The problem is, according to the bible, it is impossible NOT to sin.  So this isn't a thing like "hey, if you do this, I'll shoot you".  It's, as Tycho pointed out, "if you don't do this, I'll shoot you."  Not only that, our sins, no matter how bad they are, are not bad enough to warrant ETERNAL TORTURE.

Alright, perhaps, without God, we aren't worth anything.  Perhaps we don't deserve heaven.  That's fine.  But that means that, without God, we're at the zero mark.  No credits to the account, but no penalties either.  I cannot think of any crime we are able to commit that should move us from "no balance - go to boring purgatory/oblivion" to "pull out your toenails, set your body on fire, rape you with wild boars, from now until forever."


You included a quote about eternal punishment, but to draw on what Heath has been saying, there is nothing in that that says eternal punishment is a lake of fire.  It could be that eternal punishment is you never get chocolate ice cream.  It's a punishment and it's eternal.  Alternatively, it could mean that the punishment is eternal (i.e. - hell continues to be there forever), but you may return from it at some point - your stay is not eternal.  So the Matthew quote you put up does not tell me clearly that if I dont' believe in Jesus I'm going to burn forever, it just tells me there is something bad going on forever that I will be a part of.  Presumably, God being both Just and Merciful, will make the punishment fit the crime.  If I have shunned God, I won't have his company and that'll make me sad.  If I was mean to people, people will be mean to me.  If I set people on fire, well then maybe I get the lake of fire.

I agree with all this.  I'd say most people no longer want to sin (though they may disagree on what constitutes sin).


I have no problem with people deserving some punishment.  I don't agree at all that everyone deserves torture, even for a small amount of time, let alone eternity.


Again, this is all great, except for the fact that he's "Saving" us from his own dilemma.  He's not stopping someone else from shooting us, he's stopping himself from shooting us.  He's not just prevent us from going to hell, He's deciding not to send us there.  I doubt you would consider it all that gracious of me to say, "Just accept me as your savior, and I won't hit you with this baseball bat."  No matter how much I talk about free will, or wanting you to do the right thing, or knowing what's best for you, I'd still just be a bully with a baseball bat.  "Do what I say or suffer" is coercion.



Are you saying you no longer say these things?  Are you saying that you can, in fact, turn your belief on or off at will?  Try this for me:  stop believing in God for 5 minutes, and instead believe in the flying spaghetti monster.  Can you honestly tell me that you are capable of doing this?

As for why I chat with people about God, a very large portion of the US is made up of people with views similar to yours.  People whose views seem very strange to me, but whose views radically affect their life, and the lives of people around them.  I'm very curious to know why they believe what they do.  I'd also like to know what makes more moderate christians believe what they do.



Can you seriously pray to the flying spaghetti monster?  This isn't a rhetorical question.  Could you honestly, and sincerely pray to something you don't believe exists?  I can say "Dear God, help me out," with my eyes closed and hands folded, but if I don't actually believe in God, is it really a prayer?

Another issue with the "just try it," idea:  Are you willing to "just try" Islam for a little while?  What about Hare Krishna?  Heaven's Gate?  Are you willing to just give them a chance?  If you don't like it, God will always take you back, right?  I'm guessing you're not willing to give these religions a try.  Do you see how others might also be unwilling to give your religion a try as well?


Yes, I believe in right and wrong (though I believe they are not intrinsic, but rather are human constructions to help us survive together).  Yes, I believe it's wrong to abuse children.  Should God judge them?  I assume you mean child abusers, and I would have no problem with God judging them.  But I would have a problem with eternally torturing them for what they did.  We don't even do that here on earth.  Punishing people for doing wrong is fine by me.  Eternally torturing them is not a just punishment, however.  I agree that it'd be great if Hitler paid for all the wrong he did.  However, what if Hitler right before he died, accept Jesus as his savior?  Would you be happy to see Hitler in heaven, and the nicest, most charitable, moral, and just atheist in Hell for ever?




