to you to repent and believe so that you will be saved. That is the gospel Christ has commanded His people to preach to every man.

Your alternative, atheism, can only tell you that your suffering and death are natural events, without meaning or purpose. That we all came from lifeless atoms and will eventually return to such. That our self-awareness is only a quirk of space and time and that our imagining we are more significant than an ant or an atom is just that - imagination.

But you and I know that is not the case, whether you will admit it or not. You know you have eternal significance, that after this life lies an unending existence either with God or away from Him. You recognise that suffering and death are not good, are not the way it was meant to be. Let that fact cause you to seek God and be reconciled to Him.

Húrin

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

My point is not that there's some reward in the next life or not (why live your life hostage to some vague promise of a future reward), simply that inevitably it can always be worse in the here and now.

How is it better to live your life hostage to the fear that your actions may not be good enough?

Rev Hellfire

Húrin wrote: »

How is it better to live your life hostage to the fear that your actions may not be good enough?

Its not, that's simply the reverse side of the same coin.
If the only reason you do things is for self-gain or out of a fear of punishment, then in my view your motivation is suspect.

I hear talk constantly of a love of god, but in the same breath the warning that if you don't do this or do that you'll spend eternity in the burning fires of hell. And that seems more like fear to me.

If it was a marriage it would be an abusive one, I love him and if I don't talk back he'll not beat me.

It seems an odd perspective to me, one which I realise isn't universal among Christians.

PDN

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Its not, that's simply the reverse side of the same coin.
If the only reason you do things is for self-gain or out of a fear of punishment, then in my view your motivation is suspect.

I hear talk constantly of a love of god, but in the same breath the warning that if you don't do this or do that you'll spend eternity in the burning fires of hell. And that seems more like fear to me.

If it was a marriage it would be an abusive one, I love him and if I don't talk back he'll not beat me.

It seems an odd perspective to me, one which I realise isn't universal among Christians.

I don't think your marriage analogy is fair at all.

Hell is eternity without God. It is like a marriage where I claim to love him but if I keep shagging other people then I should expect to end up separated.

Húrin

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Its not, that's simply the reverse side of the same coin.
If the only reason you do things is for self-gain or out of a fear of punishment, then in my view your motivation is suspect.

I hear talk constantly of a love of god, but in the same breath the warning that if you don't do this or do that you'll spend eternity in the burning fires of hell. And that seems more like fear to me.

If it was a marriage it would be an abusive one, I love him and if I don't talk back he'll not beat me.

It seems an odd perspective to me, one which I realise isn't universal among Christians.

I agree. I object to the promotion of Christianity based on fear of pain.

But you rejected the virtue of faith in favour of attempting to doing good deeds to such a point that you could be deemed "good enough". Nobody is ever good enough.

PDN wrote: »

I don't think your marriage analogy is fair at all.

Hell is eternity without God. It is like a marriage where I claim to love him but if I keep shagging other people then I should expect to end up separated.

No, hell, if it exists, is unending violence perpetrated against you. Your analogy is more suited to unconscious death as understood by me to be the fate of unbelievers, and by atheists to be the fate of everyone.

Rev Hellfire

PDN wrote: »

I don't think your marriage analogy is fair at all.

Hell is eternity without God. It is like a marriage where I claim to love him but if I keep shagging other people then I should expect to end up separated.

I think its fair analogy for some of the views given by the more *ahem* committed Christians.

Let me put it this way many here hold the view that if a man leads a wholly selfless life seeking only to do good he remains damned despite these noble deeds if he doesn't get 'born-again' and gets down on bended knee to god. It seems strange to me that such punitive and ego-centric requirements can be reconciled with the idea of the all-loving Christian god.

TravelJunkie

Phototoxin wrote: »

There are consequences to sex.. sharing antibodies, emotional bonding and other things beyond the exchange of chromosomes. While I dont fancy the idea of contraception myself (possibly RC indoctrination, or the fact that it seems iky, you're not sharing, its not as fun, or the fact that pumping a womans body with syntethic hormones seems bad)

"Oh no, but he *designed* (weather by popping it in 6 days or evolving or whatever) sex to make babies, therefore preventing yourself from having babies is against the will of god" is basically the argument I get which I don't understand. As you said by not having sex with your 'ripe' wife every time she's pregant you could be stopping the birth of the scientist who will cure cancer?

My problem with this is that I am 'designed' to be hormonially deficient By God's will I should die slowly and painfully and it is this that I do not understand. So 'naturally' which is interpreted as 'God's will' I should be dead.

I just cannot fathom how we can pick and choose things like taking insulin/modern medicine to cure 'natural' diseases yet contraception is against God's plan

It sounds like you're having a tough time, I wish you well.

So many people do the right things medically and still die, I don't think you are going against god just because you are alive. Quite the opposite perhaps.

My two-cents on your topic is that I think you're listening to man and not God. This is a great place to talk about things but isn't the place to find out about God. Everything posted here is people's opinions and arguments and even if based on biblical writings are really not representing God.

I don't think, and I hope not, that anyone posting here will claim they are truly representing God in their post.

I think when it comes to being in a place in your life that doesn't make sense, it is a good to search for meaning and purpose. but you won't find it here. not in 100 percent truth.

Phototoxin

You can't really expect people in this forum to engage in a debate based on something silly that somebody else said in another forum.

I'm not, nor am I trying to start a fire war or anything I'm just expressing my frustration to some people who I think might be able to understand or offer some insight rather than declaring allegience to Prof Dawkins and co, putting a link in the A&A forum and going 'LAWL'

The answer lies in the book of Genesis. God did not design us to be sick or die - that followed as a punitive sanction for our first parent's sin, and passes on to us, their sinning children.

it seems a bit heavy handed... oh you took an extra cookie when i said not to *bam* you have AIDS/no legs/whatever now as punishment. And as for punishing everyone ... by that logic if a man kills someone then we should ALL be punished. Obviously this isn't fair but I'm told god is just.

Your alternative, atheism, can only tell you that your suffering and death are natural events, without meaning or purpose. That we all came from lifeless atoms and will eventually return to such. That our self-awareness is only a quirk of space and time and that our imagining we are more significant than an ant or an atom is just that - imagination.

I *love* how my choices always seem to be pigoenholed. With Catholicsm it was that or else that or atheism+hell (pagans, agnostics, buddhists, protestants don't exist?) and in life when someone says 'well you're options are X or Y' I find that usually there is always another choice if not several.

But you and I know that is not the case, whether you will admit it or not

I don't know that, Religon is so conflicting, what I see of God (aside from creation and even that has eyeball eating worms) would drive me away from worshipping him. I think I am inclined to see it from Rev Hellfire's point of view;

I hear talk constantly of a love of god, but in the same breath the warning that if you don't do this or do that you'll spend eternity in the burning fires of hell. And that seems more like fear to me.

If it was a marriage it would be an abusive one, I love him and if I don't talk back he'll not beat me.

More or less that is my experience 'dont question, but blindly follow and go to Mass and sure yeh'll be grand' type approach which doesn't cut it with me. I asked questions and a long time later I'm still asking as I'm not satisfied with the answers then I get sick. I'm not saying I was strcken with it but the timing was pretty bad you have to admit. Also Chrisitans tell me 'if you open your heart to God it will be ok'. Well I am very open but I want questions answered. It's like asking to blindly trust some random guy on the street who's just stabbed you in the pancreas with a rusty knife so I don't get that.

But you rejected the virtue of faith in favour of attempting to doing good deeds to such a point that you could be deemed "good enough". Nobody is ever good enough.

See I disagree. I'm not saying 'Im worthier than thou' but this notion of none of us are good enough is quite silly. If my daughter is a crack-head prostitute then they are still worthy of my love and care simply by virtue of being my child and nothing else. They mightn't think so nor may others but I would still love them even though it may pain me to do so. And I'm not God.

My two-cents on your topic is that I think you're listening to man and not God. This is a great place to talk about things but isn't the place to find out about God. Everything posted here is people's opinions and arguments and even if based on biblical writings are really not representing God.

I think when it comes to being in a place in your life that doesn't make sense, it is a good to search for meaning and purpose. but you won't find it here. not in 100 percent truth.

But where will it be found ? Evidence is truth yet the evidence is conflicting and questionable, as are the witness statements! I find many atheistic arguments against faith quite compelling.

I think the main premise for all abrahamic religions is that you need to think that humanity is in some way deficient and that only God can fix this problem. Perhaps this is the core issue that I have difficulty grasping.

TravelJunkie

re. evidence

Hebrews 11:1-2
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen


I've spent a lot of time meditating on the above over the years. So much in one line.

chozometroid

PDN wrote:

I don't think your marriage analogy is fair at all.

Hell is eternity without God. It is like a marriage where I claim to love him but if I keep shagging other people then I should expect to end up separated.

Húrin wrote: »

No, hell, if it exists, is unending violence perpetrated against you. Your analogy is more suited to unconscious death as understood by me to be the fate of unbelievers, and by atheists to be the fate of everyone.

Hell is eternal separation from God. As to Hell being endless torment, the only thing we can be sure of, is that it is the second death, and it produces an eternal result.
Eternal torture really doesn't make sense on any level.
1. It never teaches a lesson. The person suffering the eternal torture will never have the chance to learn from it, or to see that he was wrong. Regret is kinda pointless when you still have an eternity of torture to go.
2. It does not inact God's justice. The result of sin is death. God is going to get rid of every trace of sin from His creation.
3. Eternal suffering implies eternal existence. There is no eternal life for those not in God's kingdom.
4. The meaning of the word "hell" in the bible is death. Hell and fire are both representative of destruction with an everlasting effect. The thing consumed is gone forever.

edanto

chozometroid wrote: »

The result of sin is death.

Is there a cut-off?

Who decides?

For me, this is one of the ridiculous myths of afterlife religions. It's easy to agree on the fate of very good people and very bad, but for people in between, do they go to heaven or hell and where's the cut-off?

As I see it, heaven and hell are equally morally reprehensible.

phototoxin wrote:

it seems a bit heavy handed... oh you took an extra cookie when i said not to *bam* you have AIDS/no legs/whatever now as punishment.

Indeed and it does. I'm sure there are interesting and long and compelling theological arguments to explain and justify this, but they can't hide the fact that it's a ridiculously unfair proposition. As with the concept of karma, most people will like the idea of good things coming back to them (and they sure seem to come back!) but the notion that bad things or misfortune is somehow a punishment from some prankster and fickle god is demanded by the logic yet unacceptable.

So, I think it is heavy handed, I think that Traveljunkie's Genesis quote helps explain a lot of it - people are hopeful. That makes faith, and also lets people on earth off the hook for a lot of bad stuff, which is also comforting to them.

For example - the churches position on condoms causes people to die of AIDS. They defend that position by saying it is Gods will because they read it somewhere. Seriously, that's their ridiculous position. They read it somewhere, and nothing more.

wolfsbane

Phototoxin said:

Quote:
The answer lies in the book of Genesis. God did not design us to be sick or die - that followed as a punitive sanction for our first parent's sin, and passes on to us, their sinning children.
it seems a bit heavy handed... oh you took an extra cookie when i said not to *bam* you have AIDS/no legs/whatever now as punishment. And as for punishing everyone ... by that logic if a man kills someone then we should ALL be punished. Obviously this isn't fair but I'm told god is just.

It is not a matter of 'taking an extra cookie'- it was a deliberate rebellion against the Holy God whom they knew as an intimate friend. It was not even yielding to temptation under pressure, for Adam and Eve had truly free will, a will that was not bound to a sinful nature.

Everyone, however mysterious it may be, is directly related to Adam and his fallen nature. God is not punishing unfallen individuals - we all have sinful natures. No one has to teach us to sin. Lying, cheating, selfishness come naturally.

Quote:
Your alternative, atheism, can only tell you that your suffering and death are natural events, without meaning or purpose. That we all came from lifeless atoms and will eventually return to such. That our self-awareness is only a quirk of space and time and that our imagining we are more significant than an ant or an atom is just that - imagination.
I *love* how my choices always seem to be pigoenholed. With Catholicsm it was that or else that or atheism+hell (pagans, agnostics, buddhists, protestants don't exist?) and in life when someone says 'well you're options are X or Y' I find that usually there is always another choice if not several.

My apologies for assuming your alternative. I do understand that you might have any other, but I assumed you would go for what seems to me the most weighty alternative - materialistic atheism. Do you have one you find more credible?

Quote:
But you and I know that is not the case, whether you will admit it or not
I don't know that, Religon is so conflicting, what I see of God (aside from creation and even that has eyeball eating worms) would drive me away from worshipping him.

Yes, it's your assessment of Man's moral status vs God's that is the problem. You see God as being unjust for demanding perfect righteousness from man, and you prefer to justify/overlook many of man's sins.

What if you are mistaken? What if even our small sins are actually vile, stinking crimes?

I think I am inclined to see it from Rev Hellfire's point of view;
Quote:

I hear talk constantly of a love of god, but in the same breath the warning that if you don't do this or do that you'll spend eternity in the burning fires of hell. And that seems more like fear to me.

If it was a marriage it would be an abusive one, I love him and if I don't talk back he'll not beat me.

As PDN pointed out, the analogy should be the unfaithful spouse, who repeatedly and unrepentantly shags anyone they fancy and mocks the betrayed.

Sin is rebellion and adultery, a violation of the love relationship we were made for.

But analogies only go so far - the reality is worse than human relationships can describe. We, created beings, have rebelled and been unfaithful to God our Creator.

More or less that is my experience 'dont question, but blindly follow and go to Mass and sure yeh'll be grand' type approach which doesn't cut it with me.

With me neither. One should never hand over their conscience/soul to other men. Only God is worthy of that.

