Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

How many of you "believers" think you are going to hell?

  • 28-07-2001 12:08pm
    #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 132 ✭✭


    With apologies to Chernobyl for blatant disregard of copyright laws smile.gif

    Anyone?

    Scutch

    "If you think violence doesn't solve ANYTHING, you obviously aren't doing it right"


Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,136 ✭✭✭Bob the Unlucky Octopus


    I believe in reincarnation so the question is a false one for my belief system.

    And no, I'm not starting a thread asking if people think they'll be coming back as a(n) *(insert organism's name here)* tongue.gif

    Bob the Unlucky Octopus


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,099 ✭✭✭✭WhiteWashMan


    why would i go to hell.
    im a nice guy...

    [This message has been edited by WhiteWashMan (edited 28-07-2001).]


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,525 ✭✭✭JustHalf


    I don't think I'm going to hell, but I don't think I'm a "believer" - at least by the standards set in the last thread (as far as I could tell, "believer" was used to infer "Christian").

    I'm fairly sure I'll have to fight against hell (or the passage to it), but then again, don't we all? Whether a hell torn straight from The Inferno or Paradise Lost, or just a life destroyed.

    But I suppose I'd be considered a "good" person. "Bad" people might not see either destination as being the place to be.

    And, as you have no morals Scutchy smile.gif, are you really the person to start such a thread? wink.gif


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 132 ✭✭scutchy


    <font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by JustHalf:
    And, as you have no morals Scutchy smile.gif, are you really the person to start such a thread? wink.gif</font>

    I'm a struggling amoralist, not quite there yet ;-)

    and an absence of morals means I do whatever I want. tongue.gif

    This thread will die in 10 - 9 - 8 - 7 - 6 - 5 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 1


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,682 ✭✭✭chernobyl


    FFS, think about it.

    you die and cuz you were a bad a$$ whilst living your "soul" goes to "hell"....

    cmon, get real, this is a SCI-FI story.

    Ashley...if only

    Ashley Lyn Cafagna


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 132 ✭✭scutchy


    <font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by chernobyl:

    you die and cuz you were a bad a$$ whilst living your "soul" goes to "hell"....
    </font>

    Just thinking - why should I care what happens to my soul? The body, mind and chi are all I've come in contact with, why worry about something that doesn't concern me?

    (Note on chi - I find it an effective paragigm for meditation. I'm not saying it's real, or even that I believe it. I'm not saying everyone should assume the pole stance for 16 hours straight and give up ejaculation, or dangle weights from various bits of their anatomy.)

    Scutch

    "If you think violence doesn't solve ANYTHING, you obviously aren't doing it right"


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,162 ✭✭✭Augmerson



    Lo there Scutchy-Howz Loais?

    Well I know I'm going to hell-After the salamander Incident...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,184 ✭✭✭neuro-praxis


    Scutchy,

    We know each other. And as much as you will claim to be amoral - you are only so when it comes to labelling yourself in one of our seven-hour-through-the-night-and-neuro-is-dying-of-lack-of-sleep conversations.

    As a person, if you lacked moral standards, you would feel no need to express consideration and kindness. Surely amorality means a certain greyness? And Scutch, not to bloat your ego, but you have displayed to me many examples of hospitability, friendliness, concern and kindness. All signs of one who is not ambiguous or apathetic when it comes to ethics and behaviour.

    Your idea that you are amoral (or almost there) is ridiculous.

    A definition of amoral from the dictionary on my parent's desk:

    a·mor·al
    adj.
    Neither moral nor immoral.
    Lacking moral sensibility; not caring about right and wrong.


    I think a more suitable way to describe yourself would be one who is non-committal about labelling definitively what is right and wrong when out of context. When you are in context, in situations in real life and (not just blabbering away about philosphical things with me and our buds) you make positive decisions and you treat people well.

    But then, who am I to tell you who you are or what you really believe? I have no right.

    However, Dr. Scutchington, you are just pretending and striving for modernity when you claim amorality. YOU STUPID BLIND MAN!! mad.gif

    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    (Please don't kick my ass in MA.) biggrin.gif

    PS - If anyone starts a fight with me in this thread I can't respond because I only have net access while I'm at my folks' house, which is rare.

    Edited for spellings



    [This message has been edited by neuro-praxis (edited 28-07-2001).]


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 132 ✭✭scutchy


    <font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by neuro-praxis:
    Scutchy,

    We know each other. And as much as you will claim to be amoral - you are only so when it comes to labelling yourself in one of our seven-hour-through-the-night-and-neuro-is-dying-of-lack-of-sleep conversations.
    </font>

    Greetings, oh fellow MAist smile.gif

    First off, thanks for the many compliments. My ego is swelling, and it is not due soely to the many beers that have been consumed before this 01:15 post.

    The dictionary definition of amoralism doesn't really tally with my definition - and as a struggling amoralist, I reserve the right to self-determination. (So there tongue.gif)

    to break amoralism down - morals - meaning a code or set of rules by which one lives one's life - and a - meaning an absence of or without.

    I strive (well, strive implies more effort than I normally put into things, but hey) to avoid making decisions based on preset rules or a moral code. Instead, I try and follow what I have variously described as my instinct, intuition, or inner nature.

    Humans are, by nature, social and cooperative creatures who lean towards alutrism. If we try and remove exterior codes of conduct, we will revert to this natural state. This is my goal.

    To draw a Christian analogy, (and feel free to correct me on this one) I wish to return to an Eden-like state.

    But to take your definition (or el dictionary's) :

    Neither moral nor immoral.
    Lacking moral sensibility; not caring about right and wrong.


    I would not describe myself as moral; my two remaining identified morals relate to accepting grades and flirting, the latter I would gladly remove. If successful, my 'moral' code would be to not accept a grade higher than the best fighter in my club - not a moral as such, just a different definition of a belt.

    I would not describe myself as immoral, as I do not act against my moral code. In some cases, I act against the moral code of others, but I have no intention of following theirs anyway. Although I do not define myself as immoral, others might.

    So the first sentence stands.

    Lacking moral sensibility?

    I don't have the concept of absolute good or absolute evil; I'll go with that provisionally.

    Not caring about right and wrong? I have concepts similar to these; normally they relate to what benefits society (as defined by what group I affiliate to at that point in time) and that which is detrimental. But then again, sometimes society isn't a 'good' thing. (I'm somewhat complex in that manner tongue.gif)

    If I feel my social group or friends are threatened, someone or something had better expect a rather atypical scutch experiencing something variously described as riastreadh, mushin, beserk or demonic posession with no particular understanding of pain or mortality.

    So there are some things which could be described as "good" or "bad", "right" / "wrong" that I'd be willing to die for, (even if I don't understand the concept of death at that time) but it's the definition thereof I have issues with.

    Hitler did what he did because he believed it to be good.

    Rapists can generally justify their actions, and say they took the 'right' course of action.

    Paedophiles tend to project blame onto young children, seeing them as the evil ones.

    You describe me as one who is non-committal about labelling definitively what is right and wrong when out of context - I agree. And if you give me a specific scenario, I can generally give you my response to it, but I can't really judge if that response will lead to good, as a parallel to my equivalent of the term.

    If you can get "People of the Lie" off Excelsior when he's done with it, you'll see that all the 'evil' people in the book have clearcut definitions of right and wrong.

    But anyway, I digress.

    Back to the need for morals:

    If I am suffering from obesity, annorexia or a related complaint, a dietician may prescribe a set list of what and what not to eat, referred to as a diet, which will keep me moderately healthy.

    However, if I am a healthy individual, in tune with my body's needs and sense of hunger, I will eat what I want, when I want and how I want. My body will get all the nutrients it asks for and I will obtain a superior sense of health.

    If I am an unbalanced individual, I will require a code by which to live my life, called morals...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,525 ✭✭✭JustHalf


    <font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by scutchy:
    The dictionary definition of amoralism doesn't really tally with my definition - and as a struggling amoralist, I reserve the right to self-determination. (So there tongue.gif)</font>
    *lol*
    Scutchy, this reminds me far too much of my father's assertion that we are not part of the food chain, backed up with "what *I* mean by the food chain is what we eat"


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,984 ✭✭✭Venom


    I dont belive in heaven or hell nor a soul for that matter and as for the whole right and wrong lack I can only say the following..


    I know the difference between right and wrong but I can live with being wrong.




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,617 ✭✭✭✭PHB


    well from my interpriation of the bible and confering with my parish preist ive come to the conclusion that you only go to hell if you do not beleive in God even after you "meet" him after you "die"

    Then again i dont beleive in god.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,099 ✭✭✭✭WhiteWashMan


    <font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by PHB:
    well from my interpriation of the bible and confering with my parish preist ive come to the conclusion that you only go to hell if you do not beleive in God even after you "meet" him after you "die"

    Then again i dont beleive in god.
    </font>

    nice to know theres a safety net for the unbelievers eh?!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 132 ✭✭scutchy


    <font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by PHB:
    well from my interpriation of the bible and confering with my parish preist ive come to the conclusion that you only go to hell if you do not beleive in God even after you "meet" him after you "die"
    </font>

    An interesting section of Christianity - to look at the bible, entry to heaven is based on faith (Christian faith) and baptism:

    Mk.16:16
    "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."

    While at the same time it is based on your works, and faith / baptism aren't important at all:

    1 Pet.1:17
    "The Father, who without pariality judges according to each one's work."

    Taken from http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contradictions.html - a great read for Christians and non-Christians alike.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,698 ✭✭✭✭BlitzKrieg


    been there done that



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 681 ✭✭✭Kopf


    I'm atheist/humanist, I don't believe in heaven nor hell.. I think it's better this way if you belive your life is over when you die, you make more of your life, live more, etc... instead of putting all your eggs in a crock of sh!t wink.gif


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 9,795 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manach


    Maybe. If I do end up in that direction, at least I'll be able to hire the best of lawyers. smile.gif


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement