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

When atheists go too far

1…1314161819…28

Comments

  • #752
    Ellis Dee
    Registered Users Posts: 2,512 ✭✭✭Ellis Dee


    farna_boy wrote: »
    Just wondering, where in the Bible does it say that you will burn forever?

    As far as I remember from my teachings, it was a temporary type of thing i.e. you got sent to hell until you were sufficiently punished/ learned your lesson, and then you were allowed to go "upstairs".


    No, from my days (admittedly a long time ago) with the Screechin' Butchers, I remember that there was Purgatory, where you sizzled for maybe a long time, but then went upstairs. Then there was Hell, where you sizzled for ever and ever and ever ... amen. A billion zillion years and you hadn't even made a dent in your hard time ...:eek:

    They also had a place called Limbo, where unfortunates like unbaptised babies went to, but eventually got out of. I think that place was done away with some time back when the Vatican boys had another look at the sacred texts or something and did some penal reform.

    You couldn't make some of this stuff up, would be my first thought, but then I realised that someone actually did. :rolleyes:


  • #753
    RichieC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,333 ✭✭✭RichieC


    Hell ran out of space so they knocked in the wall and combined it with purgatory.


  • #754
    drkpower
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭drkpower


    RichieC wrote: »
    He doesnt have a cheek to turn, my good man. He's immaterial.

    No doubt. But the real depravity of Jakkass/Philiologos' view is that he actually does believe and advocate that you and I will burn in hell for eternity. That is the real sickness in his view.


  • #755
    Ellis Dee
    Registered Users Posts: 2,512 ✭✭✭Ellis Dee


    RichieC wrote: »
    Most are raised into it. the few "born agains" usually fall on hard times with drink drugs or sex/ money before they start banging on about god.. which isn't independent thinking, it's despair.


    Despair coupled with a form of consolidation. They get rid of numerous minor problems and replace them with one big one - heroin or Jesus. Alvin Toffler wrote about it very well in Future Shock. :)


  • #756
    RichieC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,333 ✭✭✭RichieC


    drkpower wrote: »
    No doubt. But the real depravity of Jakkass/Philiologos' view is that he actually does believe and advocate that you and I will burn in hell for eternity. That is the real sickness in his view.

    Just laugh about it.. they are living their entire one and only life worshiping a figment of their imagination.

    We can go on enjoying our lives guilt free while they are slaves to bronze age mysticism.


    We win :)


  • Advertisement
  • #757
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    RichieC wrote: »
    Just laugh about it.. they are living their entire one and only life worshiping a figment of their imagination.

    We can go on enjoying our lives guilt free while they are slaves to bronze age mysticism.


    We win :)

    What guilt? Hm. The more this goes on the more and more one sees that this discussion is built on misconception.


  • #758
    Knasher
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,370 ✭✭✭Knasher


    RichieC wrote: »
    Just laugh about it.. they are living their entire one and only life worshiping a figment of their imagination.

    We can go on enjoying our lives guilt free while they are slaves to bronze age mysticism.


    We win :)

    Sure, it's all fun and games until we run into some law that the religious impose on the rest of us and somebody gets hurt.


  • #759
    RichieC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,333 ✭✭✭RichieC


    philologos wrote: »
    What guilt? Hm. The more this goes on the more and more one sees that this discussion is built on misconception.

    What guilt? I was raised catholic ffs.. we're born guilty according to you lot.


  • #760
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    RichieC wrote: »
    What guilt? I was raised catholic ffs.. we're born guilty according to you lot.

    What do you mean you lot? I'm not a Roman Catholic. I don't see how I'm supposed to be burdened with guilt some how, even if I were an RC I don't see how?


  • #761
    Antikythera
    Closed Accounts Posts: 214 ✭✭Antikythera


    philologos wrote: »
    What do you mean you lot? I'm not a Roman Catholic. I don't see how I'm supposed to be burdened with guilt some how, even if I were an RC I don't see how?

    So you don't subscribe to the theory of original sin?


  • Advertisement
  • #762
    RichieC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,333 ✭✭✭RichieC


    philologos wrote: »
    What do you mean you lot? I'm not a Roman Catholic. I don't see how I'm supposed to be burdened with guilt some how, even if I were an RC I don't see how?

    Christians in general... are we not according to youse born with sin?

    the way I see the world is we're just intelligent monkeys born to take as much enjoyment out of our fleeting existence as at all possible.


    I call it the church of not a single fu*k was given that day.


  • #763
    dpe
    Registered Users Posts: 520 ✭✭✭dpe


    philologos wrote: »
    If God is the Creator of all things, including the laws of physics, chemistry and biology why would He Himself be bound by them? Especially when Christians and Jews believe that God exists external to the universe.

    Because once you're in this universe, you're bound by its laws (we know this through science, maybe you've heard of it?), so an entity not bound by its laws, would by definition, break them, and break the universe, and by the way this extends to any manifestation something that breaks the laws of the physics, including communication. Science has proved that the laws of physics are consistent across the observable universe. This isn't faith, this is observable and verifiable.

    If on the other hand God is external to the universe and can't interact with it, then you're describing the deist belief of the God who sets the wheels in motion, but that's it, he's an absentee landlord, and all this heaven and hell and god's love stuff is irrelevant because he can't deliver on that kind of promise. Funnily enough its a belief I can kind of get behind, because its logically the only way a creator could actually exist (I don't believe it btw, but its less silly than the desert God of Israel).


  • #764
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Antikythera wrote: »
    So you don't subscribe to the theory of original sin?

    Original sin isn't mentioned in the Bible. We are inclined towards sin, but we aren't somehow guilty of what other people did. In terms of our relationship with God we are guilty in terms of how we've turned our backs against Him and His standards which are in our best interests.

    It would be odd for an atheist to claim that Christians should somehow have issues with guilt because according to Christianity there is no condemnation in Christ Jesus (Romans 8:1). Meaning that Jesus has paid the price for our sins and we are forgiven.
    dpe wrote: »
    Because once you're in this universe, you're bound by its laws (we know this through science, maybe you've heard of it?), so an entity not bound by its laws, would by definition, break them, and break the universe, and by the way this extends to any manifestation something that breaks the laws of the physics, including communication. Science has proved that the laws of physics are consistent across the observable universe. This isn't faith, this is observable and verifiable.

    Indeed. God isn't in the universe but external to it and can act in it. If God created the laws of physics or biology or chemistry as far as I'm concerned it isn't a huge leap to suggest that He could manipulate these properties if He so desired.

    It is only if we assume that God doesn't exist that this is ridiculous, and I recognise that. However, as far as I'm concerned the assumption that God doesn't exist in and of itself is an absurdity.


  • #765
    dpe
    Registered Users Posts: 520 ✭✭✭dpe


    Ellis Dee wrote: »
    You couldn't make some of this stuff up, would be my first thought, but then I realised that someone actually did. :rolleyes:

    They did indeed, and then sold you time off for good behaviour. It was one of the reasons for the reformation; the catholic church stretching the shell game just a bit too far.


  • #766
    RichieC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,333 ✭✭✭RichieC


    philologos wrote: »

    It would be odd for an atheist to claim that Christians should somehow have issues with guilt because according to Christianity there is no condemnation in Christ Jesus (Romans 8:1). Meaning that Jesus has paid the price for our sins and we are forgiven.

    Well that settles it, so. no need for religion anymore!

    Praise _______


  • #767
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    RichieC wrote: »
    Well that settles it, so. no need for religion anymore!

    Praise _______

    There isn't a need for religion. There is a need for God and for what He has done for us.

    Christian living is about living each day in thankfulness to God for what He achieved on our behalf through Christ. If one rejects this then one is rejecting God and a chance to put things right with Him.

    As far as I see it you're not accountable for the sins of others, but for your own sin (sin being falling short of God's standards). That's true for me, you and everyone else as far as I see it.


  • #768
    RichieC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,333 ✭✭✭RichieC


    philologos wrote: »

    Christian living is about living each day in thankfulness to God for what He achieved on our behalf through Christ.

    This doesn't even make syntactic sense..

    "to God for what He achieved on our behalf through Christ"


  • #769
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    RichieC wrote: »
    This doesn't even make syntactic sense..

    "to God for what He achieved on our behalf through Christ"

    Tell me how it doesn't, I'm interested.


  • #770
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    philologos wrote: »
    What guilt? Hm. The more this goes on the more and more one sees that this discussion is built on misconception.

    What misconception?


  • #771
    drkpower
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭drkpower


    RichieC wrote: »
    Just laugh about it..
    Oh, I do.

    But bigots like Jakkass/Philologos, who advocate the eternal pain and suffering of good people need to be challenged. And ridiculed. And banished to the fringes of society where their sick & depraved views do as little damage as possible.


  • Advertisement
  • #772
    RichieC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,333 ✭✭✭RichieC


    philologos wrote: »
    Tell me how it doesn't, I'm interested.