I asked questions and a long time later I'm still asking as I'm not satisfied with the answers then I get sick. I'm not saying I was strcken with it but the timing was pretty bad you have to admit. Also Chrisitans tell me 'if you open your heart to God it will be ok'. Well I am very open but I want questions answered. It's like asking to blindly trust some random guy on the street who's just stabbed you in the pancreas with a rusty knife so I don't get that.

If we were talking about man-man relationships, then you would be right to refuse to trust such a person. But if what the Bible tells us about God is true, then it explains why we are in our pitiful condition and why we should pay heed to God when He calls us on to the road that leads to Life.

wolfsbane

chozometroid said:

Hell is eternal separation from God. As to Hell being endless torment, the only thing we can be sure of, is that it is the second death, and it produces an eternal result.
Eternal torture really doesn't make sense on any level.

I hope I'm not taking this away from the OP's questions, but I do think it worth being clear about.

1. It never teaches a lesson. The person suffering the eternal torture will never have the chance to learn from it, or to see that he was wrong. Regret is kinda pointless when you still have an eternity of torture to go.

It is not meant to teach a lesson or rehabilitate. It is meant to punish and to vindicate God's holiness and justice. Just like a natural life sentence or capital punishment in man's courts.

2. It does not inact God's justice. The result of sin is death. God is going to get rid of every trace of sin from His creation.

God is going to banish every sin - that does not require He annihilate the convict. Punishment away from His presence is getting rid of every trace of sin from the new heavens and new earth.

3. Eternal suffering implies eternal existence. There is no eternal life for those not in God's kingdom.

That's why it is called eternal death and everlasting punishment. Not non-existence.

4. The meaning of the word "hell" in the bible is death. Hell and fire are both representative of destruction with an everlasting effect. The thing consumed is gone forever.

Gone from God's presence and favour, but not out of existence:
Mark 9:42 “But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were thrown into the sea. 43 If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life maimed, rather than having two hands, to go to hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched— 44 where


‘ Their worm does not die
And the fire is not quenched.’

Revelation 14:11 And the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever; and they have no rest day or night, who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name.”

Revelation 20:10 The devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and the false prophet are. And they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.

chozometroid

Yes, let's be clear...

wolfsbane wrote: »

It is not meant to teach a lesson or rehabilitate. It is meant to punish and to vindicate God's holiness and justice. Just like a natural life sentence or capital punishment in man's courts.


God is going to banish every sin - that does not require He annihilate the convict. Punishment away from His presence is getting rid of every trace of sin from the new heavens and new earth.


That's why it is called eternal death and everlasting punishment. Not non-existence.

A comparison to a life sentence or captial punishment does not really make sense. Life sentence is spending your life imprisoned, while still being able to live your life. Capital punishment is death, which would be agreeing with what I said.

Death is eternal, because its result is eternal.

You think eternal existence is not being alive?

The wages of sin is death. Jesus paid the penalty of sin for those that believe in Him. Did He suffer in a lake of fire eternally? No, He died.
Hell is the second death, not the first endless torture.

Rev. 20:14-15 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

Death will be destroyed as well. There is a second death, but then there will be no more death.
You think a realm of fire and endless torture is part of God's creation, or something that will exist alongside the New Heaven for all eternity? You think it is God's nature to create an eternal torture chamber? ETERNAL? The only eternal existence is eternal life.

A fire that is never quenched is a fire that is seen through to it's end. It's the nature of the fire, one that produces a final result.

2Peter 3:10
But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

Hell is the firey death of those who will be consumed with the earth, before everything will be made new.

You say punishment away from His presence is getting rid of every sin from the new heaven and new earth. The Bible does not say that. Also you forgot to quote the preceding verse with your Rev 14:11 scripture.

Rev 14:10The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:

11And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

First, you can see it is in His presence. Now do you think God and His angels are going to watch this for all eternity? No. This "forever and ever" talk is just the relentless nature of the fire and brimstone that will burn up all those left on earth who worship the beast.

2 Thessalonians 1:8,9
In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;

Everlasting destruction. Destruction that is everlasting. Destruction means to be destroyed. Everlasting means it will be destroyed forever, never to return.

Matthew 10:28
And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

Malachi 4:1,3
For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the LORD of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch. And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day that I shall do [this], saith the LORD of hosts

Revelation 20:9
And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.

When the New City arrives, all the wicked left on the earth will be destroyed.

Mark 9:44 ..Their worm does not die And the fire is not quenched.
Jeremiah 17:27
But if ye will not hearken unto me to hallow the sabbath day, and not to bear a burden, even entering in at the gates of Jerusalem on the sabbath day; then will I kindle a fire in the gates thereof, and it shall devour the palaces of Jerusalem, and it shall not be quenched.

The worm does not die until the fire burns it up. The fire is not quenched until it burns up it's fuel. Is Jerusalem still burning today? The fire continues until the thing being burned is no more.


And finally:

Isaiah 34:9,10
And the streams thereof shall be turned into pitch, and the dust thereof into brimstone, and the land thereof shall become burning pitch. It shall not be quenched night nor day; the smoke thereof shall go up forever: from generation to generation it shall lie waste; none shall pass through it for ever and ever.

Jude 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

The first scripture is referring to the city of Edom. Are these cities still burning today?

Thanks for reading.

Phototoxin

4. The meaning of the word "hell" in the bible is death. Hell and fire are both representative of destruction with an everlasting effect. The thing consumed is gone forever.

Fire is also used to test things such as metal in one of pauls letters I think

For example - the churches position on condoms causes people to die of AIDS. They defend that position by saying it is Gods will because they read it somewhere. Seriously, that's their ridiculous position. They read it somewhere, and nothing more.

No they don't, they teach that abstinence is a more effective method than handing out contraception left right and centre. Scientific studies have shown that the more contraception a couple uses the less likely that they are to stay together (journal of sexual health) and I've also read secular reports about asian countries and governmental STI control - one country went the condom route the other the abstience route. (and not the dozy amerian type--oh 'm only shagging her in the ear but I'm still pure type rubbish) The condom country's STIs rate increased, the others decreased - its simple sense; if you dont have sex unless its wiht a person who has also not had sex then you almost almost eliminate the risk of stis (obviously needlstick, being born with it blood transfusion etc can spread HIV and others) and so they are reduced.
Condoms having only and 85% efficiency in practice mean that if 20 people have sex 3 of them run the risk of catching an STI, multiply that by multiple occasions of sex, multiple partners over time and you will see the scientific reason why such campaigns fail. But obviously condom companies are making loads of £££ so its in their interest for people to think they help.
If you are referring to the virus going through the condom that is total rubbish and that bishop is basically a liar - UNLESS he was talking about sheepskin condoms which are penetrable by viruses.

Everyone, however mysterious it may be, is directly related to Adam and his fallen nature. God is not punishing unfallen individuals - we all have sinful natures. No one has to teach us to sin. Lying, cheating, selfishness come naturally.

I disagree. Catholic doctrine teaches us that unbaptised babies go to hell more or less.

Do you have one you find more credible?

moral agnosticism. Materialism is a bit useless in fairness, and is one of the root causes of many of the world's problems.

