I'm going mad.

Notavirus.exe

I'm Christian. Well, theist to say the least. There are small things that make me lose faith in God.

At the top of my head, Heaven.

I personally know how HORRIBLE it is to lose a loved one. Love is a strong emotion. All that matters in life for me is my family. There is nothing more important. If I got to choose what Heaven would be like, I'd just have all my family there living in peace. When I say family I mean aunts, uncles, parents, grandparents, everything.

But if Heaven really is what God says it is, a place where ""all of your needs and wants are met"" and ""any tears are wiped from your face"" then why doesn't everyone get to Heaven?
Example, I love my parents. They could be atheists and could go to Hell for it. Then there's me waiting in Heaven for them. Will my memory of them be completely wiped? Or will my parents be replaced by imposters?

When I was younger, this sort of stuff never bothered me but now, it's my main cause of anxiety. Can someone calm me down?

Second Toughest in_the Freshers

It's alright, it's alright, it's alright
he moves in mysterious ways

kleefarr

No point panicking now. Wait and see what happens when you get there.

Shrap

Hiya Notavirus. I saw your post in the A&A forum and now this one here and it's clear to me that you're struggling with the age old problem for humanity of not having any answers. And I can't give them to you any more than anyone else can....but I can say that I'm much more comfortable than you with the notion that "I don't know".

I wasn't raised to any religion or faith and my parents ARE atheists, as are my whole family including my two teens. Last month, my beloved Aunt died. She was like my second mother and we were very very close, she having no children of her own. In caring for her over the last 6 months and knowing that she was approaching her death (as did she), it was with the knowledge (or belief, if you'd rather, because we don't really know) that death is final and she would no longer exist as a person.

When people say that "she'll always be on your shoulder", I take comfort from that, but perhaps not in the sense they meant it. I take it to mean that my memories and feelings about her live on in me - the sadness I feel is my own and present in my own life - it probably will be present in my life till the day I die, as it will for losing my parents (hopefully a long time away). Also present in my life is the love that we shared - that's not going anywhere either, and I know now that love and sorrow are the two sides of the same coin. They're passed from one to another in this life and are unique feelings within each unique relationship. Those feelings are still in me....if you see what I mean. Our relationship lives on.

As an atheist, I find comfort in the fact that my Aunt is no longer suffering. I believe that she is no more and there is no "spirit" left to feel any emotion. The emotions are for the living to deal with and accept, and although I miss her tremendously, all our shared love and my memories of her do indeed sit on my shoulder till the day I die too.

Don't know if that helps you - I know you also asked the question in A&A, but I preferred to try and answer your comment here as it more specifically details your fears for your family members dying. All I can really recommend is that you absolutely make the most of your relationships with your loved ones in this life. That way, the fullness and richness of your feelings for each other will live on in you (whether you continue to believe in an afterlife or not).

Wishing you all the best, S.

Ps.

Example, I love my parents. They could be atheists and could go to Hell for it. Then there's me waiting in Heaven for them. Will my memory of them be completely wiped? Or will my parents be replaced by imposters?

It seems to me that I have no anxiety about these theological technicalities because I don't believe in an afterlife, so perhaps your fears are entirely based on these religious based answers to "what happens when you die"? Maybe you'd be less fearful of death if you never thought you had the answer, like with me.

Manach

My non-sourced 2c (i.e. not claiming it to be doctrine) response is that Heaven is a place of love. Parents, kin, loved ones who have interacted with a meaningful measure posses that quality of love. Thus while anyone would have sinned in life, the redemptive quality would allow the bypass of the binary choice of Heaven/Hell. Instead encompass the refining of Purgatory which would separate the worldly chaff from the eternal love in the final state.

martinedwards

Notavirus.exe wrote: »

But if Heaven really is a place where ""all of your needs and wants are met"" and ""any tears are wiped from your face""

eh?

where did you get those quotes?

not the bible anyway?

as to why doesn't everyone get in, its the old God is pure and can't bear sin in his presence thing.

Becoming a Christian cleanses a believer and so that they can enter Gods presence.

Non believers are still in sin, so can't

MrPudding

martinedwards wrote: »

eh?

where did you get those quotes?

not the bible anyway?

as to why doesn't everyone get in, its the old God is pure and can't bear sin in his presence thing.