Yes, I'm saying just that.  And if an eternity of torture is on the line, I think you should be giving people every possible chance to avoid it.  Two chances?  Ten?  A million?  Yes, and more.  If you're going to torture someone for eternity there should be every opportunity to say, "okay, I messed up."  Especially if you're supposed to make the choice without proof.  It's not like people are actually deciding, "ya know, an eternity of torture doesn't actually sound so bad.  I think I'll go with that."  People don't decide not to accept Jesus, they just don't believe in him.  They don't say, "No thanks Jesus, I'd rather not take your free gift."  They simply don't believe that there is a gift to take.  To punish someone for that with an eternity of torture, with no chance later chances to accept the gift once they realize it's there is absurd.  Why in the world would you not want to give more chances?


Again, It's not that I'd rather not accept Jesus.  If I believed he exists, I'd be first in line to accept him.  I'd love for the Jesus story to be true.  But I just don't think it is.


I think perhaps you were a different sort of atheist than I am, then.  I would like very much to know Him.  I wish he were real.  But I don't believe that he is.

Certainly, you must accept that you stating our sins aren't bad enough is coming from your bias that your sins couldn't be, as you are a better person than a murderer. Likely I would suggest you aren't a murderer. However, saying you're not as bad as someone more bad, doesn't make you good. Certainly a murderer should be judged, yes? Your actions do warrant the punishment of not being with God. All of us deserve that punishment of not being with God. We didn't earn any right to be there, and we are not good enough to be there. God has given us the gift in Jesus. We're going to die, right, we all die physically. So at this point, if you take comfort in that death being the end, as you don't want to be with God forever and ever as He would like, ultimately, that belief stems partially because you don't want to be judged for your sins. No one would to be judged. But God is the perfect judge, and it is His view of Justice that is served, not ours.

God doesn't want us to go to hell. It was not created for us. We don't have to go there. Why would you want to? God has provided a very simple map to Him. Anyone can do it, as it's not by our actions that we earn our way to Him, it is by His actions that we can come to Him.


Well, I was specifically addressing the forever part, and how one cannot change their mind once in hell.

Let's go back to what Jesus said in Matthew. 18:8
8 If your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire.

I still think you're using the sense of just as in if you are more good than bad, then you have earned your way into heaven. But being better than you are bad is not good enough. How good does one have to be to get into heaven? You have to be perfect. We can never be good enough, even one sin is too much to be in the presence of God.

However, God provided a way to remove that stain of sin from us. Jesus took the price of our sin, and Jesus paid our price. We don't have to earn our way into Heaven. Jesus did not pay the price for some of our sins, and we have to earn the rest of it. Jesus paid the price in full.
John 3:16
6"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

He's doing everything He can so that doesn't happen to us. God even took the pain of that price. As a creation of God, we were designed with a purpose. Some people don't want to fulfill, but we still have our purpose even if we don't want it. You and I discussing this isn't a coincidence.

This isn't about belief, this is about choice. Essentially, I'd say the majority of the world believe there is a God. That either makes you crazy, or all of them. Understandably, you don't want to feel you are crazy. It is a difficult and frustrating thing when you think you can see clearly, so why is the majority of the world thinking differently than yourself. That's a tough question to swallow, and I understand why one doesn't want to change their views. Changing normal views is difficult enough, but one that is life changing is even more so.

Out of curiosity, why did you stop being a christian?

No one is confusing the flying spaghetti monster with God. Even when I wasn't christian, but searching for God, I wasn't fooled by no flying spaghetti monster.

The simple truth, God wants you to find Him.

Actually, I researched many religions before accepting the bible as true, and proven. I did search out numerous, and conflicting religions.

Obviously, I have great confidence in the truth of the bible. For good reason.

I understand you have a level of justice that is partially affect by how you see yourself. It's a bit bias to hold the view of justice by the defintion you use. You're not the best judge, and have a biased view of what is right and wrong.

That is possible, however, as pointed out earlier, it is not because we are good that gets us into Heaven. It should be pointed out, if you were to get to heaven, you'll probably be wondering how that person made it into heaven. Meanwhile, they'll all be thinking how you ended up there. Irony, no? Really, it is not our sense of justice, but God, who does know right from wrong. While you may think your moral, and just, think of it from God's perspective. You're keeping your sin, and want nothing to do with what is good.