Yes, it's your assessment of Man's moral status vs God's that is the problem. You see God as being unjust for demanding perfect righteousness from man, and you prefer to justify/overlook many of man's sins.

What if you are mistaken? What if even our small sins are actually vile, stinking crimes?

Perhaps they are, what happens if giving money to others offends God? Or stopping on your way to work thus being late to help someone dying on the street. Maybe he really hates these things. Perhaps I am mistaken, I am not as arrogant as some churches to state that they alone have the only 100% correct and inerrent description of God and knowledge of what pleases him.

As PDN pointed out, the analogy should be the unfaithful spouse, who repeatedly and unrepentantly shags anyone they fancy and mocks the betrayed.

I didn't consent to marry God, this is the problem, I didn't consent to be given 'orginal sin' I didn't consent to be born. Simply by virtue of being born not only am I married to god, but I am also unfaithful? I think not. Its more like forced marrage in an abusive relationship.

One should never hand over their conscience/soul to other men. Only God is worthy of that.

This is my root issue with it all I think, aside from the fact that my experiences have lead to strongly consider that while God exists (I think he probably does) I don't know if he is worthy of worship. Of course to you this means I may not understand or have experienced god as you have.
(I also realise in saying that I think I have described Quakerism which is interesting)

But if what the Bible tells us about God is true, then it explains why we are in our pitiful condition and why we should pay heed to God when He calls us on to the road that leads to Life.

And if its just a series of books carefully selected to allow the magesterium to control the masses? What then? I dont understand the protestant ethos of rejecting the blind submission of their 'conscience/soul to other men. Only God is worthy of that.' yet the willingness to trust the bible. It is a confusing paradox to me.

‘ Their worm does not die
And the fire is not quenched.’

you do realise that jesus was referring to a rubbish dump in the town that was always mouldering and basically using it as an allegory to sheol - the jewish hell. Not a hell with fire and soul eating maggots or something from Dante or little devils sticking pitchforks in your bum but a bleak wasteland of sorrow.
Also revelation is largely poetic/imaginative as opposed to literal (though I guess it could be literal some day!)

And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

If the soul and body are destroyed then you do not exist. I think non-existance may be better than being hypocritical.

wolfsbane

Phototoxin said:

Quote:
Everyone, however mysterious it may be, is directly related to Adam and his fallen nature. God is not punishing unfallen individuals - we all have sinful natures. No one has to teach us to sin. Lying, cheating, selfishness come naturally.
I disagree. Catholic doctrine teaches us that unbaptised babies go to hell more or less.

I am a Baptist, not a Catholic. But as far as I know, they have abandoned limbo (a non-hell, non-heaven state) and have not replaced it with anything definite. You know they have now gone for hell more or less?

Quote:
Do you have one you find more credible?
moral agnosticism. Materialism is a bit useless in fairness, and is one of the root causes of many of the world's problems.

You are right about the evils of materialism. So you plumped for Don't know if God exists, but let's live as if we have a value and purpose. It is emotionally more pleasant than atheism, but I'm sure both atheists and theists will regard it as a cop-out, a failure to pursue rationality to its conclusion.

Quote:
Yes, it's your assessment of Man's moral status vs God's that is the problem. You see God as being unjust for demanding perfect righteousness from man, and you prefer to justify/overlook many of man's sins.

What if you are mistaken? What if even our small sins are actually vile, stinking crimes?

As PDN pointed out, the analogy should be the unfaithful spouse, who repeatedly and unrepentantly shags anyone they fancy and mocks the betrayed.
I didn't consent to marry God, this is the problem, I didn't consent to be given 'orginal sin' I didn't consent to be born. Simply by virtue of being born not only am I married to god, but I am also unfaithful? I think not. Its more like forced marrage in an abusive relationship.

That presupposes the created have a right to question their Creator. Seeing we know so little of the universe and the spirit world, you should consider God knows more about your rights than you do.

Quote:
One should never hand over their conscience/soul to other men. Only God is worthy of that.
This is my root issue with it all I think, aside from the fact that my experiences have lead to strongly consider that while God exists (I think he probably does) I don't know if he is worthy of worship. Of course to you this means I may not understand or have experienced god as you have.

Yes, I see your thinking. But consider that if such an Almighty Creator exists, surely He would be more likely to know truth from error than you. When He tells us that we are sinners and never able by ourselves to overcome our inate predisposition to sin, and that He has provied a way for us to be set free from the power of sin and from His just wrath against it, is it not wise to listen?

(I also realise in saying that I think I have described Quakerism which is interesting)

I'm not sure what you mean.

Quote:
But if what the Bible tells us about God is true, then it explains why we are in our pitiful condition and why we should pay heed to God when He calls us on to the road that leads to Life.
And if its just a series of books carefully selected to allow the magesterium to control the masses? What then? I dont understand the protestant ethos of rejecting the blind submission of their 'conscience/soul to other men. Only God is worthy of that.' yet the willingness to trust the bible. It is a confusing paradox to me.

The difference is the Bible condemns any magesterium to control the masses. It brings us before God and His will for our lives, not an organisation that mediates His will and keeps us dependant on them for knowledge of it.

But I agree, if the Bible is no more than man's words, then we should ignore it. How can one tell? - by sincerely asking God to confirm His truth to you. Those who seek Him diligently will find Him. They will hear His voice in the Holy Scripture.

Quote:
‘ Their worm does not die
And the fire is not quenched.’
you do realise that jesus was referring to a rubbish dump in the town that was always mouldering and basically using it as an allegory to sheol - the jewish hell. Not a hell with fire and soul eating maggots or something from Dante or little devils sticking pitchforks in your bum but a bleak wasteland of sorrow.
Also revelation is largely poetic/imaginative as opposed to literal (though I guess it could be literal some day!)

Of course I do. Jesus and the rest of the Jews used the rubbish heap outside Jerusalem as a picture of the eternal rubbish heap.

Quote:
And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
If the soul and body are destroyed then you do not exist. I think non-existance may be better than being hypocritical.

If annihilation were meant, then the wicked have an eternal rest to look forward to. But eternal punishment is described as having no rest, enduring torment without end:
Revelation 20:10 The devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and the false prophet are. And they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.

Revelation 14:11 And the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever; and they have no rest day or night, who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name.”

wolfsbane

chozometroid said:

A comparison to a life sentence or captial punishment does not really make sense. Life sentence is spending your life imprisoned, while still being able to live your life. Capital punishment is death, which would be agreeing with what I said.

Death is eternal, because its result is eternal.

You think eternal existence is not being alive?

The comparison with capital punishment is to show that punishment need not be with a view to rehabilitation.

If death means non-existence, how come the Bible tells us we are born spiritually dead, yet we still exist as spirits? So too when it comes to eternal death - the sinner exists forever, but estranged from God and under punishment.

The wages of sin is death. Jesus paid the penalty of sin for those that believe in Him. Did He suffer in a lake of fire eternally? No, He died.
Hell is the second death, not the first endless torture.

Jesus died physically, as we all do. He also died spiritually, and as you rightly say, that was not eternal. But that does not help your case - quite the reverse. If eternal death is annihilation, Jesus was annihilated. He ceased to exist. Who was it rose from the dead? Surely not the same spirit who was annihilated?

Rev. 20:14-15 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.Death will be destroyed as well. There is a second death, but then there will be no more death.
You think a realm of fire and endless torture is part of God's creation, or something that will exist alongside the New Heaven for all eternity? You think it is God's nature to create an eternal torture chamber? ETERNAL? The only eternal existence is eternal life.

Yes, God created an eternal torture chamber:
Matthew 25:41 “Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels:

A fire that is never quenched is a fire that is seen through to it's end. It's the nature of the fire, one that produces a final result.

If all the Bible said about hell related to its existence, you might be right. But the Bible goes on to tell us of the condition of those in hell:
Revelation 20:10 The devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and the false prophet are. And they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.

Revelation 14:11 And the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever; and they have no rest day or night, who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name.”
Tormented day and night forever and ever; have no rest day or night. Try to fit that into a blinking out into non-existence.

You say punishment away from His presence is getting rid of every sin from the new heaven and new earth. The Bible does not say that.

You assume that the new heaven and new earth are all that exists in eternity. I'm saying the Bible tells us Gehenna also exists forever.

Also you forgot to quote the preceding verse with your Rev 14:11 scripture.

Rev 14:10The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:

11And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

First, you can see it is in His presence. Now do you think God and His angels are going to watch this for all eternity? No. This "forever and ever" talk is just the relentless nature of the fire and brimstone that will burn up all those left on earth who worship the beast.

Yes, I think God and His angels are going to watch this for all eternity. As I asked above, how do you fit in they will be tormented day and night forever and ever and they have no rest day or night with being snuffed out?

2 Thessalonians 1:8,9
In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;
Everlasting destruction. Destruction that is everlasting. Destruction means to be destroyed. Everlasting means it will be destroyed forever, never to return.

Eternally perishing, never to be pardoned or annihilated. The outer darkness, where the worm does not die, nor is the fire quenched.

When the New City arrives, all the wicked left on the earth will be destroyed.

Agreed.

Mark 9:44 ..Their worm does not die And the fire is not quenched.
Jeremiah 17:27
But if ye will not hearken unto me to hallow the sabbath day, and not to bear a burden, even entering in at the gates of Jerusalem on the sabbath day; then will I kindle a fire in the gates thereof, and it shall devour the palaces of Jerusalem, and it shall not be quenched.
The worm does not die until the fire burns it up. The fire is not quenched until it burns up it's fuel. Is Jerusalem still burning today? The fire continues until the thing being burned is no more.

And finally:

Isaiah 34:9,10
And the streams thereof shall be turned into pitch, and the dust thereof into brimstone, and the land thereof shall become burning pitch. It shall not be quenched night nor day; the smoke thereof shall go up forever: from generation to generation it shall lie waste; none shall pass through it for ever and ever.

Jude 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
The first scripture is referring to the city of Edom. Are these cities still burning today?

Yes, the Bible used these terms of the earthly destruction visited on those cities. But that does not mean what happened to them is the same that happens at the Judgment, when body and soul are involved. How come Sodom and Gomorrha were said to suffer the vengeance of eternal fire when they were destroyed on earth, yet Christ tells us that they will face another judgment? -
Matthew 10:14 And whoever will not receive you nor hear your words, when you depart from that house or city, shake off the dust from your feet. 15 Assuredly, I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city!

What is the message to infamous sinners like Hitler, or the child-sex murderers who have never been caught? Live your life to the full, die physically and at the Judgment you will be annihilated?

Phototoxin

Right so basically because I do not have faith in somthing I have cannot believe in I'm going to be tortured eternally?

chozometroid

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, I think God and His angels are going to watch this for all eternity.

Seriously? For what purpose?

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, the Bible used these terms of the earthly destruction visited on those cities. But that does not mean what happened to them is the same that happens at the Judgment, when body and soul are involved. How come Sodom and Gomorrha were said to suffer the vengeance of eternal fire when they were destroyed on earth, yet Christ tells us that they will face another judgment? -
Matthew 10:14 And whoever will not receive you nor hear your words, when you depart from that house or city, shake off the dust from your feet. 15 Assuredly, I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city!

The point of bringing up "those terms," referring to burning forever and ever, was to show the usage of the language, and give a reference as to how it is used, and what it really means. Smoke asending up "forever and ever," and a fire that will "not be quenched" is proven to not mean to burn for all eternity.
As for Jesus' comment about Sodom and Gomorrah. The "land of Sodom and Gomorrah" in the day of judgement could be referring to:
1. all the people in those lands, when resurrected to face judgement
2. or this is just an expression to show just how bad it would be for that city, considered how poorly everyone thought of Sodom and Gomorrah. The cities all ready faced judgement, though.


The Bible plainly states that the wicked will be no more.....

Psalm 34
9 For evildoers shall be cut off: but those that wait upon the LORD, they shall inherit the earth.

10 For yet a little while, and the wicked shall not be: yea, thou shalt diligently consider his place, and it shall not be.

20 But the wicked shall perish, and the enemies of the LORD shall be as the fat of lambs: they shall consume; into smoke shall they consume away.

38 But the transgressors shall be destroyed together: the end of the wicked shall be cut off.

Psalm 68:2.
As smoke is driven away, So drive them away; As wax melts before the fire, So let the wicked perish at the presence of God.

Psalm 104:35
May sinners be consumed from the earth, And the wicked be no more. Bless the LORD, O my soul! Praise the LORD!


Your main defense, and the only bump in the road for my position, are these scriptures:
Revelation 20:10 The devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and the false prophet are. And they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.

Revelation 14:11 And the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever; and they have no rest day or night, who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name.

The term forever in the Bible usually means "for a lifetime" or an age, but in this case, it does denote some undefined time period.
Perhaps the wicked will have their punishment drawn out before they finally die. Would that not be just?
If someone who committed horrible crimes were to face this firey torment for a month/year, then die the second death, wouldn't that be enough? They would experience an immense level of pain/torment that would be at least comparable to the pain they caused. Whatever they did on earth was temporary, and their victims only lost their body, not their soul. It could be seen as a method of justice, since they deserve some sort of tribulation for the pain and suffering they caused the innocent. But to be tormented for all eternity? The majority of texts don't give that indication. The wicked will perish. Maybe not instantaneously, but they will perish.

Matthew 10:28
Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

Malachi 4:1-3
You shall trample the wicked, For they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet On the day that I do this, Says the LORD of hosts.

Obadiah 1:16
For as ye have drunk upon my holy mountain, so shall all the heathen drink continually, yea, they shall drink, and they shall swallow down, and they shall be as though they had not been.

John 3:16
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

You see the contrast? The wicked will perish(from Greek word meaning destroy/kill), but the righteous will have everlasting life.
It is:
be destroyed / live forever
not
burn forever / live forever

Your position is the same one that scares people into "serving" God, and also implies that people who never heard of God will be tortured forever.
The opposing view promotes serving God out of love, and seeking to spend eternity with Him, or facing the wages of sin without Jesus, which is death.
The Bible plainly states that few will make it to heaven. Your position implies that God created man with the intention of torturing most of them for all eternity. This is simply not true.

This is how I sum it up:

God created man perfect, but with free will, meaning he could choose to obey or not obey. Man was deceived by the originator of sin, and ended up sinning as well. Both man and Lucifer made the same mistake of undermining their creator God's authority.

Man was then faced with inevitable death as the penalty for sin. God made a plan to save mankind, and also make an example out of Satan. He gave His Son Jesus to pay for our sins, which would reconcile man back to Himself, and give man the free gift of eternal life in His kingdom. The only catch is that man would have to choose to believe in Him, and accept through faith His Son Jesus' death on the cross for what it was: the gift of salvation.
If man chooses instead to follow himself as his own god, he has sinned, and will die, as God is not under obligation to accomodate or provide life to those who are their own master.
Man pays for sin himself, and dies, not spending eternity with God.
Makes perfect sense.

Rev Hellfire

Phototoxin wrote: »

Right so basically because I do not have faith in somthing I have cannot believe in I'm going to be tortured eternally?

Yes, but that's only because god loves you.
And as we all know we only hurt the ones we love.

As for the faith of unbaptised babies, that's not as clear cut as its made out to be. At least as far as the catholic church is concerned, with the since the removal of the idea of limbo, the hope is they go to heaven.

Bizarrely enough (when compared to its popular image), with its less rigid interpretation of bible and its constant endeavours to refine its theological understanding of god the catholic church can at times be remarkably universal in idea of who gets saved.

In many ways this idea of constantly attempting to refine your understanding of god from the limited facts you've available is quite positive thing in my humble opinion. It offers far more positive insights into the nature of god which are not available to those to limit their perspective to regurgitating tracts from the bible verbatim

Phototoxin

As for the faith of unbaptised babies, that's not as clear cut as its made out to be. At least as far as the catholic church is concerned, with the since the removal of the idea of limbo, the hope is they go to heaven.

They may *hope* for it but strictly speaking no santifying grace = you are the weakest link goodbye.

I also don't see how its fair if someone tries to understand it but simply cannot then they are also voted the weakest link.

antiskeptic

Phototoxin wrote: »

Right so basically because I do not have faith in somthing I have cannot believe in I'm going to be tortured eternally?

Hi

I was under the impression that the reason you'd be tortured for eternity had to do with the sin you committed.

It would appear also that the reason you don't believe (should that be your status come your final breath) is not that you could not believe but that you would not believe. Damnation for the former reason would be hard justify jurisprudently-wise. The latter reason, far more easily so.

wolfsbane

chozometroid said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Yes, I think God and His angels are going to watch this for all eternity.
Seriously? For what purpose?

I assume for the same purpose any punishment is observed - the vindication of the Law and the Lawgiver.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Yes, the Bible used these terms of the earthly destruction visited on those cities. But that does not mean what happened to them is the same that happens at the Judgment, when body and soul are involved. How come Sodom and Gomorrha were said to suffer the vengeance of eternal fire when they were destroyed on earth, yet Christ tells us that they will face another judgment? -
Matthew 10:14 And whoever will not receive you nor hear your words, when you depart from that house or city, shake off the dust from your feet. 15 Assuredly, I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city!
The point of bringing up "those terms," referring to burning forever and ever, was to show the usage of the language, and give a reference as to how it is used, and what it really means. Smoke asending up "forever and ever," and a fire that will "not be quenched" is proven to not mean to burn for all eternity.

But you forget the one refers to events in this age, the other to that in the age to come. Temporal vs Eternal. Eternal in its eternal context cannot mean less than unending. Otherwise eternal life would mean life until it was over, as you say eternal punishment means.

As for Jesus' comment about Sodom and Gomorrah. The "land of Sodom and Gomorrah" in the day of judgement could be referring to:
1. all the people in those lands, when resurrected to face judgement
2. or this is just an expression to show just how bad it would be for that city, considered how poorly everyone thought of Sodom and Gomorrah. The cities all ready faced judgement, though.

Only No.1 makes sense of Christ's words. The people of Sodom and Gomorrah will stand before Christ on the Day of Judgment, even though they suffered the vengeance of eternal fire in the temporal sense.

The Bible plainly states that the wicked will be no more.....

Psalm 34
9 For evildoers shall be cut off: but those that wait upon the LORD, they shall inherit the earth.

Yes, and the point is that cut off, destroyed, etc. do not refer to annihilation but to eternal conscious punishment. Only that makes sense of ALL the texts.

Your main defense, and the only bump in the road for my position, are these scriptures:
Revelation 20:10 The devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and the false prophet are. And they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.

Revelation 14:11 And the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever; and they have no rest day or night, who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name.

The term forever in the Bible usually means "for a lifetime" or an age, but in this case, it does denote some undefined time period.

As above, does that mean eternal life is life for an undefined period, something that is forever only until it is over?

Perhaps the wicked will have their punishment drawn out before they finally die. Would that not be just?
If someone who committed horrible crimes were to face this firey torment for a month/year, then die the second death, wouldn't that be enough? They would experience an immense level of pain/torment that would be at least comparable to the pain they caused. Whatever they did on earth was temporary, and their victims only lost their body, not their soul. It could be seen as a method of justice, since they deserve some sort of tribulation for the pain and suffering they caused the innocent. But to be tormented for all eternity?

The offence is not just against our fellowman, but against God. That is what makes it so wicked. Who are we to say eternity is too long for such an offence?

The majority of texts don't give that indication. The wicked will perish. Maybe not instantaneously, but they will perish.

That is only your (and a tiny number of Christian commentators) reading of the texts. The historic view of the Church does not agree. And, most importantly, several of the Biblical texts cannot be reconciled with your view.

Matthew 10:28
Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

Malachi 4:1-3
You shall trample the wicked, For they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet On the day that I do this, Says the LORD of hosts.

Obadiah 1:16
For as ye have drunk upon my holy mountain, so shall all the heathen drink continually, yea, they shall drink, and they shall swallow down, and they shall be as though they had not been.

John 3:16
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

You see the contrast? The wicked will perish(from Greek word meaning destroy/kill), but the righteous will have everlasting life.
It is:
be destroyed / live forever
not
burn forever / live forever

Yes, but the issue concerns what does destroyed, perish, etc mean in the eternal setting. Does it mean annihilation or does it mean loss of all that is good and pleasant? In fact, note that the Greek rendered perish often means lost:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G622&t=KJV

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=G622&t=KJV&page=2

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=G622&t=KJV&page=3

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=G622&t=KJV&page=4
See the other texts also, where becoming useless, worthless, fit for the rubbish heap is the idea.

Your position is the same one that scares people into "serving" God, and also implies that people who never heard of God will be tortured forever.

That would mean your position is the same one that scares people into "serving" God, and also implies that people who never heard of God will be dead forever. Is it just a matter of degree?

The opposing view promotes serving God out of love, and seeking to spend eternity with Him, or facing the wages of sin without Jesus, which is death.
The Bible plainly states that few will make it to heaven.

That is my view too.

Your position implies that God created man with the intention of torturing most of them for all eternity. This is simply not true.

That is not my position. If it is, then your position is God created man with the intention of destroying most of them for all eternity.

This is how I sum it up:

God created man perfect, but with free will, meaning he could choose to obey or not obey.

Agreed.

Man was deceived by the originator of sin, and ended up sinning as well. Both man and Lucifer made the same mistake of undermining their creator God's authority.

Agreed.

Man was then faced with inevitable death as the penalty for sin.

Agreed.

God made a plan to save mankind, and also make an example out of Satan.

Not quite. God already had that plan long before He made anything.

He gave His Son Jesus to pay for our sins, which would reconcile man back to Himself, and give man the free gift of eternal life in His kingdom.

Agreed.

The only catch is that man would have to choose to believe in Him, and accept through faith His Son Jesus' death on the cross for what it was: the gift of salvation.

Agreed.

If man chooses instead to follow himself as his own god, he has sinned, and will die, as God is not under obligation to accomodate or provide life to those who are their own master.

Agreed.

Man pays for sin himself, and dies, not spending eternity with God.

Agreed. The only thing that separates us here is the definition of dies in the eternal state.

Makes perfect sense.

It does indeed.

JimiTime

Phototoxin wrote: »

Right so basically because I do not have faith in somthing I have cannot believe in I'm going to be tortured eternally?

Firstly, I subscibe to 'The second death of which there is no resurrection' in terms of what happens to the wicked.

Secondly, I think your line above misses something. None of us deserve to have everlasting life. We are all sinners, and thus we all should inherit death. We deserve nothing more than the wages of sin. What Christ did, was not offer something that we could earn. There is no, 'But I was led a good life.' etc. Its simple, we accept Gods 'Gift', allowing us to gain everlasting life through Christ his son. If we don't accept the gift, we can't recieve it. There is no way of earning it.

kelly1

Phototoxin wrote: »

They may *hope* for it but strictly speaking no santifying grace = you are the weakest link goodbye.

I haven't been following this thread but I just picked up on this point. Jesus did indeed teach that one must be baptized to be saved. But I don't see why Jesus can't baptize infants since He is *the* High Priest. Problem solved?

Rev Hellfire

Phototoxin wrote: »

They may *hope* for it but strictly speaking no santifying grace = you are the weakest link goodbye.

I also don't see how its fair if someone tries to understand it but simply cannot then they are also voted the weakest link.

The premise here is that god would be bound by a strict interpretation of the bible.
There's certainly no reason to believe such a thing, especially if you take the bible to be a divinely inspired document rather than a document which must be taken literally.
I'm surprised you would restrict your view/relationship to god to the narrow interpretation offered by the bible in its literal form. If our intellect is a gift from god then switching it off to blindly follow some piece of text would seem like an insult to me, you should question god, you should question its nature.

Surely such a being would be more complex than rather simple view offered here, which lets face it seems to have rather base human motivations.

Phototoxin

It would appear also that the reason you don't believe (should that be your status come your final breath) is not that you could not believe but that you would not believe. Damnation for the former reason would be hard justify jurisprudently-wise. The latter reason, far more easily so.

No, the reason I don't believe anymore is because I cannot believe it or accept it as it does not make sense. Its not that I won't believe it just to be a rebel its just that from what I understand of it is its not worth believing/worshiping hence why I cannot believe it.

None of us deserve to have everlasting life. We are all sinners, and thus we all should inherit death.

Why not ? Sin apparently comes from original sin which I didn't ask to be born with. So if I die and I'm left alone then I'll be quite content.

There's certainly no reason to believe such a thing, especially if you take the bible to be a divinely inspired document rather than a document which must be taken literally.

I don't really accept the bible anyway, but I'm running with it and catholic teaching for the basis of belief. I realise that not all christians think babies go to hell. I certainly dont

I'm surprised you would restrict your view/relationship to god to the narrow interpretation offered by the bible in its literal form. If our intellect is a gift from god then switching it off to blindly follow some piece of text would seem like an insult to me, you should question god, you should question its nature.

I don't but by using my intellect I cannot believe that the bible is the word of an all powerful all loving omnipotent being.

Rev Hellfire

Phototoxin wrote: »

I don't but by using my intellect I cannot believe that the bible is the word of an all powerful all loving omnipotent being.

A view I must say I share.

Lets face it if the bible is not the word of god its safe to salvage whatever good concepts its offers and then discard it.

chozometroid

wolfsbane wrote: »

Agreed. The only thing that separates us here is the definition of dies in the eternal state.

Yep, I will agree to disagree. Thanks for the discussion. I understand your position, and I will respect it. My comment about your position "scaring" people was referring to the idea of neverending torture. I don't think most people are going to be scared into serving God by telling them they will just die, because most people should expect to die.

I agree that God's plan involving Satan was made before God's act of creation. The way I worded it may have seemed to say he planned to make an example out of Satan after what happened at the fall, but that was not my intention. God also made the plan of salvation before His act of creation.

Phototoxin

Well if we don't know if it is or it isn't why believe that when there are lots of other old manuscripts depicting the actions of deities that we could worship. Of course I'm just waiting for the accusation of 'intellectual pride' and I'm actuall surprised that it hasn't been leveled against me yet, although the fact that it hasn't shows me that this forum has sane, sensible people in it who may genuinely be able to help.

chozometroid

The Bible is unrivaled.
First and foremost it is prophetic, and substantial prophecies have come to pass, while for example, Mohammed's predictions in the Quran have failed.

I will give detail if you want.

Rev Hellfire

Phototoxin wrote: »

Well if we don't know if it is or it isn't why believe that when there are lots of other old manuscripts depicting the actions of deities that we could worship

Indeed there are and I guess the temptation is look at alternative past and present beliefs and say that if they can be wrong and easily discarded then so can the bible also along with Christianity. Which is the common view I guess among atheists, a valid assumption to make for sure.

Though there is also an alternative perspective I think which is that in essence all religions strive for a common goal, a closer communion with their respective deities and an understanding of man's place in the grand scheme of thing. And that rather than all of them been totally wrong, they may each contain little kernels of truth which you can fish out discarding the chaff that has been added through the ages which is more about cultural norms from by gone ages than spirituality.

antiskeptic

Phototoxin wrote:

No, the reason I don't believe anymore is because I cannot believe it or accept it as it does not make sense. Its not that I won't believe it just to be a rebel its just that from what I understand of it is its not worth believing/worshiping hence why I cannot believe it.

When you say "it" am I to assume that you mean "God exists / the Bible is his word / Christ died for your sins / etc."? Assuming so, I'm not all that sure that Gods primary requirement is that you believe this stuff (in order that you be saved). Rather, your believing this stuff appears to be the consequence of your first having been saved. It's not the cause of it in other words.

