joseph brand wrote: » Zombrex wrote: » Well no, I think it is because I have a hard time accepting any justice system that says because I lied to my parents (something they seem to have gotten over btw) I'm going to face an eternity of suffering and torture. That might be rational to you, but I would wonder how much that is based on self hatred than actual appeals to justice. The Christian concept of hell seem far more like a made up concept to scare people into joining a cult that conveniently offered people away of avoiding this eternal suffering but only if you accept that the cult leader was God. Let's not forget: Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife. AND Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's goods. So, just by 'thinking' you'd like to spend some quality time with your neighbours wife, or 'thinking' that you'd like your garden to look like your neighbours, it's HELL for you. Seems legit. :rolleyes: OR Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain. Get stuck in traffic, stand on some Lego or see your team hit the crossbar and it's Sin-city. Everybody is going to hell, by the church's standards. May aswell live your life, or not, it's your choice.
Zombrex wrote: » Well no, I think it is because I have a hard time accepting any justice system that says because I lied to my parents (something they seem to have gotten over btw) I'm going to face an eternity of suffering and torture. That might be rational to you, but I would wonder how much that is based on self hatred than actual appeals to justice. The Christian concept of hell seem far more like a made up concept to scare people into joining a cult that conveniently offered people away of avoiding this eternal suffering but only if you accept that the cult leader was God.
PDN wrote: » Exactly. Everybody is going to hell without intervention by God.
Zombrex wrote: » Seems a bit difficult to believe though, doesn't it. I mean do we lock people up for disrespecting their parents? Or having sex? Even short term. The idea that everyone is deserving of eternal suffering as punishment for how they lead their lives on Earth (most people leading relatively simple lives) seems very far fetched.
PDN wrote: » That's fine, you don't have to believe it. And boards.ie has, in their infinite kindness, provided you with an Atheist and Agnosticism Forum where you can discuss your unbelief as much as you like. However, in a thread of this nature on the Christianity Forum I would have hoped that you could find something better to contribute than, "Well I don't believe it."
PDN wrote: » Exactly. Everybody is going to hell without intervention by God. And you have a choice. So you can choose to accept the Gospel or not, and live your life accordingly. It's your choice.
joseph brand wrote: » By all means hold your personal beliefs, but don't bring them into the political discourse
Canis Lupus wrote: » ...sentenced for all eternity for choosing not to believe in god.
Fanny Cradock wrote: » But we aren't saying that.
PDN wrote: » As has been pointed out on a number of occasions. I feel like I'm in that film 'Groundhog Day'.
marienbad wrote: » But the may be true for you and Fanny, but it is not true for all Christians, as far as I know it is not even true for the greatest number of christians. And so is not unreasonable to other posters to be confused.
PDN wrote: » I have met tens of thousands of Christians. I have yet to meet one who believes that anyone will be sentenced for all eternity for choosing not to believe in God. Therefore, unless there is someone on this forum who has argued such a position, it is just a big fat strawman - and not for the first time.
marienbad wrote: » Not doubting you for a minute PDN, but yours is not the only experience and I would hazard a guess that mine is closer to that of a substantial amount of people in Ireland than yours.
And people were told at a very young age that not believing in God and baptised into the ''one true and apostolic church''
PDN wrote: » It's not your experience, but your logic that matters. As soon as you typed that word 'and' then you basically self-imploded. You can't argue that people will go to hell for just A and then try to justify that point by arguing that it was really A+B. And, tbh, it's going to be a colossal waste of time discussing your personal misunderstanding of the doctrine of the church in which you grew up.
marienbad wrote: » AS I said experiences differ , you are too full of theology to see that we are not discussing logic, to most people in Ireland it dos'nt matter, there have their priests for that ( even still). I am not arguing anything I am just telling you what growing up in a catholic Ireland was like and in some places still is. You really should try listening instead of lecturing occassionally. And again I see your are creating another ''rabbit hole''- I never said it was my personal understanding or misunderstanding ( do you read peoples post or always just look for the argument ?) . Even today if you had a vox pop , on transubstantion/immaculate conception/ assumption/trinity -I doubt if you would get even 5% correct answers. And with that background a substantial number of people have a simplistic black and white faith. The level of ignorance on the fundamental tenets of their faith is something that is quite astonishing.
PDN wrote: » No, that isn't actually true. I believe the flames and fire are probably symbolic, but also that they symbolise something far worse than literal fire. In eternity, I believe, people will see their sins as they really are. They won't make excuses any more, nor will they wink at their sins. They will realise, for the first time, exactly how horrible sin is. The first sentence of the above paragraph could be argued to imply that they are unable to see the reality of sin in this life. The second sentence implies that they can see the actuality of sin - but wilfully ignore it. And the third sentence once again could be said to mean that they were not capable of realising the depth of their errors on earth.
marienbad wrote: » AS I said experiences differ , you are too full of theology to see that we are not discussing logic,
You really should try listening instead of lecturing occassionally.
