Zombrex wrote: » Correct. But the criminal does not throw himself in jail. The police do, acting on the direction of the sentencing judge. The criminal given the choice would probably just go home.
Zombrex wrote: » The idea that we throw ourselves into hell is ridiculous and unBiblical. God throws you into hell because he wants to.
philologos wrote: » I agree God punishes evildoers if they refuse to repent. God is merciful and just. God's justice was satisfied because Jesus took the punishment that we deserved unto Himself on the cross. I don't think that hell as a punishment is undeserved. We've rejected God and lived in contempt of His will. This is God's word and He's perfectly entitled to establish rule in it. We were under His loving rule from the beginning, and now we've turned our back on Him, that explains the fallen world we live in essentially. Jesus came into the world, and endured the wrath of God on the cross so that we would not have to. The penalty was paid, God's justice satisfied, and mercy received. This was costly. There's no excuse. Jesus has offered us a way to know God. If we reject Him, then He will reject us.
Festus wrote: God gives us free will and it is up to us to chose Him or reject Him. Hell is for those who reject Him.
Barr125 wrote: » And what of those who commit heinous crimes but accept him? Or those who reject him, but follow the moral code you believe he set down? I find it hard to believe that Hell is reserved only for atheists.
Barr125 wrote: » And, if he gave us free will, then why give us the choice? It's basically saying ''I give you the option to believe in me, but if you don't, you're going to burn forever.''
Barr125 wrote: » Here's another scenario: I point a gun at someone and say ''I freely give you the option to give me all your money or refuse. But if you refuse, I shoot.'' Does that sound morally right or just?
Festus wrote: » You can't blame the judge or the police for doing their jobs.
Festus wrote: » How so? Hell is the choice of those who transgress the law and refuse to repent.
Festus wrote: » The reason God does the throwing is that because Hell is so far away He is the only person with the power to move a soul that great a distance.
Festus wrote: » God gives us free will and it is up to us to chose Him or reject Him. Hell is for those who reject Him.
Festus wrote: » 1. I think you mean believe in Him but remain persistent in sin. Not keeping His laws is rejecting Him. 2. Do you realize the stupidity of that statement? 3. That is a very bad scenario for obvious reasons. Here is a better one: " A doctor examines a patient and says to them 'your lifestyle is killing you; give up your bad habits and change your ways or you will die' " If the patient refuses to change their ways and persists with the bad habits and dies is that the doctors fault?
Festus wrote: Hell is for those who reject Him.
Barr125 wrote: » 1. So, because I simply do not believe in him, but live my life as good as I can, I deserve the same punishment as murderers, rapists and child-molesters? Also tell me, have you ever eaten shellfish?
Barr125 wrote: » 2. No, please, enlighten me. Because as far as I can see, that's basically what you're saying. We have free will, but we MUST worship God, otherwise, eternal burning in Hell. i.e. accept God or burn in Hell.
Barr125 wrote: » 3. No, that scenario implies that all the patient has to do is give up the ''bad habits'' and he'll be fine. I have no ''bad habits'' yet I'm still going to die. So lets expand that scenario: " A doctor examines a patient and says to them 'your lifestyle is killing you; give up your bad habits and pay me this exorbitant amount of money so I can give you this medication or you will die' " The payment in your case is worship.
Zombrex wrote: » I don't blame them for doing their job. But again the point is that it is their job. It is not the criminals job to sentence himself, and if for example a judge sentenced a shop lifter to firing squad you wouldn't go "Well the shop lifter threw himself into that firing squad" The responsibility for the punishment a criminal will face lies with the judge, not the criminal.
Zombrex wrote: » God is responsible for both judging that an eternity of torture is a fitting punishment to a finite amount of (often minor) disobedience, and is responsible for physically sending people there.
Zombrex wrote: » It is not a choice, if it was a choice few would choose it.
Zombrex wrote: » Choosing to reject him is different to choosing hell.
Zombrex wrote: » Hell is God's punishment for when we choose to reject him.
Zombrex wrote: » That is his choice, like a judge choosing to sentence you to death by electrocution for skipping the line at the cinema.
himnextdoor wrote: » But you say that Lazarus was not resurrected. Fine; either the Bible is lying or you have misunderstood the term 'resurrection'.
himnextdoor wrote: » And yes, I was asking you but you can't answer, can you?
Festus wrote: » You do not simply not believe for the simply reason that you have gone to great lenghts and expended much effort in justifying you reasons to choose not to believe. Go back and read your question again. It might help if you read it out loud. The problem is your logic. But it's moot anyway as you have chosen not to believe in God and hence not to believe in Hell so why are you so worried about it?
Barr125 wrote: » And you didn't answer me, have you ever eaten shellfish? Trust me, there is a relevant point to it.
Barr125 wrote: » I'm not worried. I just don't like it when people tell me that they believe I should be tortured forever just because I don't believe the things they believe.
Barr125 wrote: » to the first point.....what??? ''I do not simply not believe for the simply reason...''?? But no, I don't believe because Christianity (or any religion with supernatural deity/deities) has not presented any reasonable evidence for the existence of God. I don't need to go to any lengths to justify my position.
Barr125 wrote: » I have no problem with personal faith. My problem is with the faith you're adhering to, the conform or suffer and you can wrap it up any way you like, but that is what it boils down to.
Fanny Cradock wrote: » That isn't what Christianity teaches. You aren't damned for not believing in God. You are damned by your sin as are all of us. And that is where Christ comes in.
Festus wrote: » they have chosen to believe in something they cannot prove, namely that nothing happens them after death.
Fanny Cradock wrote: » I see. So there are only two possibilities - either I am wrong or the Bible is. It couldn't be that you lack understanding. Of course not!
Fanny Cradock wrote: » I don't believe that you ever asked an honest question. You've only asked enough to allow you to get the next humourless and ill-tempered retort in, which seems to be your entire reason for posting on this forum.
Fanny Cradock wrote: » OK, so here is an attempt an an answer. The resurrection of Jesus is different from the resuscitation of Lazarus (and you can call it resurrection if you like; it makes no odds) in that Jesus' resurrection had eschatological ramifications - namely that he was the first fruits of the new creation and all that entails. Now apart from something extraordinarily strange happening to Lazarus and the daughter of Jairus there is no sense that the authors attributed cosmic significance to either incident. Additionally, Jesus continues to live whereas Lazarus and the daughter of Jairus are dead in the ground. You don't actually have to believe the above to recognise the difference. Now, did you have a point?
muppeteer wrote: » The irony, its delicious:)
Festus wrote: » Atheists chose to believe that nothing will happen them after death even though they cannot prove that nothing will happen them after death.
Christians chose to believe that something will happen to them after death even though they cannot prove that something will happen them after death.
muppeteer wrote: » Let me point it out so with a slight change to your post.
muppeteer wrote: » The rejection of a unsubstantiated claim is not faith based by the way.
Festus wrote: » That's rude. Can you not make something of your own up?
So you have no faith in atheism then.
muppeteer wrote: » None is required in the position of atheism.
Festus wrote: » So what you are saying is you don't believe in atheism
muppeteer wrote: » I'm saying I don't have to have faith in atheism to believe it is true. I only have to reject theist claims.
himnextdoor wrote: » I'm sorry but according to Catholicism you are damned for not being a Catholic.
Festus wrote: » Do you believe that?
muppeteer wrote: » Why wouldn't I believe what I just typed?
muppeteer wrote: » Do you see above where the sticky situation lay? Where you said atheists needed proof to believe in something without proof? Do you see the logic fail there?
Festus wrote: » No, atheists need faith to believe what they believe. Otherwise they have no faith in atheism and cannot believe it.
Penn wrote: » Wrong. I don't believe in atheism. I don't believe in any god or gods, so that means I am an atheist. There's a difference between faith and trust. I don't have faith in science, but I trust science. I trust that when a scientific discovery is made, it is subjected to tests, peer-reviewed and has sufficient evidence to prove it. No faith is required. Atheism is different. There is nothing to believe or have faith in with atheism. Once you have no belief or faith in god or gods, the result is atheism.
Festus wrote: » So you do believe then.
No, atheists need faith to believe what they believe. Otherwise they have no faith in atheism and cannot believe it.
muppeteer wrote: » Yep, I believe that theist claims are false.