That sounds like you're saying that you didn't know God left us some clues.

But let's not forgot you don't have to choose hell. You can chose otherwise, or not. It's your choice. God will be helping you chose what is right, and He seems to give open book tests on the matter. ;)

You're choosing how to live.
I can't remember who it was that said it is better to live life as if God exists, and find out He doesn't than it would to live as if He doesn't and find out He does exist.

Possibly. I was a very angry athiest. In your face kind of stuff,and couldn't wait to put down someone who was a believer in God.

No, my statement is that the punishment should fit the crime.  This is the same law God gave us to follow (an eye for an eye, followed by turn the other cheek).  So if I do not accept God, God should, AT MOST, not accept me.  Even that is debatable, since I am the lesser party.  A lesser party should not accept me.  That would be a "just" punishment by God's own law.  I cannot think of any justification for eternal physical suffering being a "just" punishment.  I don't need comparisons.  Say I'm Hitler if you want.  I'm the worst man alive and I hate God.  What have I done that is AS BAD AS putting someone, forever, in a lake of fire?




I agree, but your statement misses the point - if we don't accept God we shouldn't be tortured forever.  We should continue to have a zero or slightly negative balance.  Go to Purgatory.  Go to oblivion (I think many people would consider oblivion worse than hell, but it would still be fitting, I think.)  This doesn't preclude being judged, it's just applying an appropriate punishment.




No, I'm not.  I have never once said that someone who does not accept God should be allowed into heaven.

Are you suggesting there's a literaly lake of fire?  I would strongly debate against that, with much historical authority cited.  Typically, "Gehenna" was used by Jesus, which refers to a hot valley and has taken on other meanings, as well as the cites I quoted in the Hell thread.

I disagree that this isn't about belief.  I think it is entirely about belief, and very little about choice.  The fact that most of the world believe there is a God doesn't make them (or me) crazy necessarily.  Just means they (or I) are wrong.  You can be wrong without being crazy.  And since no one religion can claim a majority of the people on the planet, everyone, theist or atheist, faces the same problem: either I'm wrong, or most of the people in the world are wrong.  Most of the people on the planet don't believe Jesus was the son of God.  Does that make you think you are wrong?  I'm guessing not.  Likewise, the fact that most of the world isn't atheist doesn't make me assume I'm wrong.


I realized that I only believed in God because my parents told me He existed.  I had trusted that my parents knew everything (as most children do), and wouldn't tell me anything that wasn't factually true.  Once I realized they actually didn't know everything, and in fact did say things that were factually true (as all people do from time to time, I'm not singling my parents out for this), I started thinking more critically about things I had taken for granted before.  I realized I had never seen any evidence of God, or any reason to believe in Christianity over any other religion besides the fact that my parents were Christians.  This was around middle school, early high school.  I still kept going to church, going through motions, acting like I believed it all because I didn't want to hurt my parents or any of my christian friends, or get into arguements about it.  In college I finally started telling people that I didn't actually believe in God, which earned me a number of "get down on your knees and pray for forgiveness or you'll end up in hell!" emails from some of my friends' parents.  My parents were disappointed, but assumed it was just a "phase" I would grow out of.  The college I went to was a Lutheran school, so I had to take a few religion classes there.  Learning about the bible from a biblical scholar's perspective, made me see that a lot of the things that I had been taught about the bible as a kid were rather over simplified, or at times simply not true.


Okay, that's what I would have guessed.  For me, God is the same way.  I'm not "fooled" by that either.  Just as you simply don't believe in the flying spaghetti monster, no matter how hard you might try, I don't believe in God.  It's not that I don't "want" to, it's just that I don't.  Put another way, I can't pick up a pencil, hold it in front of me, and convince myself that when I let go of it it won't fall to the ground.  I simply can't will myself to believe that it won't fall.  No matter how hard I try, I won't be surprised if it falls.  Likewise with religion.  I actually just don't believe it.  Not because I don't think it'd be great it it were true, but because everything I've seen in my life seems to say otherwise.


Research is great, and I'm all for it.  I have no problem researching religions.  But "trying" a religion is different from researching it.  You suggested I just try christianity.  Pray, and see what happens.  That's different from researching christianity.  Just as, I assume, you'd have hard time praying to muhammed seriously, I have a hard time praying to Jesus seriously.  And when people tell me to "just try it," I get a bit suspicious.  Because that's precisely how cults work.  They get people to "try" something they don't actually believe, until they've done it enough times they actually believe it.  That's largely what's meant by brainwashing.  I don't want any part of a religion which asks me to pretend like I believe before I actually do.


What is your good reason?


Don't disagree with you there.  Though the fact that I'm not the best judge isn't going to convince me that a thousands-of-years-old book is the best judge.  I'm not saying I'm a better judge than God.  I'm saying I don't believe God exists, so I'm the best judge I have at the moment, and I'll just have to make due.


As I've said before, it's not that I want nothing to do with God.  It's that I don't think he's real.  And the idea that a just God would torture anyone for eternity for not being perfect doesn't make it sound any more believable to me. In fact, it sounds entirely unbelievable.  It just doesn't make any sense to call a being that would do that "good" or "just" or "merciful" or anything like that.


I don't know that God left us some clues, actually.  I know christians say He did, but none of them look like clues to me.  They all look like man-made attempts at clues for God.  Or natural occurances that people say are clues.


Again, it's not the choice that the problem.  It's the belief that there is even a choice to be made.


I think you're thinking of Pascal's wager.  The trouble, though, is that it doesn't work.  Living my life as if God exists doesn't actually get me into heaven, just as you said.  Belief is necessary, and pretending like I believe isn't going to fool God, is it?  Also, you can just as easily use Pascal's wager for any religion:  It's better to life as if Allah exists, and find out he doesn't than to live as though he doesn't and find out he does.  Or Krishna, or Vishnu, or Odin, or Zeus, or they flying spaghetti monster, or any other deity.


I don't consider myself angry, and am not looking to put anyone down.  I admit I don't like it when people try to push their religion into places it doesn't belong (public schools being the big one, other people's private lives being another), but if I get angry at that, it's anger at the action, not the belief.

Really, I meant the bias that it can't be that bad, as you are comparing just by your own values, which differ from God's, none of us have the same sense of justice, and perfection God has. Just because you can't justify that course, doesn't mean God won't do as He says.  I understand that you feel it is not ok, but I am going with what the bible says, not what I say.  God is the one who says being away from God is very bad. I'll take it at face value, and accept that I will not be able to understand everything that God does. But I also accept that what He does is the best for me. He's God and not limited in the same manner I am. He's God.


I understand the catholic belief needs a purgatory. It's what the tradition says. However, the bible says that Jesus paid the price of our sin in full, and that we no longer have to pay the price of our sin. If we continue to not want to be with God, then our choice is made. God is letting you have your choice. To me it's a non issue. Why would you choose hell? Just choose Jesus. Then you don't have to worry about hell at all.

Of note, it should be said our good actions here on Earth do not equate us to deserving eternal bliss. But indeed it is Eternal. Not many argue the unfairness of this reqard, only the punishment. To me, it's a non issue. God has given us so much, and He has given us a way to Him. There literally seems so little in need to focus on something that need not happen unless that is what you want to do.

Blaming God for making up the rules aren't fair to the way you would do things if you were making the rules doesn't follow. God knows best, and we don't.


I believe the context I was going with was burning forever.


If you want an actual lake of fire, it speak of this in Revelation.
Revelation 21:8
8But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death."
This is also referring to the second death. the first death, a physical one where your body dies, and the second one, where your soul, the spirit of you, is now dead eternally.

And remember back when I wrote what Jesus said in Matthew 25:46?
46"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

The punishment is eternal, just as the reward is eternal.

Then what do you mean by being being just if you have a view that doesn't take into consideration that good actions do not make you good.

It speaks of burning fires, and fiery lake of sulfur in the bible.

But really, it's a non issue. Being away from God is clearly very bad, and clearly not enjoyable.

Overall, the bible suggests torment, and fire. I understand the LDS does not follow such scripture when it leads that way.

Alright, but at least we see it from the other persons eyes now. Though I imagine we both already knew this. I wasn't always a christian after all.

I've heard similar styles of this before. Devout as a youth, lost as a young adult in college or university. Not sure why this happens so often. It was the reverse for me. Able to think on my own, and discover, I went against my atheist upbringing, and became christian.

How can one have evidence against God?

I didn't intend trying a religion. I intended that one learn more, and do things you probably already have likely done. I think many people have prayed to God for help, or direction.

History, and prophecy, and experience.



And you're sure God didn't use people to do this? You have evidence God would not use this manner?




It's a double standard. Who are you to say I can't have God explained in school. We're there to learn. To clarify, in order to have my way, an atheist view is squashed. In order to have an atheist view, the christian view is squashed.

Tycho, the very nature of opposing positions is that one cannot be had at the same time as another. We cannot have prayer in school, and not prayer in school at the same time.

Christian are just doing the same thing as you.

Well, many Judeo-Christian religions do not believe in such burning fires, and the historical and contextual use of the words in scripture also does not suggest anything literal.

I'm not sure how you can say it's not fire, when the words are translated as fire.

translated is your key there.

Also, if I say I feel like a million bucks or this headache is killing me, someone 2000 years in the future may take it more literally than I mean it.  If they translate it into Japanese, it would sound like "I touch a million US dollars."

I thought I'd check that angle of translation, and I have to say the literal meanings, and the context in hebrew or greek suggests the same thing.

I assume you are referring to other books as your guide in this matter?

You didn't give me a reference, so I had to go with my general knowledge.

I refer you to "Fire in the Bible":  http://www.tentmaker.org/BreakingBread/1.html

It discusses the many cultural uses of "fire" in the Bible...not literal.

and

http://www.tentmaker.org/books/GatesOfHell.html


That one also discusses the errancy of the translations of words such as "Sheol" (the place of the dead) to "Hell."

And one of the best ones, that I quoted in the Hell thread--this one is definitely required reading for understanding the usage of the many words translated as "Hell":  http://www.tentmaker.org/artic...steachingonhell.html

ANd if you do believe, despite the evidence, that the Bible writers meant there to be a literal hell, then you have to answer the many inconsistencies, as presented in:  http://www.what-the-hell-is-he...ellsEternalDeath.htm

FYI, none of these are LDS sources.  I am not bringing LDS beliefs into this discussion, only the beliefs of the ancient Jews and early Christians.

Ahh, I see. However, in all the references I used in this thread were from the NT, and involved eternal punishment, burning, and fiery lake of sulfur.

So my first idea off the top of my head, is that the eternal punishment is still mentioned in fire, and burning, and seems applied to other concepts such as sheol.

That's just a guess at the moment. There could be more to the issue. For the moment though, I think eternal punishment, and fiery lake as the punishment seems to still in context of the bible.

It's more a lack of evidence for God, than evidence against Him.  I haven't seen anything that can't be explained by natural processes.  I haven't seen or heard God.  I've heard lots of people who claim to talk to some deity or another, I know that at least some of them aren't correct (because they contradict each other), so I know that I shouldn't believe everyone who says they've experienced God first hand.  This isn't to say I think they're lying.  Many of them seem completely sincere in their belief that they've experienced God first hand.  I don't think they're lying, so much as mistaken.  Though others certainly are lying.  Whatever the case, I'll need far more evidence than someone's word to convince me of truth behind any religion.



No, I can't be completely certain that God didn't use people to do this.  But I know for certain that some people who claim to have "clues" don't actually have clues.  I don't have evidence that God would not use this manner, because I that would imply I had evidence that God exists.  But I also don't have any evidence that he would use this manner, other than the people claiming to be using this manner in the first place.  It also seems to me that if God really wanted people to believe in Him, and worship Him, he wouldn't have gone to such lengths to make it look like he doesn't exist.