And again I see your are creating another ''rabbit hole''- I never said it was my personal understanding or misunderstanding ( do you read peoples post or always just look for the argument ?) .
Even today if you had a vox pop , on transubstantion/immaculate conception/ assumption/trinity -I doubt if you would get even 5% correct answers. And with that background a substantial number of people have a simplistic black and white faith.
PDN wrote: » Your post was contradictory. Accusing me of being 'too full of theology' doesn't change that. I did listen. I heard a contradiction. You were the one who tried to pick an argument with me, not vice versa. And none of that has the faintest relevance to what I was talking about. We were discussing whether Christians believe that people will be punished eternally purely for choosing not to believe in God. In other words, nor for orginal sin, not for all the other sins they have committed in their lives, purely for disbelief and no other reason. You are well out of order in arguing that I am wrong, but then trying to put your posts beyond logical analysis by deflecting with ad hominem attacks accusing me of not listening, of being 'too full of theology', and of not listening. Marien, if you post an argument on an internet discussion board then you must expect people to examine the logic of what you post. If you don't want that, or use ad hominem attacks to avoid such examination, then you cannot really expect anyone to take what you post seriously.
marienbad wrote: » I really suggest you should read my post again , PDN - I did not post an argument - I posted what my experience has been - I can't see how you can dispute or debate that- yours may have been different ,but that is just irrelevant. And my experience has been that the level of knowledge that people have of their faith is pitiful. How you deduce what my understanding of faith or belief is from that is beyond me.
marienbad wrote: » I really suggest you should read my post again , PDN - I did not post an argument - I posted what my experience has been - I can't see how you can dispute or debate that- yours may have been different ,but that is just irrelevant.
PDN wrote: » I pointed out that Christians do not believe that people are punished eternally for simply choosing not to believe in God.
lmaopml wrote: » Marien, it seems you can join the ranks of the pitiful who blame everybody around them; afterall, it's your soul, your journey, your choices - don't go 'blaming' others, either you live and learn or live and quite simply give a side nod to something you seem interested in, but afraid of knowing. Don't you realise that there are millions of people who don't 'blame' others for themselves, for laziness... You know what- it's your soul, your journey, your choice etc. but despite what you may see as 'opposition' in fact you have 'good friends' and always will have them here.
Fanny Cradock wrote: » I'm going to throw the cat amongst the pigeons here and say that there are undoubtedly Christians out there that do think such a thing, which seems to be the extent of marienbad's argument. Of course, the question then becomes "so what?". If the Bible speaks a consistent message about the reasons for damnation (and I believe it does) then it stands over against somebody's poorly informed assumptions about what the Bible says about the reasons for damnation. It's like saying that because many people believe that shaving causes your hair to grow back thicker and in larger quantities that this has any significance beyond the fact that they are wrong. Do you have a point beyond this?
PDN wrote: » I pointed out that Christians do not believe that people are punished eternally for simply choosing not to believe in God. Christians, at least those who believe in eternal punishment at all, believe that people are punished eternally for other reasons -original sin, sin committed by Adam and Eve, sins committede by ourselves, or even, as you misunderstood it, failing to be baptised. You said I was inaccurate and wrong in posting that. So you were posting an argument. :rolleyes: Your argument was wrong. You tried to back it up by citing an experience which did not contradict or refute the point I had made. I am not disputing your experience. But I am pointing out that it was irrelevant to the point I had made. To imply or state otherwise was poor logic. When I pointed out that poor logic you embarked on a load of evasionary waffle about my being too theological, not listening, or lecturing too much. This gives the impression that you want to argue with something I said, but then evade any logical rebuttal yourself by saying, "I can argue against you, but my argument is free from being challenged or examined in turn because, in the midst of it, I shared an experience."
marienbad wrote: » lmaopml wrote: » Marien, it seems you can join the ranks of the pitiful who blame everybody around them; afterall, it's your soul, your journey, your choices - don't go 'blaming' others, either you live and learn or live and quite simply give a side nod to something you seem interested in, but afraid of knowing. Don't you realise that there are millions of people who don't 'blame' others for themselves, for laziness... You know what- it's your soul, your journey, your choice etc. but despite what you may see as 'opposition' in fact you have 'good friends' and always will have them here. What is it with his thread !! I am not blaming anyone , I am just pointing the existance of a certain type of christianity where not believing in god was and is certain entry to hell- As you saying that people that believe as such do not exist or what ?
PDN wrote: » But that is not what was under discussion. We were not discussing what was certain entrance to hell. We were discussing why people would go to hell - ie what people are sent to hell for. Those are two very distinct concepts. I'm happy to discuss either if you make it clear what it is you are wanting to discuss.
marienbad wrote: » What is it with his thread !! I am not blaming anyone , I am just pointing the existance of a certain type of christianity where not believing in god was and is certain entry to hell- As you saying that people that believe as such do not exist or what ?
