Hell Is Real And Souls Go There

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
321

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
They were very real to the Greeks, the Egyptians and the Norse.

You’d be in big trouble had you implied that they were not to the devout believers in Sparta, Alexandria and Oslo. [/quote]
And that’s the problem with the religious. It is real to them and that’s enough for it to be real. Belief is not truth. [/quote]

And one day it will be Real Truth to you also. Just wait.
[/quote]

This is the stuff that I take issue with.

You don’t “know” this. Because you can’t prove it. And if you can’t prove a claim, why make that claim?[/quote]

There are some answers we will never know, I add, on this side of heaven. My faith is strong in the fact that people 2000 years ago lived and walked with Jesus. That they knew he was God, and he was here to save us. They also were killed because of that belief.

Now you say that is not proof, but yet we believe in the theory of Relativity from a guy that is dead that you never met. Now people have built on that Theory for 50-70 years yet it is considered Gospel to the scientific community. What is the difference? There is no difference other than people were not killed for that belief.
[/quote]

Scientists are always willing to change their theories if something better comes along that invalidates the first theory. Just ask them what the minimum evidence they require to at least doubt the theory of relativity and it probably won’t be much.

Now what type of evidence do you require to reconsider your belief in god?[/quote]

Scientist base their beliefs on Mathematics which is entirely man made. Now to reconsider God it would take a huge amount of evidence to change my mind. I have 5000 years of evidence that proves God exists. Theory of Relativity only 60-70 years. Which one has more evidence?
[/quote]

More evidence or older evidence? I’m not sure what your asking here.

322

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
They were very real to the Greeks, the Egyptians and the Norse.

You’d be in big trouble had you implied that they were not to the devout believers in Sparta, Alexandria and Oslo. [/quote]
And that’s the problem with the religious. It is real to them and that’s enough for it to be real. Belief is not truth. [/quote]

And one day it will be Real Truth to you also. Just wait.
[/quote]

This is the stuff that I take issue with.

You don’t “know” this. Because you can’t prove it. And if you can’t prove a claim, why make that claim?[/quote]

There are some answers we will never know, I add, on this side of heaven. My faith is strong in the fact that people 2000 years ago lived and walked with Jesus. That they knew he was God, and he was here to save us. They also were killed because of that belief.

Now you say that is not proof, but yet we believe in the theory of Relativity from a guy that is dead that you never met. Now people have built on that Theory for 50-70 years yet it is considered Gospel to the scientific community. What is the difference? There is no difference other than people were not killed for that belief.
[/quote]

Scientists are always willing to change their theories if something better comes along that invalidates the first theory. Just ask them what the minimum evidence they require to at least doubt the theory of relativity and it probably won’t be much.

Now what type of evidence do you require to reconsider your belief in god?[/quote]

Scientist base their beliefs on Mathematics which is entirely man made. Now to reconsider God it would take a huge amount of evidence to change my mind. I have 5000 years of evidence that proves God exists. Theory of Relativity only 60-70 years. Which one has more evidence?
[/quote]

Your evidence is every bit as man made as mathematics.
[/quote]

That is what you claim, but not me. You have any proof it is man made?

323

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
They were very real to the Greeks, the Egyptians and the Norse.

You’d be in big trouble had you implied that they were not to the devout believers in Sparta, Alexandria and Oslo. [/quote]
And that’s the problem with the religious. It is real to them and that’s enough for it to be real. Belief is not truth. [/quote]

And one day it will be Real Truth to you also. Just wait.
[/quote]

This is the stuff that I take issue with.

You don’t “know” this. Because you can’t prove it. And if you can’t prove a claim, why make that claim?[/quote]

There are some answers we will never know, I add, on this side of heaven. My faith is strong in the fact that people 2000 years ago lived and walked with Jesus. That they knew he was God, and he was here to save us. They also were killed because of that belief.

Now you say that is not proof, but yet we believe in the theory of Relativity from a guy that is dead that you never met. Now people have built on that Theory for 50-70 years yet it is considered Gospel to the scientific community. What is the difference? There is no difference other than people were not killed for that belief.
[/quote]

Scientists are always willing to change their theories if something better comes along that invalidates the first theory. Just ask them what the minimum evidence they require to at least doubt the theory of relativity and it probably won’t be much.

Now what type of evidence do you require to reconsider your belief in god?[/quote]

Scientist base their beliefs on Mathematics which is entirely man made. Now to reconsider God it would take a huge amount of evidence to change my mind. I have 5000 years of evidence that proves God exists. Theory of Relativity only 60-70 years. Which one has more evidence?
[/quote]

Your evidence is every bit as man made as mathematics.
[/quote]

That is what you claim, but not me. You have any proof it is man made?
[/quote]
Your last statement is in a nutshell why threads like this are ultimately moronic. Not because of your perspective or the other but simply there will be no agreement. There is really no evidence good enough that will change someone’s opinion in matters like this in a discussion. So everyone basically states their position vis a vis the other side and has no interest other than defending their own belief.

There has even been some recent studies…though we won’t call them proof of anything since seemingly the only things considered provable by the harsh standard of PWI are the simplest of definitional tautologies… that even stronger than confirmation bias is the bias we have when we are confronted with data that disproves one of our own beliefs. In such a circumstance its been shown people tend to double down on their held belief even in the face of fairly solid evidence.

Whats the end game for a thread like this? So some guy thinks Hell is real and lots of people are gonna end there if they continue on…does he really think there is some sort of change he’s going to help instill in non believers with such a thread?

324

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

That is what you claim, but not me. You have any proof it is man made?
[/quote]

It isn’t about proof, it’s about which assumptions are more or less reasonable.

It is unreasonable to believe in resurrection from the dead after three days based solely upon the unremarkable fact that it is written down somewhere that a guy came back from the dead.

Either that, or, as I said, you believe that Agni runs white-rayed through the sky, shining with treasures. Do you believe this?

325

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
They were very real to the Greeks, the Egyptians and the Norse.

You’d be in big trouble had you implied that they were not to the devout believers in Sparta, Alexandria and Oslo. [/quote]
And that’s the problem with the religious. It is real to them and that’s enough for it to be real. Belief is not truth. [/quote]

And one day it will be Real Truth to you also. Just wait.
[/quote]

This is the stuff that I take issue with.

You don’t “know” this. Because you can’t prove it. And if you can’t prove a claim, why make that claim?[/quote]

There are some answers we will never know, I add, on this side of heaven. My faith is strong in the fact that people 2000 years ago lived and walked with Jesus. That they knew he was God, and he was here to save us. They also were killed because of that belief.

Now you say that is not proof, but yet we believe in the theory of Relativity from a guy that is dead that you never met. Now people have built on that Theory for 50-70 years yet it is considered Gospel to the scientific community. What is the difference? There is no difference other than people were not killed for that belief.
[/quote]

Scientists are always willing to change their theories if something better comes along that invalidates the first theory. Just ask them what the minimum evidence they require to at least doubt the theory of relativity and it probably won’t be much.

Now what type of evidence do you require to reconsider your belief in god?[/quote]

Scientist base their beliefs on Mathematics which is entirely man made. Now to reconsider God it would take a huge amount of evidence to change my mind. I have 5000 years of evidence that proves God exists. Theory of Relativity only 60-70 years. Which one has more evidence?
[/quote]

Your evidence is every bit as man made as mathematics.
[/quote]

That is what you claim, but not me. You have any proof it is man made?
[/quote]

What is an example of your evidence anyway? Something that does not rely on anything written since those could have easily been falsified by man, or at least inaccurate, who knows we can’t really ask the authors.

326

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Yes, I have no problem with Muslims. I have a problem with extremist assholes. [/quote]

You are aware we have Christian extremist assholes ?
[/quote]

Name some that have flown an airplane into two sky scrappers. Also Name some that strap bombs to themselves and walk into a grocery store and blow up people. Do not even bring up the dude from OKC because he did not do that in the name of God.
[/quote]

So the horrific tortures done in the name of Chrsitanity throughout history don’t count because they aren’t real Christians, but those done in the name of Allah do count because well…it’s not what I believe so double standards are ok?

That REALLY can’t be how you rationalize things. [/quote]

So we will not believe what the Christians say because there is no proof that Jesus is alive other than a book, but we will believe that Christians tortured and murdered people because a book says so? Finish reading my post, because I explain it.

Now lets look at the two Holy books of Christianity and Islam. The New Testament says nothing about killing anyone. The Quaron says to either convert the infidels or kill them. Which is more likely? The Christians that tortured and murdered people were going against what God commanded them to do, or the Muslims that are actually doing what Allah told them to do. Now if you want to compare the Pope during the 15th-17th century to Muhammad then I might accept that, a false prophet.