I disagree entirely on this.  I'm not proposing that atheism be promoted or taught in public schools.  I'm not requesting that all students say "there is no God" before each class.  I'm not asking christians to take any actions contrary to their beliefs.  All that I'm requesting is that people keep their religion to themselves, and not try to push it on people who don't share that religion while they're at public school.  Everyone's religion should be their own business, and a public school should not promote any religion over any other.  The purpose of public schools is education, not religious indoctrination.  No one is saying you can't teach your kids your religion in sunday school, at your church, and in your home.  They're just saying that it's your job to do so, not the public school's.

Rogue4jc, do you consider this an atheist/theist issue, or a christian/non-christian issue?  Do you think every religion should be allowed to promote itself and recruit members at public schools, or just christianity?  Are there any religious groups that you would oppose leading prayers in your child's school?  Are you saying that all religions should be able to promote themselves at public schools, or is christianity a special case?

Okay, I wasn't following all your posts with Tycho.  However, the NT is even less trustworty on the Hell issue than the OT.  Also, "eternal" applies to the quality of the punishment, not the applicable timeframe.  So an eternal god gives eternal punishment to expiate the sin and move one towards eternal happiness.  I think I discussed that awhile back too.

There is talk of miracles, such as Jesus rising from death 3 days later. This can only be done if someone is a lair, or it is real. The people who professed it as truth died for this. If they knew it was a lie, then they died for a lie. Not something people would do if they knew it a lie. Prophecy in the bible is sometimes quite specific, as you are aware of. Once or twice, maybe three times is lucky, but dozens of times can't be coincidence. Not everything can be explained by natural process.

God didn't go to any effort to hide him. God left the bible for us. It has an excellent history. I understand not being certain, but assuming all must be wrong is based on wanting other things to be true. Certainly, it's not scientific to ignore all other evidence so that non spiritual reasons must come first. Really, it takes faith on that matter. Faith in atheism.

The school is made up by the public, which means the public should have a say what is taught. It's the publics dollars being spent after all. Saying only non religious matter should be taught is an atheist stand point. You would be saying that people should not have a say of what is being taught in their school. I'm saying they should.

I consider it a God/satan issue. A spiritual war against the devil, and demons. Should every religion be given equal chance? No. In this case, it's a majority here. I do not think it is ok that a wiccan should have that faith influence the 75% christian population. (In Canada, it's supposed to be around the 75% mark).

As for myself, I do not support other faiths. Obvious reason is that I would not want undue influence, such as secularism and the large impact it has right now on faith. Certainly bias, but I'm christian.

Saying NT is less reliable than OT isn't making much sense. Could you explain why the words are less trustworthy? Do you mean that because it disagrees with other sources such as LDS scripture, that the NT is unreliable?

I don't think I follow quality of eternal. Eternal not meaning forever? Could you explain that further?

It is less trustworthy because the word translated as "hell" comes from several sources, and has to be then translated through Greek...so it could have been written as Gehenna or Hades or something else that has connotations we now attach to it but which wasn't meant that way when spoken...i.e. less trustworthy because things get lost in translation.

Again, not an LDS thing at all, just trying to figure out how it was meant when it was first said...such as the Gehenna reference I quoted in the Hell thread showing that no one in Jesus' time would have taken Gehenna to be a burning hell like we might picture it.

In other words, if it's written "Hades" then suddenly we get this Roman inspired view of Hell when it's just a problem with the image brought up by the word.

Add to that the Doctrine of Reserve brought about in the early Christian church...
This message was last edited by the GM at 21:12, Sat 09 Dec 2006.

They could be lying, it could be real, or they could be mistaken.  And as far as I know, the way we know that people died for claiming this, is from people same people telling us the original story anyway.  But even if they did die for it, people have died for other religions as well.

As for prophecies, we've discussed this before, and we clearly view them differently.  I think you consider the prophecies about the messiah to be most impressive, while I consider them most of them to have been added after the fact.  Such as Mathew claiming that mary was a virgin, due to an incorrect translation of the original prophecy that said young woman.  Likewise the whole story about them being from bethleham, which John never mentions.  I think the gospels, Mathew in particular, have had things added to the story in order to make it appear that Jesus fulfilled the prophecies.  Other prophecies don't include a date for them to happen, so can never be shown to be wrong.  They've either been fulfilled, or "still will be sometime in the future," which makes them not very impressive to me either.  One of the few prophecies I know of in the bible that does include a time frame was when Jesus said the second coming would occur before the generation of the disciples was over.


