New huge 'Victory Christian Fellowship' centre being completed in Firhouse, Dublin

kiffer

Jakkass wrote: »

I disagree that teaching people that there are consequences to their actions is abusive in any way. So yes, I think we just have to agree to disagree on this one.

Teaching children that they diverse to be tortured forever as the default punishment for all... regardless of actions.
Hell is not a consequence to their action, it is a consequence of inaction, failing to believe in Jesus.

Jakkass... if someone kidnapped and killed your child... and you got you hands on them before the police did... you might in a fit of rage be tempted to avenge their death by beating the living tar out of the killer... you might even kill them... this might even be considered just... though it does nothing to bring back your child... it does nothing to make the situation right.
BUT you wouldn't consider it right to, capture the killer, keep him alive in your basement, and slowly flay the skin from his body... only stopping when he passed out from the pain, why waste the effort on the unfeeling unconscious body, take a rest while he's out for the count... maybe make sure you've enough salt to rub into the wounds for tomorrow, bandage up the area that you've done so that he doesn't die and so you can keep the torment going longer. ... I could go on but you get the idea...

There are several reasons to punish wrong doers ...
Removal of a danger to the community.
Restoration to those harmed.
Rehabilitation of the wrong doer.
Retribution and revenge.

Hell (as eternal torture) fits only retribution/revenge, but that is not fitting with the idea of compassion, and restores nothing to those harmed... it does nothing to remove the danger to the community as it only comes after death and it can not rehabilitate the wrong doer because it is eternal and never ends.
Purgatory is a better idea... at least once your sins are burnt off you get in to heaven... with only the worst of Sinners getting stuck into hell... even then you still have all the problems with Hell.

Better that Hell was oblivion, sadly it is not Biblically depicted as such...

Flamed Diving

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Round and round the merry go round. Are you Kelly1's clone?

Indoctrination breeds standardisation.

kiffer

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Indoctrination breeds repetition.

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Indoctrination breeds standardisation.

Quick edit there

Repetition breeds Indoctrination.

philologos

kiffer wrote: »

Teaching children that they diverse to be tortured forever as the default punishment for all... regardless of actions.
Hell is not a consequence to their action, it is a consequence of inaction, failing to believe in Jesus.

Well, I don't think it is like that.

Mankind has sinned, and mankind is guilty before God. Mankind has been offered a pardon should they be willing to accept it, and should they be willing to live by God's standard. It is up to the individual to either accept or reject this chance.

Punishment most certainly is a consequence of their action. If one does not accept the substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ, one has to attempt to pay for ones sins by ones self, it is impossible to do this unless one is blameless.

kiffer wrote: »

Jakkass... if someone kidnapped and killed your child... and you got you hands on them before the police did... you might in a fit of rage be tempted to avenge their death by beating the living tar out of the killer... you might even kill them... this might even be considered just... though it does nothing to bring back your child... it does nothing to make the situation right.
BUT you wouldn't consider it right to, capture the killer, keep him alive in your basement, and slowly flay the skin from his body... only stopping when he passed out from the pain, why waste the effort on the unfeeling unconscious body, take a rest while he's out for the count... maybe make sure you've enough salt to rub into the wounds for tomorrow, bandage up the area that you've done so that he doesn't die and so you can keep the torment going longer. ... I could go on but you get the idea...

I'm not God. Hence why I don't consider it right for me to do this. I've sinned and fallen short of God's glory just like everyone else.

kiffer wrote: »

Hell (as eternal torture) fits only retribution/revenge, but that is not fitting with the idea of compassion, and restores nothing to those harmed... it does nothing to remove the danger to the community as it only comes after death and it can not rehabilitate the wrong doer because it is eternal and never ends.
Purgatory is a better idea... at least once your sins are burnt off you get in to heaven... with only the worst of Sinners getting stuck into hell... even then you still have all the problems with Hell.

You're right. The compassion comes when you are alive. I mean, you do have the chance of atonement according to Christianity, but it is because of peoples stubborn will that they have refused to accept it. One cannot reasonably argue that they weren't given this chance, particularly not in Ireland.