    Tell us what he achieved on our behalf THROUGH Christ then... as the story goes he put himself inside a palistinian and nerd raged against money lenders, pulled off a few tricks then got beaten half to death and nailed onto a cross... then years of bleakness where anyone who dared say otherwise was set on fire... so what did he achieve?

    look at the amount of starving people on earth... all the conflict.. needless suffering...

    what exactly has he achieved through Christ?


  • #773
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    RichieC wrote: »
    Tell us what he achieved on our behalf THROUGH Christ then... as the story goes he put himself inside a palistinian and nerd raged against money lenders, pulled off a few tricks then got beaten half to death and nailed onto a cross... then years of bleakness where anyone who dared say otherwise was set on fire... so what did he achieve?

    He paid for the sins of mankind on the cross so that we wouldn't have to. According to Christianity (particularly emphasised in Romans 6 if you want to look it up) as Jesus died on the cross our old selves died with Him, and as He was resurrected we came to new life in Him. Hence why Christians often use the phrase "born again" which has become somewhat of a cliché really as most people don't understand what it means.
    RichieC wrote: »
    look at the amount of starving people on earth... all the conflict.. needless suffering...

    I believe that we as people should be called to help others who are created in God's image. Many Christians do a huge deal to help alleviate conflict and suffering in the world. I don't get what your point is here.
    RichieC wrote: »
    what exactly has he achieved through Christ?

    See above.


  • #774
    drkpower
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭drkpower


    philologos wrote: »
    He paid for the sins of mankind on the cross so that we wouldn't have to.
    ...unless of course, you dont or cant believe in god, in which case, of course, you will be in agony for eternity.....
    philologos wrote: »
    I believe that we as people should be called to help others who are created in God's image

    ....except those who dont or cant believe in god. Lets not help them; lets condemn them to an eternity of pain and suffering. What a genuinely depraved view.


  • #775
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    drkpower wrote: »
    ....except those who dont or cant believe in god. Lets not help them; lets condemn them to an eternity of pain and suffering. What a genuinely depraved view.

    Where have I said that Christians shouldn't help non-believers? Hm. :confused:
    Christians should help non-believers where they need it.


  • #776
    Bajingo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 889 ✭✭✭Bajingo


    Dravokivich wrote: »
    That may be true, but that doesn't stop some people from being agressive about thier beliefs (regardless of what it is they believe).

    That's the point though.

    Also, comparing religious intolerance to slagging of some ones preferred football team or political party is ridiculous. They're are competitive fields, with religion, there is no 'My god is better than your God', well, there shouldn't be. It's ideas like this that spawns hatred and I think Dawkins is only fuelling such hatred.


  • #777
    drkpower
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭drkpower


    philologos wrote: »
    Where have I said that Christians shouldn't help non-believers? Hm. :confused:
    Christians should help non-believers where they need it.
    You have said that it is just that non-believers be condemned to an eternity of pain and suffering unless they convert. That is your view, Jakkass, isnt it?


  • #778
    super_furry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,349 ✭✭✭✭super_furry


    Isn't Dawkins taking the piss out of people for their beliefs the equivalent of them telling him he's going to hell?


  • #779
    drkpower
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭drkpower


    super_furry wrote: »
    Isn't Dawkins taking the piss out of people for their beliefs the equivalent of them telling him he's going to hell?
    Dawkins might be verbally cruel.
    The likes of Jakkass/Phililogos genuinely advocate non-believers suffering for eternity.

    There is a fair difference there.


  • #780
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    drkpower wrote: »
    Dawkins might be verbally cruel.
    The likes of Jakkass/Phililogos genuinely advocate non-believers suffering for eternity.

    There is a fair difference there.

    Let's have a more accurate quotation less your spin:
    I have answered very clearly: I don't think anyone should go to hell however if people reject God they will. This is just, but I don't think anyone should go there. They should have the wisdom to make the right decision. That's my final position on this, any distortion is simply dishonest sophistry on your behalf that I have no time for.


  • Advertisement
  • #781
    super_furry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,349 ✭✭✭✭super_furry


    drkpower wrote: »
    Dawkins might be verbally cruel.
    The likes of Jakkass/Phililogos genuinely advocate non-believers suffering for eternity.

    There is a fair difference there.

    Yes but both sides are so fervant in their beliefs/lake of beliefs that both arguments/insults bounce back off them. Neither side is ever going to convince the other that they're wrong and they're both wasting breath is trying to do so.


  • #782
    Antikythera
    Closed Accounts Posts: 214 ✭✭Antikythera


    philologos wrote: »
    If God created the laws of physics or biology or chemistry as far as I'm concerned it isn't a huge leap to suggest that He could manipulate these properties if He so desired.