I'm not assuming everything in the bible is wrong.  But words in a thousand of year old book aren't sufficient to make me believe the supernatural stuff.  I don't believe the stories of Zeus or Odin either, even though we have books that tell stories about them.  I don't believe anyone who makes an outrageous claim just because they say so and I can't disprove it.  If I said "I talked to God in a chatroom yesterday," you wouldn't believe me.  You'd think I was either lying, or simply was fooled.  But when Moses tells people, "I talked to God in a burning bush when no one else was around!" you think that seems like good evidence.


We might need a new topic for this, since it's getting a lot of discussion lately.

Saying people can't promote their religion in public school isn't an atheist view point.  It's an everyone-who's-not-in-the-majority view point.  Because according to you, whichever religion is in the majority should get to indoctrinate other people's children in public schools.  An atheist view point would be teaching that there is no God.  That's not what I'm suggesting, and it's not what people who don't want prayer in school are suggesting.  What you're asking for is not equal treatment, but for special privileges.


If a whole bunch of Wiccans move to your town, and suddenly become the majority, will you be perfectly okay with them promoting Wicca in the school?  If not, your majority arguement is a distraction.  What you really want is for christians, and no one else, to be able to promote their religion in school.  You're asking to get special privileges that you don't want others to have.


It's good that you realize you're biased.  But it doesn't do much good if you don't use that knowledge to try an overcome your bias.  Here is some general advice that applies to this situation, and many others as well:  If you are asking for privileges that you don't want other people to have, you're probably not being fair or reasonable.  If you're saying "we should get X because we're in the majority," but you wouldn't want other groups to get X if they were in the majority, you're probably being unreasonable.  We live in a society with different ideas, view points, and opinions.  If we want that to continue, we can't try to force everyone to agree with the majority.  The majority has a responsibility to not abuse the power it gets from being the majority.  A good check on that power is to ask yourself if you would support what you're proposing if you weren't in the majority.  If it was the other groups that would get the benefit instead of you.

You seem to realize that you want Christianity, and just chistianity, in schools.  Ask yourself how you'd feel if another religion was the majority, and were trying to force their religion into the school, and teach your kids their religion, while you had no chance to promote Christianity in the school.  Honestly, think about that for a moment.  Imagine it.  That's how non-christians feel when people try to promote christianity in their schools.  They think, "why do these people have the right to push their religion on my child?  Why is what my child believes their business?"

My own values?  So are you saying that how an eternity of burning your skin off with no chance of redemption or repentance is equal to not converting when you had the chance is a divine mystery?  That if only we had the knowledge and understanding of God, that somehow the two would come into perspective and we see how not accepting Jesus is just as morally wrong as setting someone on fire until the end of time?



However, as heath has been pointing out, some of these readings may be meant to be taken at more than just face value.  In many cases it's mistranslations.  Sometimes the story is misapplied.  I understand that if you can accept the world was created in 7 days, that the idea of punishing heathens with an eternity of torture makes sense, but I don't, and the thought of such thuggery is repugnant to me.

God shouldn't have to threaten us with a hammer to make us "love" Him, and torturing us unnecessarily for a crime long past is gratuitous violence.  The simplest solution is, if we don't accept God, God doesn't accept us, and we simply slip into oblivion (perhaps after some time in the cleansing fires).  As I said before, anything more wicked than that is simply thuggery.  It's God with-holding mercy and dispensing false and wicked justice, neither of which applies to the God I know.  I don't know that I could love anyone who allowed such a wicked thing to continue.



That I can accept (and have not disputed).



1)  No, but I think good actions are a sign of your having accepted Jesus.  Jesus was a peacemaker.  If you commit genocide, or lead an unjust war for personal profit, you haven't accepted Jesus, and as long as you continue to allow it to continue, when you are able to stop it, Jesus is not acting in your life.

2)  I would argue that we don't deserve eternal bliss.  We deserve nothing, not heaven, not hell, just nothing.  However, if God insists we have eternal bliss, I'm not about to argue.  I'll question it :)  And perhaps a thread about what is heaven (since there seem to be disagreements and contradictions) would be interesting, but it certainly isn't "deserved".



But some truths are so self-evident that I, as a rational creature (rational because God made me so), applying the rules God has given me, balk at it.  Of course, there is the possibility that after death God messes around with the rules of the game so suddenly a minor infraction really DOES deserve that sort of thing.  I mean, He can make hot cold and 0 equal 1, so I won't disregard him being able to make unjust judgements just.

I am also of the opinion that God wants us to use our rational minds to seek and know Him better.  That is what I am doing.  Again, my rational mind tells me that this sort of behavior, perpetrated by a warlord dictator, a fallen angel, or the creator of all, is cruel and unjust.  Because of this, I feel obligated to question and understand the truth of this.  How can this be just?  And if it isn't just, what is the real message?  I agree with Heath that the real message has been corrupted by human error, and each of us has to work to uncover what it really was.  God has always made it so that we have to struggle to get closer to God, that there are many false roads, false temptations.  I would question anyone who, in any field, says "ah!  I have the answer!" and stops questioning.  It would seem to be contrary to the nature of what God intends with us.



Revelations was a dream and is, without question, the most metaphorical part of the bible.  It's full of strange creatures and monsters rising out of the sea that cannot exist on earth.  Even the most fundamentalist of Christians have interpreted it almost wholly as metaphor to be interpreted, not literal.




The best actions we can commit do not justify an eternity of bliss, just as the worst we commit do not justify an eternity of torment.  Honestly, considering how our brains are wired, the most "just" reward, good or bad, would be something akin to reincarnation.  If you're bad, you get reincarnated in a bad place, and you get taken advantage of (or helped) by people better than you.  If you're good, you get reincarnated as a person with more power and more luxuries.  You continue in the loop until you're ready to go.  Except in this case, you'd carry over more memories, so you can learn better from your mistakes and the person who was alive before doesn't die (since if your previous life disappears and everything is lost, it's as though you died).  Eventually you would seek oblivion and receive it.  Alternatively, death is simply oblivion, full stop.  These things reward temporal goodness with temporal goodness, or reward a life that ultimately can't be easily measured one way or the other with exactly what came before it.  All debts are settled because all debts disappear.  Neither right nor wronged maintain their positions in oblivion.

None of the situations presented to us in the bible are just.  Eternal bliss is merciful, eternal torment is cruel.  It's only by the grace and mercy of God that we are allowed the gift of the former.  This is why it makes me question why the justice of God is supposed to condemn us to the latter.

On the topic of what you two are discussing, we are mortals born into weak and mortal bodies.  We have carnality and many inclination driving us to take actions which are contrary to the nature of God, many destructive, many just very wasteful.  God didn't create us to "be perfect" or "earn heaven."  That's just not the purpose of our being here.

But it is our purpose to try to have our spirits overcome those natures within us that are contrary to God.  Not only will we be stronger and better because of the conflict, but we will appreciate the good that much more when it comes (like a sick person appreciating health when it finally returns).  So one purpose is to do all we can to follow God.  In the LDS church, there is a saying that:  "God saves us after all we can do."  Just as our children don't really earn most of what we get, we just want them to try their best and we carry them the rest of the way.  No one's suggesting we earn our way into heaven, but merely that we try our best to conform our spirits to what God would have them be, and He (seeing our faith and desire to be with Him manifested) will reward us even though we really don't deserve it.

The other purpose is for our spirits to gain physical bodies so we can be resurrected as part of spiritual progression--everyone on earth gets that automatically.  So even the worst people on earth get one step up in their spiritual progression.  For God to give you a physical body and then subject it to the physical torments of a hell just doesn't make sense to me.  Being unworthy and unwilling due to your proclivities to accept God's set standards and covenant with him is what creates a "hell" after resurrection...i.e. eternal separation from God.

BUMP.
Another discussion about Heaven and Hell.