Now why would you think that the Reformation happened after the torturing and murdering of people in the name of God. Maybe because they knew that the Catholic Church was wrong, and gotten away from what the Bible was teaching? Now that is actually 100% plausible, and that is how I rationalize it.
[/quote]

You should know more than most that how people interpret things is more important than what they actually say. The Bible has been used to justify all sorts of horrible things just as many other documents have and just as many laws have.

Very interesting that you pick the New Testament though and leave out the Old. What about the Muslims that choose not to kill? What about the Muslims who denounce terrorism and say the terrorists are not acting like them. This is absolutely what you are doing with “Christian” misdeeds. It’s a completely contradictory stance. Those awful things like abortion clinic bombers aren’t on us, but the twin towers are on all Muslims.

It’s amazingly disingenuous at best. [/quote]

Disingenuous? Over 30% of Muslims side with the Muslim extremist. Less than .05% of Christians side with Christian Extremists. And if you believe the numbers given of members or believers being the same for Muslims and Christians world wide that would make over 300,000,000 Muslim extremists and only 5,000,000 Christian Extremists. Who was the first to denounce the OKC bombings? That’s right the Christians. Did you see any Christian Church followers dancing in the streets celebrating the bombing? No. Did you see dancing in the Streets of Muslims after the attacks of 9/11? Yes. Did you see any Muslim Mosques coming out and denouncing the bombings? No. Now who is really being disingenuous?
[/quote]

Lol, so those are the definitive numbers of extremism huh? As in they interviewed every single Muslim and Christian on Earth? You may as well throw those numbers out.

Many Muslims have denounced the terrorist actions of people who “claim” to be Muslim, and these people say they don’t represent their faith. You say the same thing about Christian terrorists. That those people don’t represent your faith. And yet you’re trying to act like there is a difference. It’s easy when it’s your faith though right? To say they don’t believe what I do. That they aren’t like me just because they say they did it in the name of the Bible…but you won’t allow that for a different faith? Interesting.

If you would like to keep your numbers then you can make this conclusion from that data. Christians have a smaller amount of nuts willing to kill in the name of their dude than Muslims. That sound like something you’d like to hang your hat on?

327

There have been so many questions popping up after I post it is getting really hard to keep up.

328

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Yes, I have no problem with Muslims. I have a problem with extremist assholes. [/quote]

You are aware we have Christian extremist assholes ?
[/quote]

Name some that have flown an airplane into two sky scrappers. Also Name some that strap bombs to themselves and walk into a grocery store and blow up people. Do not even bring up the dude from OKC because he did not do that in the name of God.
[/quote]

So the horrific tortures done in the name of Chrsitanity throughout history don’t count because they aren’t real Christians, but those done in the name of Allah do count because well…it’s not what I believe so double standards are ok?

That REALLY can’t be how you rationalize things. [/quote]

So we will not believe what the Christians say because there is no proof that Jesus is alive other than a book, but we will believe that Christians tortured and murdered people because a book says so? Finish reading my post, because I explain it.

Now lets look at the two Holy books of Christianity and Islam. The New Testament says nothing about killing anyone. The Quaron says to either convert the infidels or kill them. Which is more likely? The Christians that tortured and murdered people were going against what God commanded them to do, or the Muslims that are actually doing what Allah told them to do. Now if you want to compare the Pope during the 15th-17th century to Muhammad then I might accept that, a false prophet.

Now why would you think that the Reformation happened after the torturing and murdering of people in the name of God. Maybe because they knew that the Catholic Church was wrong, and gotten away from what the Bible was teaching? Now that is actually 100% plausible, and that is how I rationalize it.
[/quote]

You should know more than most that how people interpret things is more important than what they actually say. The Bible has been used to justify all sorts of horrible things just as many other documents have and just as many laws have.

Very interesting that you pick the New Testament though and leave out the Old. What about the Muslims that choose not to kill? What about the Muslims who denounce terrorism and say the terrorists are not acting like them. This is absolutely what you are doing with “Christian” misdeeds. It’s a completely contradictory stance. Those awful things like abortion clinic bombers aren’t on us, but the twin towers are on all Muslims.

It’s amazingly disingenuous at best. [/quote]

Disingenuous? Over 30% of Muslims side with the Muslim extremist. Less than .05% of Christians side with Christian Extremists. And if you believe the numbers given of members or believers being the same for Muslims and Christians world wide that would make over 300,000,000 Muslim extremists and only 5,000,000 Christian Extremists. Who was the first to denounce the OKC bombings? That’s right the Christians. Did you see any Christian Church followers dancing in the streets celebrating the bombing? No. Did you see dancing in the Streets of Muslims after the attacks of 9/11? Yes. Did you see any Muslim Mosques coming out and denouncing the bombings? No. Now who is really being disingenuous?
[/quote]

Please check your facts.

http://kurzman.unc.edu/islamic-statements-against-terrorism/

329

[quote]groo wrote:
So some guy thinks Hell is real and lots of people are gonna end there if they continue on…does he really think there is some sort of change he’s going to help instill in non believers with such a thread? [/quote]

You could make your point about 99% of the threads in PWI.

Here is how I see it: Say you are shooting a pistol. If your aim is off 1mm at the barrel, your bullet will miss the target by 10cm’s (or whatever the math works out to). So I see discussions like this the same way. (I also see recycling the same way.) (It is also similar to the velocity of money and multipliers in economic theory.)

If I speak about a topic and it gets one, just one person to think, and change just one action they take that day, that effects one other person in a better way, so on and so forth, it was worth my time.

330

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:
So some guy thinks Hell is real and lots of people are gonna end there if they continue on…does he really think there is some sort of change he’s going to help instill in non believers with such a thread? [/quote]

You could make your point about 99% of the threads in PWI.

Here is how I see it: Say you are shooting a pistol. If your aim is off 1mm at the barrel, your bullet will miss the target by 10cm’s (or whatever the math works out to). So I see discussions like this the same way. (I also see recycling the same way.) (It is also similar to the velocity of money and multipliers in economic theory.)

If I speak about a topic and it gets one, just one person to think, and change just one action they take that day, that effects one other person in a better way, so on and so forth, it was worth my time. [/quote]

I’d agree for many topics. However never the twain shall never meet for someone that is devoutly religious for both someone of a different denomination or for someone that is an atheist. The world views are so different that the targets you’re shooting at aren’t even in the same zip code.

Now I think the same holds true for most political debates but I’d say there is generally more ground for some compromise in those. Though the same confrontational bias is there. In other words I’d let you wax poetic about Von Mises all day and give you a listen and perhaps some consideration, but you’re going to be pretty much ignored if you start trying to tell me about either Agni or an Abrahamic god in any non mythological sense.

I mean when he says blah blah hell is real and you’re going…all I want to do is put up a NIN video telling him God is dead and I don’t care and if there’s a hell I’ll see him there…but I don’t really think that contributes for a lot of meaningful discourse.

334

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

Because it has already been proven. Why do I have to reprove it? People knew Jesus and walked and talked with him. He was crucified, dead, and then rose again on the 3rd day. There were over 30 witnesses to this. Many of which would rather die than recant their testimony. So it is already proven. Now if you want proof that Jesus is coming again, then we have to wait for that.
[/quote]

It has been proved because it was written down, then?

And the portions of Greek mythology that were written down, they have been proved also?

And the Book of Mormon was written down. Proof.

And the Upanishads? Written down. Proof.

I’ve been through this too many times to do it again in full, but here are the cliff notes:

–That something was written down does not make it true. This is beyond obvious.

–That someone dies for something does not make it true. See: 9/11 Hijackers.

–Some claims require more proof than others if we are going to trust in them. If I meet you on the street, and you tell me your name is Hank, I won’t know for sure, but, given that it would be entirely unremarkable for your name to be Hank–given that other people are named Hank–I accept it. Even if you show me your birth certificate, with the name Hank on it, I don’t know for sure that you didn’t falsify it. But, given what’s at stake (not much at all), I accept it.

Say you claim, however, that your name was Hank, and that yesterday you were spoken to by a pineapple. Well, you’ve given me the same kind of evidence as you did when you told me your name–you just made a statement of fact–but this time, given the weight of your claim, I need more proof. I would, in fact, be an utter fool to believe you.

Which is a long way of saying that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and something being written down is not extraordinary proof. Historical literature is stuffed to the brim with people magically flying, shooting fire, jumping over mountains, coming back from the dead. Do you believe all of it? I assume that you do.

–In the absence of extraordinary proof, “miracle” is best described as simple falsehood, given how unextraordinary lying is, particularly lying about where we come from/what invisible entity is watching over us.[/quote]

That is not my claim, that because it was written down. I am saying the opposite. The proof that people do not believe is because it was written down, and yet they believe other things because it was written down.

My faith is first backed up by God’s work in my life, and second the Bible backs it up. The Bible is a book, yes inspired by God, and 100% truth, that explains God’s work through his people. Starts with the Jews and then opens up to the Gentiles (everyone that is not a Jew). You can claim what I believe as proof as not proof, but in my heart and mind God Does work in me. I know he is there, and he guides my path. Now is life going to be easy, far from it. Life is tough and God never said that Life would be easy if you follow him. It is sin that has distorted the creation that God made.

Now your reasoning of comparing actual Christian martyrs with 9/11 Hijackers is way out of reach. The Early Christians were murdered for their beliefs. The 9/11 Hijackers committed suicide because of their beliefs that is a big difference.

I see your points on the rest of the statements, but you are saying what God has revealed to me is insane. I do not believe that. If you had gone through all the stuff I have been through and come out on the other side still holding on to God you would claim it is a miracle. I should have committed suicide, or gotten heavily into drugs, been on welfare, and many many other bad things. I thank God for his grace that he has given me.

If you truly search, God will reveal himself to you also.

I have one last story and this ties into Zecarlo’s statements. A man is at his house and a hurricane is coming. The police drive by and tell the man to evacuate. The man says, “God will take care of me.” The storm comes and the water starts to rise. The police come by in a boat and tell the man to get into the boat. The man says, “No, God will save me.” The waters continue to rise and the man is on his roof. The police come by in a helicopter telling the man to climb up the ladder. The man says, “No, God will save me.” Then the man dies from drowning. The man goes to heaven and asks God, “Why did you not save me.” God says, “I sent the police in a car, a boat, and a helicopter.”

335

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
All I was saying is IF he ends up existing AND people burn in hell for not worshiping him then he’s a monumental dickhead and worthy of no one’s praise. [/quote]

Agreed.

If I was given a mind that cannot accept the fantastical elements of the Bible, and then burn for it, then I don’t want anything to do with the petulant child in charge of that system. He can hang with Dahmer.[/quote]

Well, to be fair, you guys seem to take for granted that man’s idea of worship has been correctly translated and communicated to you in a way that is similar to what the omnipotent idea of worship is.

For all we know the Being’s idea of worship may be a concept we haven’t even grasped yet as a species, and don’t even have a word for. [/quote]

True, and if this is the case, then what I said does not apply. But IF the Kneedraggers and Tiribuli of the world are right, and I’m going to be burning in hell…

Then fuck the guy who put me there.[/quote]

That guy would be you. Free will…

Edit: I see that you and Beans already had a laugh about it. You do not have to choose Hell though.

337

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

That is what you claim, but not me. You have any proof it is man made?
[/quote]

It isn’t about proof, it’s about which assumptions are more or less reasonable.

It is unreasonable to believe in resurrection from the dead after three days based solely upon the unremarkable fact that it is written down somewhere that a guy came back from the dead.

Either that, or, as I said, you believe that Agni runs white-rayed through the sky, shining with treasures. Do you believe this?[/quote]

I have never heard that story. Please tell me about it, also share with me the current people that believe it.

339

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

That is what you claim, but not me. You have any proof it is man made?
[/quote]

It isn’t about proof, it’s about which assumptions are more or less reasonable.

It is unreasonable to believe in resurrection from the dead after three days based solely upon the unremarkable fact that it is written down somewhere that a guy came back from the dead.

Either that, or, as I said, you believe that Agni runs white-rayed through the sky, shining with treasures. Do you believe this?[/quote]

I have never heard that story. Please tell me about it, also share with me the current people that believe it.[/quote]
Well its a belief of the words 3rd largest religion. At least as a parable or a myth if not literally. Which is much the same for many Christians…please true believers grant me a pass I understand that you believe every word to be literal but thats not the case for most of those who call themselves Christian…

By the way its also the name of India’s first long range nuclear missile…I am not religious but how fucking cool would it be if our missiles were named shit like “The Hand of God” or “The Holy Spirit”.