You seem to be objecting up the wrong belief tree


I mean, how could you believe this stuff when you have no compelling reason to believe it? How could you believe it when you have no evidence that could support the belief? A god who asked you to believe (what can only be described as) the unbelievable could only be described as unreasonable in the extreme.





{AbE} You say "anymore" which I take to mean you once did believe this stuff. If so on what basis was that belief founded. Can I hazard a guess that it was because you were told it was the case. Like Santa?

Phototoxin

Though there is also an alternative perspective I think which is that in essence all religions strive for a common goal, a closer communion with their respective deities and an understanding of man's place in the grand scheme of thing. And that rather than all of them been totally wrong, they may each contain little kernels of truth which you can fish out discarding the chaff that has been added through the ages which is more about cultural norms from by gone ages than spirituality.

that's more like universalism or even some forms of quakerism. That said my GF thinks that most Christian religions have elements of truth although no one religon will have 100% accuracy.

{AbE} You say "anymore" which I take to mean you once did believe this stuff. If so on what basis was that belief founded. Can I hazard a guess that it was because you were told it was the case. Like Santa?

Yep I used to believe it because I was told and most religious sources are biased as they assume that the belief is there is implicitly is supporting that notion. |However upon maturing and becoming more critically mined and trying to find out more about my own faith (through apologetics ironically) I realised that there was no way these arguments would convince anyone because they weren't convincing me.

Rather, your believing this stuff appears to be the consequence of your first having been saved. It's not the cause of it in other words.

that's a bit like agustine's 'belive so that you may understand, not understand so that you may believe' which to me says 'just take it in the bum' and I find it highly insulting. Just because you believe the grass is green doesn't mean you will understand why it is green.

Rev Hellfire

Phototoxin wrote: »

or even some forms of quakerism.

Well they do make some rather fine breakfast cereals, so that's got to count for something

antiskeptic

Phototoxin wrote: »

Yep I used to believe it because I was told and most religious sources are biased as they assume that the belief is there is implicitly is supporting that notion. |However upon maturing and becoming more critically minded and trying to find out more about my own faith (through apologetics ironically) I realised that there was no way these arguments would convince anyone because they weren't convincing me.

Thank God for apologetics!

Given that the belief was bat-blind it's a good thing that you got away from it. God 1 Satan 0

Rather, your believing this stuff appears to be the consequence of your first having been saved. It's not the cause of it in other words.

that's a bit like agustine's 'believe so that you may understand, not understand so that you may believe' which to me says 'just take it in the bum' and I find it highly insulting. Just because you believe the grass is green doesn't mean you will understand why it is green.

It doesn't sound like Augustine at all really. It just implies the trigger of the mechanism of salvation lies elsewhere than at believing-in-something- for-which-you-have-no-evidence.

If so, then those arriving at Judgement with the defence: "I couldn't believe Jesus was my Lord and Saviour" will find themselves having prepared the wrong case altogether. It'd be like studying hard for your Maths test ... only to find English is the one being examined

Phototoxin

antiskeptic wrote: »

Thank God for apologetics!

Given that the belief was bat-blind it's a good thing that you got away from it. God 1 Satan 0

Not according to the RCC. I find it ironic that it has damaged my faith so much.

It doesn't sound like Augustine at all really. It just implies the trigger of the mechanism of salvation lies elsewhere than at believing-in-something- for-which-you-have-no-evidence.

Well this is partly why I cannot fathom it. Its been said to me many times. When it comes to something as important as faith and potentially salvation its a bit of a risk just to blindly accept.

If so, then those arriving at Judgement with the defence: "I couldn't believe Jesus was my Lord and Saviour" will find themselves having prepared the wrong case altogether. It'd be like studying hard for your Maths test ... only to find English is the one being examined

Well why not ? It is the church/Church's job to teach and in my experience it does that extremely badly.

antiskeptic

Phototoxin wrote: »

Not according to the RCC. I find it ironic that it has damaged my faith so much.

Diabolically ironic.

But I wouldn't worry too much about it. A bat-blind faith is not the kind of faith God appears to be very much interested in. So there wouldn't be much harm in it sinking without trace. Think of it this way: its destruction would make the way clear for the potential for sighted-faith - n'est ce pas?

Well this is partly why I cannot fathom it. Its been said to me many times. When it comes to something as important as faith and potentially salvation its a bit of a risk just to blindly accept.

If my own experience and the experience of many like me is anything to go by, I wouldn't worry much about this either. It's not so much a question of your jumping blindly off the cliff. It's a matter of whether God can arrange you into a position whereby he gets to push you off the cliff.

That you won't see the game of life and death that was played out before you've landed safely in his arms is neither here nor there. Biblically speaking you're born blind - it's not expected that you see until such time as you've passed the point of no return.

Well why not ? It is the church/Church's job to teach and in my experience it does that extremely badly.

I'm not sure I'd place my eternal destination in the hands of other men to be honest Pt. Imagine what it would look like if you were to produce that on the day of Judgement too. Wouldn't it look like pointing the finger?

Phototoxin

Quote: Well why not ? It is the church/Church's job to teach and in my experience it does that extremely badly.
I'm not sure I'd place my eternal destination in the hands of other men to be honest Pt. Imagine what it would look like if you were to produce that on the day of Judgement too. Wouldn't it look like pointing the finger?

Well this is exactly it, i think at the least it is shirking ones responsilibility.. 'oh I didn't realise XYZ was bad I was only following orders...'

wolfsbane

antiskeptic said:

When you say "it" am I to assume that you mean "God exists / the Bible is his word / Christ died for your sins / etc."? Assuming so, I'm not all that sure that Gods primary requirement is that you believe this stuff (in order that you be saved). Rather, your believing this stuff appears to be the consequence of your first having been saved. It's not the cause of it in other words.

You seem to be objecting up the wrong belief tree


I mean, how could you believe this stuff when you have no compelling reason to believe it? How could you believe it when you have no evidence that could support the belief? A god who asked you to believe (what can only be described as) the unbelievable could only be described as unreasonable in the extreme.

I'm not sure what you mean. To be saved we are required to believe God exists / the Bible is his word / Christ died for your sins / etc. Not all of God's doctrines, but the gospel essentials.

But maybe you are asking how that is possible? The answer is that God reveals it to our hearts by His Holy Spirit. We come to know, to recognise this is the truth. It is hearing His voice in our spirit/mind - not audible, but real nevertheless. The gospel message moves from being just one more claimant to the Truth, to being its sole possessor. So we then believe it, act upon it (repent and trust in Christ) and are saved.

Acts 16:30 And he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”
31 So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house.

Romans 10:9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

antiskeptic

Phototoxin wrote: »

Well this is exactly it, i think at the least it is shirking ones responsilibility.. 'oh I didn't realise XYZ was bad I was only following orders...'

Hmm?

You earlier appeared to be using the failings of "the church" as a get out clause come Judgement...

Phototoxin previously wrote:

Well why not ? It is the church/Church's job to teach and in my experience it does that extremely badly.

... implying you being able to point the finger at "them"