I personally don't believe in purgatory.

My word, I think we should try remaining a bit on topic though?

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Indoctrination breeds standardisation.

The vast majority of my knowledge of Christianity has come from voluntary learning about it.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

You're right. The compassion comes when you are alive. I mean, you do have the chance of atonement according to Christianity, but it is because of peoples stubborn will that they have refused to accept it. One cannot reasonably argue that they weren't given this chance, particularly not in Ireland.

If you died and found out that the Islamic God was the real one would you freely accept that you deserved your eternal torture on the basis that you had the opportunity to convert?

Flamed Diving

Jakkass wrote: »

The vast majority of my knowledge of Christianity has come from voluntary learning about it.

Well apart from the threat of infinite terror.

lolz

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

If you died and found out that the Islamic God was the real one would you freely accept that you deserved your eternal torture on the basis that you had the opportunity to convert?

If you want to discuss Islamic views on hell, I suggest you discuss it in the Islam forum.

You may be surprised at how much difference there is on the issue of "People of the Book".

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

If you want to discuss Islamic views on hell, I suggest you discuss it in the Islam forum.

I just won a bet with myself that you would dodge the question with that exact statement. Congrats on being depressingly predictable in your evasiveness.

edit: and of course the frustration shown towards you is because you believe in God :rolleyes:

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I just won a bet with myself that you would dodge the question with that exact statement. Congrats on being depressingly predictable in your evasiveness.

I've been consistent on the subject every time. I personally don't feel it is fair to discuss Islam without a Muslim being present to clear up any misconceptions that may be said.

I don't personally believe that the Qur'an is authentic or as authentic as the New Testament or other Christian scripture.

Denalihighway

Jakkass wrote: »

Well, I don't think it is like that.

Mankind has sinned, and mankind is guilty before God. Mankind has been offered a pardon should they be willing to accept it, and should they be willing to live by God's standard. It is up to the individual to either accept or reject this chance.

Punishment most certainly is a consequence of their action. If one does not accept the substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ, one has to attempt to pay for ones sins by ones self, it is impossible to do this unless one is blameless.



I'm not God. Hence why I don't consider it right for me to do this. I've sinned and fallen short of God's glory just like everyone else.



You're right. The compassion comes when you are alive. I mean, you do have the chance of atonement according to Christianity, but it is because of peoples stubborn will that they have refused to accept it. One cannot reasonably argue that they weren't given this chance, particularly not in Ireland.

I personally don't believe in purgatory.

My word, I think we should try remaining a bit on topic though?



The vast majority of my knowledge of Christianity has come from voluntary learning about it.

funny...I think this circular, utter drivel is a healthy reminder to attempt to get someway back on topic. We really are going nowehere with this and it get's impossible to read after a while.

It reminds me of the creepy, evangelistic types that will inhabit this new centre with their "free sweets and drinks" for the kids club and whatever other tactics they'll be using to disguise themselves as an asset to the community to naive parents and a social outlet for kids who will be immediately subjected to this nonsensical rhetoric once they pass inside it's doors.

Dades

Jakkass, clearly as a Christian you won't share the opinions here, as you share beliefs with the organisations in question, but I don't understand why you don't understand why atheists don't want evangelists knocking about.

I'd have no problem with some Pentecostals building a big church to cater for all their flock, its the sending out of reapers to harvest souls that gets my goat up. Sell your crazy someplace else, people!

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

Punishment most certainly is a consequence of their action. If one does not accept the substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ, one has to attempt to pay for ones sins by ones self, it is impossible to do this unless one is blameless.

And it is impossible to be blameless.

Again that is the whole point. What part of that are you not getting? Christianity is teaching children that no matter what they do they are evil simply by existing and being normal and that because of this they deserve eternal punishment.

What part of that to you wouldn't be damaging to the self esteem and development of the child?

Jakkass wrote: »

You're right. The compassion comes when you are alive. I mean, you do have the chance of atonement according to Christianity, but it is because of peoples stubborn will that they have refused to accept it.