Becoming a Christian cleanses a believer and so that they can enter Gods presence.

Non believers are still in sin, so can't

See, here's the thing. All powerfull God. Can't bear sin. Doesn't really work. Your God is, supposedly, the ultimate Creator, why is he so weak?

MrP

hinault

Notavirus.exe wrote: »

I'm Christian. Well, theist to say the least. There are small things that make me lose faith in God.

At the top of my head, Heaven.

I personally know how HORRIBLE it is to lose a loved one. Love is a strong emotion. All that matters in life for me is my family. There is nothing more important. If I got to choose what Heaven would be like, I'd just have all my family there living in peace. When I say family I mean aunts, uncles, parents, grandparents, everything.

But if Heaven really is what God says it is, a place where ""all of your needs and wants are met"" and ""any tears are wiped from your face"" then why doesn't everyone get to Heaven?
Example, I love my parents. They could be atheists and could go to Hell for it. Then there's me waiting in Heaven for them. Will my memory of them be completely wiped? Or will my parents be replaced by imposters?

When I was younger, this sort of stuff never bothered me but now, it's my main cause of anxiety. Can someone calm me down?

The ties that bind you throughout this existence, don't bind you in the spiritual existence.

If someone goes to Hell, they do so on their own account because they want to dwell and wallow in their hatred of God.
That's what Hell is. It is the place where people who don't wish to be with God, place themselves.

If you think about it - and I urge to try to think about it - real Hell would be keeping someone in an existence for eternity where they do not ever wish to be, even for a nanosecond.

So by creating Hell, God is being charitable to those who hate Him.

MrPudding

hinault wrote: »

The ties that bind you throughout this existence, don't bind you in the spiritual existence.

If someone goes to Hell, they do so on their own account because they want to dwell and wallow in their hatred of God.
That's what Hell is. It is the place where people who don't wish to be with God, place themselves.

If you think about it - and I urge to try to think about it - real Hell would be keeping someone in an existence for eternity where they do not ever wish to be, even for a nanosecond.

So by creating Hell, God is being charitable to those who hate Him.

Except that is complete rubbish. I don't hate god. How can I hate something that I don't believe exist? Also, your post doesn't actually address the OP's point, but then I suppose it is a point you can't address, so I shouldn't really be surprised.

MrP

homer911

MrPudding wrote: »

Except that is complete rubbish. I don't hate god. How can I hate something that I don't believe exist?

There is no sitting on the fence with God - If you dont love Him, you hate Him

Delirium

MOD NOTE

If people want to discuss existence of God/atheism, please use the superthread.

Thanks for your attention.

hinault

homer911 wrote: »

There is no sitting on the fence with God - If you dont love Him, you hate Him

Exactly.

The gospel teaches that each person must love God with all of one's body (heart), one's soul and one's mind.
Matthew's gospel says that this is the greatest commandment in Chapter 22

Actually the OP would be well advised to read the entire contents of Matthew 22.

Peregrinus

homer911 wrote: »

There is no sitting on the fence with God - If you dont love Him, you hate Him

I'm afraid, with all due respect to Hinault, that this doesn't make any sense to me. It's obviously possible to be simply indifferent to God, or to the possibility of God, and that's not hatred in any meaningful sense. And I don't think we can postulate a judgmental God who deems anything falling short of perfect love for him to be tantamount to hatred, since such a God would offend against justice, and to postulate him is a blasphemy.

pauldla

Peregrinus wrote: »

I'm afraid, with all due respect to Hinault, that this doesn't make any sense to me. It's obviously possible to be simply indifferent to God, or to the possibility of God, and that's not hatred in any meaningful sense. And I don't think we can postulate a judgmental God who deems anything falling short of perfect love for him to be tantamount to hatred, since such a God would offend against justice, and to postulate him is a blasphemy.

I'd have to agree. Apart from the disagreeably martial tone, I'd be very surprised to learn that the disbelief I have is actually hatred. Unfortunately, I cannot manifest my hatred for cucumbers as a disbelief in the existence of cucumbers.

sbsquarepants

hinault wrote: »

So by creating Hell, God is being charitable to those who hate Him.

Charitable?
You must have missed the memo regarding the fire and eternal damnation. You seem to be confusing charity and cruelty.
Hell is all about revenge and petty cruelty, there is no charity whatsoever. It's not even about rehabilitation as there is no parole - it's punishment for punishments sake.
You wouldn't see madness like it from north korea - the punishment for meekly fancying the girl next door, is the same as for raping and murdering her!

hinault

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Charitable?
You must have missed the memo regarding the fire and eternal damnation. You seem to be confusing charity and cruelty.
Hell is all about revenge and petty cruelty, there is no charity whatsoever. It's not even about rehabilitation as there is no parole - it's punishment for punishments sake.
You wouldn't see madness like it from north korea - the punishment for meekly fancying the girl next door, is the same as for raping and murdering her!

This life is the time to rehabilitate yourself.

Once this life ends, then the opportunity to rehabilitate yourself ceases for eternity.

At that point, you become entirely dependent upon the prayers of the living, if you're in Purgatory that is.
If you're in Hell, you're correct there is no remission or parole for eternity.

Then those that are in Hell wish to be there for eternity and they are of their own volition.

There was a certain rich man, who was clothed in purple and fine linen; and feasted sumptuously every day.

16:20 And there was a certain beggar, named Lazarus, who lay at his gate, full of sores,

16:21 Desiring to be filled with the crumbs that fell from the rich man's table, and no one did give him; moreover the dogs came, and licked his sores.

16:22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom. And the rich man also died: and he was buried in hell.

16:23 And lifting up his eyes when he was in torments, he saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom:

16:24 And he cried, and said: Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, to cool my tongue: for I am tormented in this flame.

16:25 And Abraham said to him: Son, remember that thou didst receive good things in thy lifetime, and likewise Lazareth evil things, but now he is comforted; and thou art tormented.

16:26 And besides all this, between us and you, there is fixed a great chaos: so that they who would pass from hence to you, cannot, nor from thence come hither.

16:27 And he said: Then, father, I beseech thee, that thou wouldst send him to my father's house, for I have five brethren,

16:28 That he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torments.

16:29 And Abraham said to him: They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.

16:30 But he said: No, father Abraham: but if one went to them from the dead, they will do penance.

16:31 And he said to him: If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they believe, if one rise again from the dead.

MrPudding

hinault wrote: »

This life is the time to rehabilitate yourself.

Once this life ends, then the opportunity to rehabilitate yourself ceases for eternity.

At that point, you become entirely dependent upon the prayers of the living, if you're in Purgatory that is.
If you're in Hell, you're correct there is no remission or parole for eternity.

Then those that are in Hell wish to be there for eternity and they are of their own volition.

More utter rubbish. Who would choose to be in hell? And what sense of justice, or even proportionality, would allow a punishment to be levelled at someone for all of eternity on the basis of a test that, relatively speaking, is effectively, instantainious? Additionally, the evidence just isn't there. It is a poor test with a completely over the top, unjust and unjustifiable punishment. Of all the flaws in the chrisitan belief system this is the one that should be most obvious to any sensible, right thinking person.

MrP

endacl

martinedwards wrote: »

Non believers are still in sin, so can't

Im a non-believer, but I'm not in sin. I'm in Tallaght. Should be grand.

hinault

endacl wrote: »

Im a non-believer, but I'm not in sin. I'm in Tallaght. Should be grand.

That's your choice, to not believe.

God has granted each and every human being the sovereignty to exercise free will.

In exercising that choice, you cannot claim to be not aware of making that choice and the attendant consequences of that choice.

endacl

hinault wrote: »

That's your choice, to not believe.

God has granted each and every human being the sovereignty to exercise free will.

In exercising that choice, you cannot claim to be not aware of making that choice and the attendant consequences of that choice.

That's my choice? 'Choose' to believe? You actually made tea squirt out my nose there!

Man, there's wrong, and there's funny wrong. And that there is some funny wrong!

:D:D

What if I were to choose to believe? How does that work then? There's loads of stuff I'd love to be true. Let's make this happen. Start with something simple, perhaps? Fairies at the bottom of the garden or something? What's the first step?

Peregrinus

endacl wrote: »

That's my choice? 'Choose' to believe? You actually made tea squirt out my nose there!

Man, there's wrong, and there's funny wrong. And that there is some funny wrong!

:D:D

What if I were to choose to believe? How does that work then? There's loads of stuff I'd love to be true . . .

Actually, it's not quite as funny as you might think, endacl. The question of how we form our beliefs is one that endlessly fascinates psychologists, but it's not at all impossible that there's a good deal of intentionality involved.

For instance, we observe that people's political beliefs quite often coincide with their self-interest. The higher your socioeconomic status, the more likely you are to favour political views which work out well for people of high socioeconomic status, and vice versa. Coincidence? I think not. We want to believe to be true things which, if they are true, are beneficial for us. And, therefore, we do believe them to be true.

This isn't just confined to politics. The more expensive music, software etc is in a particular market, the greater the proportion of people who will think that piracy is morally justified. Again, call me a cynic, but this is not a coincidence. The incentives for believing this are greater in such a market, and people are responding to those incentives.

When it comes to belief in abstractions or supernatural realities, a surprising (or, perhaps I'm suggesting, not surprising) number of people attribute their lack of belief to a lack of evidence and ask, very much as you do here, how they can possibly believe something for which there is no evidence? But you will very often find that the same people believe other things for which there is no evidence (they might believe in a woman's right to choose, to pick an example out of the air) so it manifestly isn't impossible to do this. You have to assume they are making a choice (which may not be explicit, even to themselves) about which propositions they will demand evidence for, and which they will not.

I'm not suggesting that you can simply turn round and, bang, believe in God, or in fairies in the bottom of the garden. But I think you should probably ask yourself how much role choice has played in taking your to your current position on these and other questions of belief, and what those choices have been.

El_Duderino 09

Peregrinus wrote:

For instance, we observe that people's political beliefs quite often coincide with their self-interest. The higher your socioeconomic status, the more likely you are to favour political views which work out well for people of high socioeconomic status, and vice versa. Coincidence? I think not. We want to believe to be true things which, if they are true, are beneficial for us. And, therefore, we do believe them to be true.

That's an interesting point. Politics is subjective and is extremely hard to measure outcomes of a particular policy. Even if you did measure outcomes. how would you know which outcome is better? The point, as you said, is that you can choose to ascribe to a position out of self interest, particularly if there is no real answer either way.

When it comes to real things like gravity, it's less easy to choose what to believe because we have confirming evidence. You can choose to believe gravity doesn't exist or that you can fly, but neither is true.

You can choose to behave as if you believe but you would only need to do so if the evidence for your claim is no stronger than evidence against your claim.

Peregrinus

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

That's an interesting point. Politics is subjective and is extremely hard to measure outcomes of a particular policy. Even if you did measure outcomes. how would you know which outcome is better? The point, as you said, is that you can choose to ascribe to a position out of self interest, particularly if there is no real answer either way.

When it comes to real things like gravity, it's less easy to choose what to believe because we have confirming evidence. You can choose to believe gravity doesn't exist or that you can fly, but neither is true.

Sure. But gravity is a physical phenomenon. It makes sense to base your beliefs about it on the empirically-observable evidence.

What makes less sense* is to apply the same approach to metaphysical propositions like "a woman has the right to choose" or "the universe is created by god". And if you choose to reject such propositions because they are not evidenced in the way that gravity is, that's a choice.


* [Which is a polite way of saying no sense at all.]

El_Duderino 09

Peregrinus wrote:

What makes less sense* is to apply the same approach to metaphysical propositions like "a woman has the right to choose" or "the universe is created by god". And if you choose to reject such propositions because they are not evidenced in the way that gravity is, that's a choice.

This is a polite way to say you made up an idea based on no good evidence and choose to behave as if it's real. Saying the creators is metaphysical is a cop out from needing evidences and naturally is a case of special pleading.

Choose to believe one holy text and ignore another, then use the holy book as metaphysical evidence for the claims within the book you choose to believe. It's a house of cards.

Roger Hassenforder

hinault wrote: »

That's your choice, to not believe.

God has granted each and every human being the sovereignty to exercise free will.

In exercising that choice, you cannot claim to be not aware of making that choice and the attendant consequences of that choice.

To make a choice requires a conscious decision. Which requires options: to believe in your god, or not to believe in your god.
To believe in your god requires knowledge of what your god is. Which requires someone to be told what your god is.

What is no one told you? You dont know what god "is". Therefore no decision is required to not belief in god. The default state is an absence of belief in your god.
Are these people "sinners"? And whats their fate?

Peregrinus

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

This is a polite way to say you made up an idea based on no good evidence and choose to behave as if it's real.

You think a woman's right to choose is a made-up idea based on no good evidence? Well, I suppose, strictly speaking, you're right. But is that a sufficient basis for dismissing it?

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Saying the creators is metaphysical is a cop out from needing evidences and naturally is a case of special pleading.

Unsurprisingly, I'd put it the other way around. Ignoring the fact that creation is a metaphysical concept is a cop-out to save you having to explain why you think metaphysical propositions can be falsified by a lack of empirical evidence.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Choose to believe one holy text and ignore another, then use the holy book as metaphysical evidence for the claims within the book you choose to believe. It's a house of cards.

A comment which might have more point if it bore any relationship to anything I had said.

Remember, what I'm challenging here is endacl's position that beliefs can't be chosen. I'm suggesting they commonly are chosen, at any rate to a significant extent.

Your belief, for example, that metaphysical propositions should be dismissed for lack of empirical evidence looks to me like a choice. It's certainly not something you could arrive at through the use of reason. And, ironically, it is itself unsupported by any empirical evidence, although you have chosen* not to notice that.


* See what I did there?

newmug

OP, I feel sorry for you, you have my empathy. I cant believe some of the ignorant low-lifes on here. You obviously are hurting and looking for help, and all certain people can do is come on to the CHRISTIANITY forum and belittle the idea of an afterlife. Shame on you people.

OP, pray for your loved ones. If God is real, it will help them and get them into Heaven. Whether God is real or not, it will help you, as you still have something which you can use to connect with your departed family. If God is not real, then your praying wont matter, but it wont do any harm either way.

You have my compassion. I firmly believe in God. I'll pray for your family too.

El_Duderino 09

Peregrinus wrote:

You think a woman's right to choose is a made-up idea based on no good evidence? Well, I suppose, strictly speaking, you're right. But is that a sufficient basis for dismissing it?

I was referring to the god belief.

Peregrinus wrote:

Saying the creators is metaphysical is a cop out from needing evidences and naturally is a case of special pleading. [/QUOTE] Unsurprisingly, I'd put it the other way around. Ignoring the fact that creation is a metaphysical concept is a cop-out to save you having to explain why you think metaphysical propositions can be falsified by a lack of empirical evidence.[/quote]

You asserted the fact that creation is a metaphysical concept. Do you have evidence to back up that assertion or is an example of belief acting as a substitute for evidence.

Maybe you're saying you're god is a metaphysical concept. You don't need evidence for one of those, just an imagination.

Peregrinus wrote:

Your belief, for example, that metaphysical propositions should be dismissed for lack of empirical evidence looks to me like a choice. It's certainly not something you could arrive at through the use of reason. And, ironically, it is itself unsupported by any empirical evidence, although you have chosen* not to notice that.

I didn't say metaphysical propositions should be dismissed. They should not be elevated to 'reasonable belief' status until there is sufficient evidence to justify it. By which time it would be regarded as existant in reality and wouldn't need all this discussion about whether it is real or imaginary.

volchitsa

Peregrinus wrote: »

Actually, it's not quite as funny as you might think, endacl. The question of how we form our beliefs is one that endlessly fascinates psychologists, but it's not at all impossible that there's a good deal of intentionality involved.

For instance, we observe that people's political beliefs quite often coincide with their self-interest. The higher your socioeconomic status, the more likely you are to favour political views which work out well for people of high socioeconomic status, and vice versa. Coincidence? I think not. We want to believe to be true things which, if they are true, are beneficial for us. And, therefore, we do believe them to be true.

This isn't just confined to politics. The more expensive music, software etc is in a particular market, the greater the proportion of people who will think that piracy is morally justified. Again, call me a cynic, but this is not a coincidence. The incentives for believing this are greater in such a market, and people are responding to those incentives.

When it comes to belief in abstractions or supernatural realities, a surprising (or, perhaps I'm suggesting, not surprising) number of people attribute their lack of belief to a lack of evidence and ask, very much as you do here, how they can possibly believe something for which there is no evidence? But you will very often find that the same people believe other things for which there is no evidence (they might believe in a woman's right to choose, to pick an example out of the air) so it manifestly isn't impossible to do this. You have to assume they are making a choice (which may not be explicit, even to themselves) about which propositions they will demand evidence for, and which they will not.

I'm not suggesting that you can simply turn round and, bang, believe in God, or in fairies in the bottom of the garden. But I think you should probably ask yourself how much role choice has played in taking your to your current position on these and other questions of belief, and what those choices have been.

The fatal flaw in your extrapolation from politics to religion is around your failure to distinguish between very different meanings of the word "believe".
"I've believe I've finished now" or "I believe they have three children now" does not describe the same type of belief as "I believe in God".

So for political/moral beliefs which suit the person's personal interests, you ignore the fact that many people will be quite open about that and make no pretence of there being a deeper, inherent morality, other than perhaps a "trickle-down" one, for example. I think it was an Italian politician who said, when an unstable coalition was elected yet again, that the problem was that his countrymen had their heart on the left but kept their wallets on the right (think breast-pocket of a man's suit).

And what of those whose political beliefs go against their own class/financial interests? Rich supporters of the Labour Party or other supposedly left wing parties? Are their beliefs formed differently to those of their peers who support the Tories?

And still none of that is relevant to religious belief, or at least the form which entails choosing one specific deity and carrying out the acts of worship which his supporters have decreed he requires. That is closer to believing in ghosts. Or in Santa. Or would you argue that those beliefs are also just as valid?

endacl

^^

This. Got there before me. What I was referring to was an inability of an adult to firm a childish belief, where a thing was true just because it was in your head.

"...unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven"

I can see why yer man would want this. Children are biddable. All things being equal, though, it's impossible for an adult, in the absence of physical trauma to the brain, psychosis, or delusion, to form an irrational belief so powerful that they simply must have everybody else believe it too. If you are stuck with having inherited the belief as a very young child, you may be stuck with it. It won't spontaneously erupt in a normal, healthy head though. The closest that might happen in that instance would be some potentially colourful fiction.

Imagine Tolkien had insisted that there actually were little people with big hairy feet living under a hill?

Delirium

newmug wrote: »

OP, I feel sorry for you, you have my empathy. I cant believe some of the ignorant low-lifes on here. You obviously are hurting and looking for help, and all certain people can do is come on to the CHRISTIANITY forum and belittle the idea of an afterlife. Shame on you people.

MOD NOTE

Less of the flaming please.

If you have a problem with a post, please use the report button.

Thanks for your attention.

sbsquarepants

hinault wrote: »

This life is the time to rehabilitate yourself.

Once this life ends, then the opportunity to rehabilitate yourself ceases for eternity.

At that point, you become entirely dependent upon the prayers of the living, if you're in Purgatory that is.
If you're in Hell, you're correct there is no remission or parole for eternity.

Then those that are in Hell wish to be there for eternity and they are of their own volition.

There are so many holes in your logic that it's really just all hole and no logic to be honest.

Firstly, what sense does it make to put the eternal saviour or damnation of someones soul into the hands of others?
What happens if Mr Sinner gets to purgatory, sees the error of his ways but no one back home gives a toss? What if he doesn't see the error of his ways but his ever loving family pray day and night for his redemption? The reformed and remorseful Mr Sinner burns, but the unreformed Mr Sinner hops on board the holy gravy train - all because of the actions of others?? Seems unlikely that an omniscient god would design a system so unfair and idiotic.
Secondly, nobody and I mean nobody wants to go to hell. No matter what they've done or haven't done absolutely everyone chooses the fluffy cloud over the lake of fire. It's ridiculous to suggest otherwise.
Thirdly - it is hardly fair to base an eternity of reward or punishment on a few years of action. It's similar to saying to your child if you behave for the next microsecond i'll get you something nice, but if you don't i'll burn you at the stake.....cos I love you so much! Anyone who treats a child that way should be locked up in an institution for the protection of society - not revered and respected. It's a horrific abuse of authority - being a deity only makes it worse, not better.

hinault

sbsquarepants wrote: »

nobody and I mean nobody wants to go to hell. No matter what they've done or haven't done absolutely everyone chooses the fluffy cloud over the lake of fire. It's ridiculous to suggest otherwise.

Ah, the old "I want to sin, but I don't want to pay the price for sinning" argument.

By sinning a person makes their choice to opt for Hell rather than Heaven.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

it is hardly fair to base an eternity of reward or punishment on a few years of action.

Being given an opportunity is fair.

You've been given an opportunity. It's your decision along with all the consequences as to what you do with that opportunity.

sbsquarepants

hinault wrote: »

Ah, the old "I want to sin, but I don't want to pay the price for sinning" argument.

By sinning a person makes their choice to opt for Hell rather than Heaven..

Not always their choice though is it. I don't choose to covet my neighbours wife - I simply can't help who I covet or don't covet.
What about honouring your father and mother? What if your father is josef fritzel - hardly that poor girls fault now is it? Has she chosen hell?

hinault wrote: »

Being given an opportunity is fair.

You've been given an opportunity. It's your decision along with all the consequences as to what you do with that opportunity.

How do you figure that? 1 persons opportunity could be 90 years of perfect health, the next persons 5 years of intolerable pain, someone else might get 5 minutes. You've a very strange concept of fair.

hinault

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Not always their choice though is it. I don't choose to covet my neighbours wife - I simply can't help who I covet or don't covet.

You're not an animal. You were given the ability to reason.

Why covet what isn't yours? You choose to covet. You make that choice.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

What about honouring your father and mother? What if your father is josef fritzel - hardly that poor girls fault now is it? Has she chosen hell?

Absurd.

What does honouring one's father and mother actually mean?

It doesn't mean condoning the sin that the parent committed.
Fritzel's sinful behaviour cannot be honoured.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

How do you figure that? 1 persons opportunity could be 90 years of perfect health, the next persons 5 years of intolerable pain, someone else might get 5 minutes. You've a very strange concept of fair.

And the next person 4 years of intolerable pain is less than the other persons 5 years of intolerable pain. Is that fair that one person has to endure 12 months more intolerable pain?

We're all given a set of circumstances.

The rules that apply are regardless of circumstances which each individual may be in.

You advocate for "I want to live a sinful life, but it's not fair that I should be made paid the price for that sinful life".
Pathetic.

endacl

hinault wrote: »

You're not an animal. You were given the ability to reason.

Why covet what isn't yours? You choose to covet. You make that choice.

I don't think covet means what you think it means. It means to desire. One has no control over what they covet. I can desire my neighbours wife. If it happens, I can't help it. I'm human, and I respond to my environment ant the people and things in it. Choice only comes into it when I act or don't act on that desire. Making a move on my hypothetical neighbour's wife isn't a sin, because I don't subscribe to that fearful way of thinking. It is absolutely a sh1tty thing to do, and I wouldn't. The notion of a very normal, natural human response being a supernatural transgression is, frankly, laughable. Apply it to yourself if you like. It's your head, and you're entitled to contain within it whatever nonsense you choose.

Another example. A friend of mine had a gorgeous guitar. I coveted the bejaysus out of it for years. I told him. He had no issue with my 'sin'. Why would he have?!? Anyway, a couple of years ago I asked him if he'd be interested in selling it. He was. We agreed a price, and now I own it.

I broke a commandment in this instance. I coveted, and acted on it. Everybody involved happy with the outcome. Except for my missus, of course, when I told her what I'd paid for it. Question: did I 'sin'.

hinault

endacl wrote: »

I don't think covet means what you think it means. It means to desire. One has no control over what they covet. I can desire my neighbours wife. If it happens, I can't help it. I'm human, and I respond to my environment ant the people and things in it. Choice only comes into it when I act or don't act on that desire. Making a move on my hypothetical neighbour's wife isn't a sin, because I don't subscribe to that fearful way of thinking. It is absolutely a sh1tty thing to do, and I wouldn't. The notion of a very normal, natural human response being a supernatural transgression is, frankly, laughable. Apply it to yourself if you like. It's your head, and you're entitled to contain within it whatever nonsense you choose.

What you subscribe to doesn't mitigate.

Matthew 5: 27-29

5:27 You have heard that it was said to them of old: Thou shalt not commit adultery.

5:28 But I say to you, that whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart.

5:29 And if thy right eye scandalize thee, pluck it out and cast it from thee. For it is expedient for thee that one of thy members should perish, rather than that thy whole body be cast into hell.

endacl

hinault wrote: »

What you subscribe to doesn't mitigate.

Matthew 5: 27-29

Matthew sounds a bit paranoid.

hinault

endacl wrote: »

Matthew sounds a bit paranoid.

Matthew 5:27-29 is a record of the words spoken by Jesus Christ.

endacl

hinault wrote: »

Matthew 5:27-29 is a record of the words spoken by Jesus Christ.

You believe.

pauldla

endacl wrote: »

Matthew sounds a bit paranoid.

The reminded me of the old joke about the two guys at the Redemptorist meeting when the organists attire becomes undone, 'Begod, Joe, I think I'll risk an eye'

Perhaps it should be noted that is a verse that only the most determined Christians take at face value, of course.

endacl

pauldla wrote: »

The reminded me of the old joke about the two guys at the Redemptorist meeting when the organists attire becomes undone, 'Begod, Joe, I think I'll risk an eye'

Perhaps it should be noted that is a verse that only the most determined Christians take at face value, of course.

Glad somebody got the joke.

hinault

endacl wrote: »

You believe.

Of course.

And you don't believe.

pauldla

endacl wrote: »

Glad somebody got the joke.

Nice one on the guitar

endacl

hinault wrote: »

Of course.

And you don't believe.

That's the thing, you see. Belief has nothing to do with my position. I don't 'accept' the validity of the premise, based on a dearth of anything but anecdote to support it. It's a subtle yet important distinction. A lack of belief on my part is a byproduct of the fact that I don't accept the story as anything more than a story. Belief/non-belief are irrelevant to a non-believer.

You see, I get where you're coming from. If you insist on interpreting my position through the lens of belief/non-belief though, we'll never be having the same conversation.

endacl

pauldla wrote: »

Nice one on the guitar

Stop coveting my stuff, dude!

:mad:

hinault

endacl wrote: »

Belief has nothing to do with my position.

I never said it did.

Non-belief is your position.

endacl wrote: »

You see, I get where you're coming from

You don't though.

You can't "get where I'm coming from" because you refute what the gospel is and you refute what the gospel says.

Therefore you could not possibly get where I'm coming from.

endacl wrote: »

Belief/non-belief are irrelevant to a non-believer.

That's a lie.

endacl wrote: »

we'll never be having the same conversation.

yep.

endacl

I refute it from a position of having read it though. And understanding it.

corkonion

If a child is born to atheist parents who teach him that all life is the result of the big bang and evolution, and if that child is taught that it is ok to steal some crops from neighboring farms "as the land is owned by everyone". And if that child grew into a young adult who died in an accident would he be dammed to hell for eternity?

newmug

endacl wrote: »

I don't think covet means what you think it means. It means to desire. One has no control over what they covet. I can desire my neighbours wife. If it happens, I can't help it.

You are wrong there. To "covet" means to desire something to the point of being jealous about it - and then acting on that jealousy. If you broke that guitar because YOU couldnt have it, thats covetousness.

There is sometimes an element "omission" in covetousness. Say you were a mechanic, and a customer dropped in their car for a full service - when you start, you notice that there's very few miles on it since the last service and it doesnt need an oil change, but you charge for it anyway because that included in the full service that the customer ordered - by omitting to tell them this relevant piece of info, and charging them full whack, you have "coveted" their money.

Another example would be if Mary and Paddy were happily married, but YOU fancied Mary. Lets say they had some relationship trouble, and YOU offered Mary a shoulder to cry on, with the intention of convincing her to drop Paddy for you - thats covetousness.

endacl wrote: »

That's the thing, you see. Belief has nothing to do with my position. I don't 'accept' the validity of the premise, based on a dearth of anything but anecdote to support it.

Dont worry. The very first atheist in recorded history had the exact same position as you, and now he's a saint! If you read the Bible, you'll easily be able to tell me who that is!:D

newmug

corkonion wrote: »

If a child is born to atheist parents who teach him that all life is the result of the big bang and evolution, and if that child is taught that it is ok to steal some crops from neighboring farms "as the land is owned by everyone". And if that child grew into a young adult who died in an accident would he be dammed to hell for eternity?

No. because he knew no better. But the parents would have questions to answer.