    With respect, if we had some ham, we could have ham and eggs... if we had any eggs.


  • #783
    drkpower
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭drkpower


    philologos wrote: »
    Let's have a more accurate quotation less your spin:

    Sure, or we could enbolden some different bits.
    philologos wrote: »
    I have answered very clearly: I don't think anyone should go to hell however if people reject God they will. This is just, but I don't think anyone should go there. They should have the wisdom to make the right decision.

    Try this quotation and tell me if this view is acceptable.
    I don't think anyone should be raped, however if people reject my sexual advances they will. This is just, but I don't think anyone should be raped. They should have the wisdom to make the right decision.


  • #784
    drkpower
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭drkpower


    super_furry wrote: »
    Yes but both sides are so fervant in their beliefs/lake of beliefs that both arguments/insults bounce back off them. Neither side is ever going to convince the other that they're wrong and they're both wasting breath is trying to do so.
    I am not trying to convince Jakkass/Phililogos. He is so utterly deluded, it is pointless.


  • #785
    Mark200
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,536 ✭✭✭Mark200


    philologos wrote: »
    He paid for the sins of mankind on the cross so that we wouldn't have to. According to Christianity (particularly emphasised in Romans 6 if you want to look it up) as Jesus died on the cross our old selves died with Him, and as He was resurrected we came to new life in Him.

    Instead of having the elaborate plan of sending down jesus to be crucified for our sins so we wouldn't have to, could god not just have changed the rules?


  • #786
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    Jakkass, if you don't think anyone should go to hell, does that mean you think god is wrong to send people there?


  • Advertisement
  • #787
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Mark200 wrote: »
    Instead of having the elaborate plan of sending down jesus to be crucified for our sins so we wouldn't have to, could god not just have changed the rules?

    He decided to do it the way He did presumably because it was the best way possible. It is considerably clearer to us that our sin had a price and that God forgave us.

    I don't see why this is a huge difficulty because it doesn't seem that if God did "just change the rules" that you would believe.
    MagicMarker wrote: »
    Jakkass, if you don't think anyone should go to hell, does that mean you think god is wrong to send people there?

    No, it means that people are wrong for rejecting Him.


  • #788
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    drkpower wrote: »
    Try this quotation and tell me if this view is acceptable.

    It's not comparable at all with rape. God is Lord over the universe, He has given us standards for our benefit and will punish us if we turn away from Him. Much like other authorities. I can't cry to the judge if I am arrested and claim that the law is unjust.

    You've brought up a different point that clarifies some things. The major difference between you and I is that I believe that God's has legitimate authority over this universe and you don't. That changes a lot of how we regard the idea of God's judgement of mankind.


  • #789
    Ellis Dee
    Registered Users Posts: 2,512 ✭✭✭Ellis Dee


    Antikythera wrote: »
    So you don't subscribe to the theory of original sin?

    How could anyone subscribe to such a ridiculous notion? How could I possibly be guilty of even something that my father did before I was born, not to mention whatever Adam and Eve did that got the sky fairy's back up way back when? Surely guilt presupposes that the perpetrator of a wrong is aware of what he or she is doing and can choose whether or not to go ahead and do it?

    But religion is really all about guilt. That is the weapon the priestly castes use to keep their flocks of sheeple under control so that they can enjoy the privileges, wealth and power that they love so much.

    They always need more money, which begs the question of why the sky fairy, who we are told by the god-botherers really loves us, won't allow them to do like we are told - rather implausibly - JC did - feed a multitude with a few fish and loaves of bread. And turned water into wine.

    Just send around a sky pilot and have him turn a bucketful of water into a nice Pinot Noir for me and I'll believe anything, too. :p


  • #790
    drkpower
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭drkpower


    philologos wrote: »
    No, it means that people are wrong for rejecting Him.

    Yes, and people are wrong for rejecting my sexual advances. I dont want to rape them at all. Right, Jakkass?
    I don't think anyone should be raped, however if people reject my sexual advances they will. This is just, but I don't think anyone should be raped. They should have the wisdom to make the right decision.
    philologos wrote: »
    . I can't cry to the judge if I am arrested and claim that the law is unjust. .
    If a judge imposed a punishment of eternal pain & suffering, for a thought-crime, would you consider him evil?


  • #791
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Ellis Dee wrote: »
    But religion is really all about guilt. That is the weapon the priestly castes use to keep their flocks of sheeple under control so that they can enjoy the privileges, wealth and power that they love so much.