This is another part of the abuse, the idea that if the person has doubts it is because of their wickedness. It is not because, oh I don't know, Christianity is wrong, it is because the person themselves is wicked and refuses to accept what you say is true.

This is the classic manipulation and indoctrination technique (mastered by Scientology). There is something wrong with you that you cannot fix without us. If you disagree you disagree because there is something wrong with you that you cannot fix without us.

It plays upon all the weaknesses and insecurities people naturally have, particularly children.

I know you disagree because you believe all this stuff is true, but can you at least see the point? Imagine some other religion doing this, would you think it was a good idea?

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

I've been consistent on the subject every time. I personally don't feel it is fair to discuss Islam without a Muslim being present to clear up any misconceptions that may be said.

I don't personally believe that the Qur'an is authentic or as authentic as the New Testament or other Christian scripture.

Oh I know Jakkass you use the same excuse to avoid the question any time another religion is mentioned. I didn't ask you to tell me about muslim hell, I asked if you felt that you would deserve eternal torture if it turned out you picked the wrong religion. You don't have to say anything about Islam that could possibly be misconstrued but that's never stopped you using that excuse before and it didn't stop you this time. And you still insist that the only reason people show you hostility is because you believe in God. It's depressing

philologos

Dades wrote: »

Jakkass, clearly as a Christian you won't share the opinions here, as you share beliefs with the organisations in question, but I don't understand why you don't understand why atheists don't want evangelists knocking about.

I'd have no problem with some Pentecostals building a big church to cater for all their flock, its the sending out of reapers to harvest souls that gets my goat up. Sell your crazy someplace else, people!

I don't think your objection is valid. If you truly believe that there is no God, and that this is all we have, and that you indeed have the strongest argument in favour of your position, what is the issue? They are no threat to you or atheism.

I personally think all kinds of missionaries have a positive impact whether they are from the LDS to the Hare Krishnas. They promote public discussion, and they promote people talking about the spiritual things in this life. Getting talking about this kind of stuff on a more regular basis allows for people to think critically about different faiths and different ideologies and make up their own mind. It is the result of freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom of conscience.

Sam Vimes

So let's try it again without reference to a particular religion:


Would you freely accept that you were deserving of eternal torture if you died and found that you had picked the wrong religion?

Flamed Diving

Wicknight wrote: »

Imagine some other religion doing this, would you think it was a good idea?

If you want to discuss 'other' views on 'this', I suggest you discuss it in the 'other' forum.

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Oh I know Jakkass you use the same excuse to avoid the question any time another religion is mentioned. I didn't ask you to tell me about muslim hell, I asked if you felt that you would deserve eternal torture if it turned out you picked the wrong religion. You don't have to say anything about Islam that could possibly be misconstrued but that's never stopped you using that excuse before and it didn't stop you this time. And you still insist that the only reason people show you hostility is because you believe in God. It's depressing

Be as hostile as you want. I prefer fair discussion, and I am under no obligation to answer exactly as you want me to answer.

I don't believe Islam is true, or likely to be true. It is likely that they feel the same, but it is about what is genuinely convincing to me. Atheism isn't convincing, Islam isn't convincing, Christianity makes sense. Hence why I follow it.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Be as hostile as you want. I prefer fair discussion, and I am under no obligation to answer exactly as you want me to answer.

I don't believe Islam is true, or likely to be true. It is likely that they feel the same, but it is about what is genuinely convincing to me. Atheism isn't convincing, Islam isn't convincing, Christianity makes sense. Hence why I follow it.

I advised you to research about the Islamic perception of hell, as it might help you answer yourself. I even gave you the phrase you are to look for.

I didn't ask you if you believe in Islam. I asked if you would freely accept that you were deserving of eternal torture if you died and found that you had picked the wrong religion. I'd appreciate it if you'd answer me

kiffer

Jakkass wrote: »

Well, I don't think it is like that.
...

I'm not God. Hence why I don't consider it right for me to do this. I've sinned and fallen short of God's glory just like everyone else.

but here's the thing... I don't think it's right for anyone to do this. You, me, God... anyone... espcially not if there are other options... torturing them for all time is abhorrent to my understanding of compassion... FOR ANY CRIME.
now I might not feel like that in the heat of the moment after I get my hands on a hypothetical murderer of my child ... but I'm not a perfect, compassionate and all powerful god, who should be able to find a better solution than eternal torture for the "crime" of not believing or even knowing that he might exist.

You're right. The compassion comes when you are alive. I mean, you do have the chance of atonement according to Christianity, but it is because of peoples stubborn will that they have refused to accept it. One cannot reasonably argue that they weren't given this chance, particularly not in Ireland.

We generally don't make this argument directly for ourselves... generally we start out with people that genuinely have not heard the word...
Then work up to the idea that our nature is not so credulous as to believe things of a magical fantastical nature... and try to sneak into this safe ignorance is bliss camp.

I personally don't believe in purgatory.

My word, I think we should try remaining a bit on topic though?

yeah... I'll leave it there.

lostexpectation

looks .... no minarets ok nothing to see. :P

Sam Vimes

btw, I don't believe Islam is true, or likely to be true. It is likely that they feel the same, but it is about what is genuinely convincing to me. Christianity isn't convincing, Islam isn't convincing, atheism makes sense. Hence why I follow it.


I simply don't find your religion convincing and you believe I deserve to burn for eternity for it because I have the opportunity to convert. But your refusal to answer the question suggests to me that you don't think you would be deserving of the same treatment if it turned out you were wrong. Interesting

Dades

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't think your objection is valid. If you truly believe that there is no God, and that this is all we have, and that you indeed have the strongest argument in favour of your position, what is the issue? They are no threat to you or atheism.

This has nothing to do with a "threat" whatsoever. On a human level I object to cash-backed organisations filling vulnerable peoples' minds with (imo) mumbo-jumbo.

Jakkass wrote: »

I personally think all kinds of missionaries have a positive impact whether they are from the LDS to the Hare Krishnas. They promote public discussion, and they promote people talking about the spiritual things in this life. Getting talking about this kind of stuff on a more regular basis allows for people to think critically about different faiths and different ideologies and make up their own mind. It is the result of freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom of conscience.

Christian evangelism in no way promotes critical thinking. They, and every other "faith" organisation have their own agenda with the clear aim of instilling their teachings into whoever they can.

This probably sounds more serious than I intended. I'm not about to go out protesting - evangelism was more a curiosity when it was in other countries than ours. Now it's here I'm not going to be told it's for the best.

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I didn't ask you if you believe in Islam. I asked if you would freely accept that you were deserving of eternal torture if you died and found that you had picked the wrong religion. I'd appreciate it if you'd answer me

I think you'd find that I would have no choice but to accept it. I obviously wouldn't like the idea.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

I think you'd find that I would have no choice but to accept it. I obviously wouldn't like the idea.

But do you accept that it would be right and moral and that you would be fully deserving of eternal torment because you picked the belief system that made the most sense to you?

Is being convinced by something that turns out not to be true an immoral act?

philologos

Dades wrote: »

This has nothing to do with a "threat" whatsoever. On a human level I object to cash-backed organisations filling vulnerable peoples' minds with (imo) mumbo-jumbo.

Right, but what do you suggest that should be done about it. Effectively you are saying that you oppose churches, and people who attend them?

As for it being your opinion that this is mumbo-jumbo, it's merely your opinion.

If your argument was the most convincing, what's the issue?

Dades wrote: »

Christian evangelism in no way promotes critical thinking. They, and every other "faith" organisation have their own agenda with the clear aim of instilling their teachings into whoever they can.

I absolutely disagree with you here. Opening peoples minds up to other possibility is a sure fire way of getting people to critically think about whether or not atheism is a reasonable mindset, and to think critically about whether or not what they have been told about Christianity makes sense.

Dades wrote: »

This probably sounds more serious than I intended. I'm not about to go out protesting - evangelism was more a curiosity when it was in other countries than ours. Now it's here I'm not going to be told it's for the best.

It's fine that you disagree, but I think it's better that our society respects freedom of speech, freedom of thought, and freedom of religion. The fact that some of these freedoms have been questioned on this thread alone is more unnerving than the existence of any religious view in our society.

Sam Vimes wrote:

I simply don't find your religion convincing and you believe I deserve to burn for eternity for it because I have the opportunity to convert. But your refusal to answer the question suggests to me that you don't think you would be deserving of the same treatment if it turned out you were wrong. Interesting

I answered it. I probably would be deserving, but I wouldn't like the concept.

Your viewpoint is lacking. I believe we all deserve to be punished for our sins. However, we have the option of having our sins wiped clean and having new life in Jesus Christ. It isn't my fault, or anyone else's fault that you personally didn't accept this offer.

Goduznt Xzst

Perhaps you didn't see mine and Wicknights posts. Perhaps you could give your opinions on these points Jakkass?

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

What about Demon possessions? Do you think children should be taught that they are being watched all the time by invisible evil creatures who wish to hurt them and take control of them?

Wicknight wrote: »

If a parent was teaching a child that they were stupid or wicked or evil outside of religion I would imagine you would agree that they shouldn't do this.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

I answered it. I probably would be deserving, but I wouldn't like the concept.

Your viewpoint is lacking. I believe we all deserve to be punished for our sins. However, we have the option of having our sins wiped clean and having new life in Jesus Christ. It isn't my fault, or anyone else's fault that you personally didn't accept this offer.

My question is what if it turns out that the actual opportunity to have our wins wiped clean is only through another religion. The beliefs of Christianity are irrelevant to my question. It is in fact your view point that's lacking because there is an aspect of your faith that you proudly parade around as absolute morality but you wouldn't like the concept of this 'morality' being applied to yourself. You find Christianity convincing and rightly don't like the idea of being punished for eternity for being honestly mistaken because being honestly mistaken is not immoral

You only parade it around as long as you believe it only applies to others, that they'll be punished for not finding your beliefs convincing and you'll get eternal paradise. You don't like the idea that you might be punished for not finding someone else's beliefs convincing. Doesn't sound particularly moral to me....

kiffer

kiffer wrote: »

Yup. I agree. Spend your money however you like. It's yours. and if the law agrees with you all the better. Which is why you would have no objection to a Scientology Church with the exact same premise built beside your house... or an Ideology building a similar building. Communist, Satanist, Islam, Wicca... If they have the money they you should not object to them building a massive church/centre near you... if they get the planning permission.

BACK ON TOPIC.

So you would be totally fine with any group opening up shop in your area?
What about encouraging their children to try to bring your children into their ideology?

philologos

kiffer wrote: »

1. So you would be totally fine with any group opening up shop in your area?

I'd be fine with any religious group in my area. I just happen to believe that they would be mistaken.

kiffer wrote: »

What about encouraging their children to try to bring your children into their ideology?

I would have to assume that my teaching in relation to Christianity would be good enough to allow them to discern for themselves about religion and be willing to stand up for their own convictions.

It is up to other parents to decide how best to raise their children. It isn't my task or anyone elses to prevent them from doing so.

Dades

Jakkass wrote: »

Right, but what do you suggest that should be done about it. Effectively you are saying that you oppose churches, and people who attend them?

It's fine that you disagree, but I think it's better that our society respects freedom of speech, freedom of thought, and freedom of religion. The fact that some of these freedoms have been questioned on this thread alone is more unnerving than the existence of any religious view in our society.

I haven't suggested anything be done about it. I don't like the way there's a bookmakers on every street, but I'm not about to go stifling freedom of enterprise. You can have a dislike, a reservation, or an opinion about something without resorting to action. It's a free world - one in which I have to put up with such blights as evangelists and bookies.

Jakkass wrote: »

As for it being your opinion that this is mumbo-jumbo, it's merely your opinion.

That would be evident from the "(imo)" I placed in that quote!