    A huge generalisation of all religion and of all Christianity. There are churches that exist without any form of heirarchy. There are churches where the congregation are involved in leading worship. There are many ways that the churches are structured and it isn't always about a pastor or a priest speaking to a congregation.

    Secondly your claim that the "priestly caste" whatever that means keep their congregation under control this isn't simply true. One can do a lot to make sure that they aren't being manipulated. If one has a good working knowledge of the Bible one can challenge ones priest or pastor if they try to deviate from Biblical truth or use excessive control.

    As for money some churches don't even pay their pastors.
    drkpower wrote: »
    Yes, and people are wrong for rejecting my sexual advances. I dont want to rape them at all. Right, Jakkass?

    I've dealt with this point already. It's evidently fallacious.


  • Advertisement
  • #792
    drkpower
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭drkpower


    philologos wrote: »
    I've dealt with this point already. It's evidently fallacious.

    Why?

    I dont want to rape anyone, Jakkass, right?
    I don't think anyone should be raped, however if people reject my sexual advances they will. This is just, but I don't think anyone should be raped. They should have the wisdom to make the right decision.

    And God doesnt want to send anyone to hell, Jakkass, right?
    I don't think anyone should go to hell however if people reject God they will. This is just, but I don't think anyone should go there. They should have the wisdom to make the right decision.


  • #793
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    I've posted very clearly as to why I disagree with that argument and you've gone and totally ignored it. Fantastic... Do you want to have a discussion or are you more interested in re-reading what you've just said?

    Either civil and fair discussion or no discussion.


  • #794
    drkpower
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭drkpower


    philologos wrote: »
    I've posted very clearly as to why I disagree with that argument and you've gone and totally ignored it. Fantastic... Do you want to have a discussion or are you more interested in re-reading what you've just said?
    That is not an answer.

    Answer this, Jakkass?. In this example, do I want to rape anyone?
    I don't think anyone should be raped, however if people reject my sexual advances they will. This is just, but I don't think anyone should be raped. They should have the wisdom to make the right decision.


  • #795
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    philologos wrote: »
    I can't cry to the judge if I am arrested and claim that the law is unjust.
    Of course you can, if it is unjust. And any normal person can plainly see that subjecting someone to eternal pain and suggering for not believing in God is absolutely unjust.

    I'm confident that even you can see it is unjust. If the authorities in Ireland were to pass a law to punish people for non belief, would you think it an unjust law?


  • #796
    drkpower
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭drkpower


    philologos wrote: »
    Either civil and fair discussion or no discussion.
    Civil....?!!?!:D

    You want me, and many of my friends and family, to burn in hell for eternity.


  • #797
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    philologos wrote: »
    No, it means that people are wrong for rejecting Him.

    So god is right to send people to hell if they reject him?

    I don't see how you can say that and at the same time also say that you don't think anyone should be sent to hell? They appear to be contradictory to me.


  • #798
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    drkpower: OK, since you've effectively ignored my post I don't see what else you expect me to discuss. I'm not going to waste my time.
    dvpower wrote: »
    Of course you can, if it is unjust. And any normal person can plainly see that subjecting someone to eternal pain and suggering for not believing in God is absolutely unjust.

    Indeed, if.


  • #799
    ihateirony
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19 ✭ihateirony


    I'd just like to point out that you're all making a mistake here. I created the universe and set the standards that you should all live by and if you don't believe me you should just read my book, it says that I did it so it's true. If you reject me I'll send you to tethos (hell isn't real) and that will be just.


  • #800
    drkpower
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭drkpower


    philologos wrote: »
    drkpower: OK, since you've effectively ignored my post I don't see what else you expect me to discuss. I'm not going to waste my time.

    Your 'answer' did nothing to address my question. I asked you whether a this statement is acceptable or objectionable.
    I don't think anyone should be raped, however if people reject my sexual advances they will. This is just, but I don't think anyone should be raped. They should have the wisdom to make the right decision

    You started rabitting on about god.

    Would you like to comment on whether my statement is acceptable or objectionable? Or would you like to hide behind god again?


  • #801
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    MagicMarker wrote: »
    So god is right to send people to hell if they reject him?

    I don't see how you can say that and at the same time also say that you don't think anyone should be sent to hell? They appear to be contradictory to me.
    He thinks they should turn to God to be saved from hell.

    Of course that option isn't open to anyone who has already died. So, for example, if you had an atheist relative die recently, philologos believes that they are destined for an eternity of punishment in hell, and he thinks this is a just punishment. It's all pretty sickening.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement