Hell Is Real And Souls Go There

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]zecarlo 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]
Who said it wasn’t already? The problem with most who claim to be religious is that they are fundamentalists. Faith without doubt. [/quote]

Is it doubt or their unwillingness to question? You can not doubt God exists and be a believer. You can question God of why? King David in the Bible did it all the time. I also question God about why things happen the way they do. It is hard to see through my eyes, but when you look back at history you can see parts to the question why.
[/quote]

It’s their unwillingness to search for the truth. They don’t have faith, they have simply been convinced. It’s not about the existence of God but the arrogance to believe they know God, speak for God…speak with God. Fundamentalists believe everything we need to know about existence is known. It has been shown to us by God via whomever claimed he speaks for Him. The things we don’t know, don’t need to be known. Any question that cannot be answered with scripture is not worth pondering, let alone answering. [/quote]

How do you come to have any opinion at all in life without being convinced of it? I think you should rephrase what you’re saying here because to me it doesn’t make any sense. I am convinced of all my currently held opinions or believes on science, on the Patriots, on the Chiefs being 9-0 and lucky, all of that. You don’t reach a single belief in your life that you aren’t “simply been convinced of”.

I’d also take issue with your comment that Fundamentalists believe everything we need to know about existence is already known…blah blah blah scripture and not pondering. I’ve never met one that thought we should stop researching drugs, or medical procedures, or physics, or math, or biology, or chemistry, or cryptography, or anything. You made a silly statement with that, it is indefensible and I believe that you know it. Your feelings on religion aside–or for that matter certain hot button issues currently being quarreled over–that is a manifestly false statement and you cannot defend it. The most you can say is that you haven’t really bothered talking to them very much. [/quote]
Faith requires, by definition, the presence of doubt. If someone says they KNOW God exists how is it possible? They actually have irrefutable evidence? No. Yet somehow they are convinced He exists. Now, you take someone who believes God exists. He knows there is no proof. He knows he cannot prove He exists to someone else. He believes God exists but he doesn’t say he knows God exists. You can say that, that person is also convinced however, if you read what I wrote, I qualified convinced with simply. One goes from convinced to belief then belief creates truth. The other goes from truth to belief to being convinced. There is a difference between those who need to be convinced and those who need to see the truth. It’s like a detective who is convinced that someone is guilty and then looks for the evidence that supports that belief versus the one who follows the evidence.

Do you know what fundamentalist means? Tell me how many support stem cell research? Evolution? Gay rights? None do otherwise they wouldn’t be fundamentalists. Besides that, I wrote existence. I didn’t write math, science, etc. I am talking about questions like why are we here? What are we supposed to do? Questions involving the human condition.

[quote]pushharder wrote:
God doesn’t need defending. Anything and everything He does is by definition righteous. Notice I said “He.”
[/quote]
Isn’t righteous a human word? And if everything He does is righteous it would mean he is incapable of not being righteous which means you have put a limit on what God can do.

And doesn’t right need wrong in order for it to be right? Good needs evil in order to be good? If God can only do good then is He good by choice or because He has no choice?

[quote]cryogen wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]smh_23 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]

You said it yourself: theory.

Physics is theoretical. And yet it holds up to experimentation.

Anyway, the point is not about science. Far be it from me to tell you what Einstein and Bohr said, much less whether it was true or not.

The point is about religion. You say that I will know “the Real Truth” in the end. But you can’t prove it–not even in the way that a physicist can prove quantum mechanics.

So why make a claim that cannot be proved?[/quote]

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]

There is absolutely no proof whatsoever that the fairy tale that you’re retelling ever happened.
[/quote]

And you have no proof it’s a ‘fairy tail’ nor that it didn’t happen. Amatuer.

[quote]pat wrote:
And you have no proof it’s a ‘fairy tail’ nor that it didn’t happen.[/quote]

There is a mountain of evidence that says that things in the Bible didn’t happen. You may not think it’s been “proved,” but the evidence is there and it’s a hell of a task for anybody to reasonably deny it.

But forget that. The burden of proof lies with the guy who believes in miracle, not the guy who doesn’t. If you tell me that you own a talking hermit crab, I don’t say to myself, “well, maybe he does and maybe he doesn’t.” I assume that it’s nonsense until it says “hello” to me.

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
Religion will exist because, when man doesn’t know the truth, he will invent it.

Si Dieu n’existait pas, il faudrait l’inventer. [/quote]

What’s the truth, frenchy?[/quote]

The truth is probably just as Voltaire stated: man needs his gods so much that even if gods did not exist, it would be necessary for man to invent them. [/quote]
Because man has already done just that. Or do Zeus, Horus and Odin actually exist? [/quote]

No, I want to know the ‘truth’ that zcarlo speaks of. The truth that man does not know and invents gods to take it’s place. What is that truth.

I am not looking for some dead guy quotes whose opinion is as wrong then as it is now. You people constantly, persistently think we theists use theism to explain the unexplainable, which is utterly ridiculous, but somehow we’re supposed to have a rational discussion with people who by default think and treat us as if we are stupid. For if we simply used gods to explain things, we would be stupid, really stupid.
I can just say atheists are just people who don’t want to be accountable for their actions are morally depraved so they kill off God so they don’t have any guilt for being evil.

Cavemen used gods to explain not understood natural phenomena. We haven’t done that since at least Greek times, perhaps even earlier. But atheists persist in painting thiests with that brush so that can make theists look stupid. Most theists are too nice to retort in kind, but I am not. If you have to resort to tactics to devalue the credibility of your opponent because you cannot deal with the substance of the issue, then you may just be on the wrong side of the argument.

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Isn’t that what you do too?

You claim to know all kinds of things about God. What pleases Him, what angers Him.[/quote]

Well, yeah…But that’s just it, at least we do.

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
And you have no proof it’s a ‘fairy tail’ nor that it didn’t happen.[/quote]

There is a mountain of evidence that says that things in the Bible didn’t happen. You may not think it’s been “proved,” but the evidence is there and it’s a hell of a task for anybody to reasonably deny it.
[/quote]
Which things are these? You know that the bible isn’t a history book right? Not everything in it is a historical account? Make sure this supposed evidence is dealing with something that is actual and non allegorical.

[quote]
But forget that. The burden of proof lies with the guy who believes in miracle, not the guy who doesn’t. If you tell me that you own a talking hermit crab, I don’t say to myself, “well, maybe he does and maybe he doesn’t.” I assume that it’s nonsense until it says “hello” to me.[/quote]

Burden of proof lies with the one who makes a claim. You just made the claim the whole bible is false. Okay, the Bible is the object which has the claims. So that part of burden of proof is fulfilled. You have the claim and it’s explanation written in black and white. I don’t have o do anything but present the book. Your the one who said the whole thing was wrong, so prove the whole thing was wrong.
You’re the one making the claim.

The object in question doesn’t beget burden of proof, somebody who makes a claim about the object is assuming the burden of proof. You assumed the burden that the whole Bible is false, so get to it. You made the claim, you back it up.

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

No sir, you’re missing the point. God wills when and what is good, and for who. It is objective, because it is ultimately within the jurisdiction of a being that is imperishable.
[/quote]

So when an infant is struck by lightning, and dies, God has simply decided that this is justice? Is this a yes or is this a no?

He knew it was going to happen.

He could stop it.

He didn’t stop it.

He is supremely just.

Therefore, the death of the infant was just.

Yes?[/quote]

If you need to label a lightning strike, then yes. No injustice was done to the infant.

8 pages? Damn people. 8 pages since yesterday.
Anybody convert to atheism?

[quote]Sloth wrote:

If you need to label a lightning strike, then yes. No injustice was done to the infant.
[/quote]

And my case rests.

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Perhaps He is not omniscient. Perhaps He simply doesn’t care. Or, perhaps He doesn’t exist at all.[/quote]

I would tend to err on the side of an omnipotent being superior to mankind. Therefore the concept of “care” being (assumed by me here) a human construct, necessary for survival.

I guess it is sort of like the whole “God v Science” argument and why it is silly and implodes on itself if you really think about it. The two ideas are not competitive and cannot be competitive.

If there is a God, science is simply the process of trying to better understand the Being’s work. If there is no God, science then becomes God, at least from a human perspective.

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

If you need to label a lightning strike, then yes. No injustice was done to the infant.
[/quote]

And my case rests.[/quote]

Which case? I don’t see the connection to anything.

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
And you have no proof it’s a ‘fairy tail’ nor that it didn’t happen.[/quote]

There is a mountain of evidence that says that things in the Bible didn’t happen. You may not think it’s been “proved,” but the evidence is there and it’s a hell of a task for anybody to reasonably deny it.
[/quote]
Which things are these? You know that the bible isn’t a history book right? Not everything in it is a historical account? Make sure this supposed evidence is dealing with something that is actual and non allegorical.[/quote]

Genesis makes no claim of allegory for itself. And if you say that it is indeed allegory, then I say so is the resurrection of Jesus.

[quote]

[quote]
But forget that. The burden of proof lies with the guy who believes in miracle, not the guy who doesn’t. If you tell me that you own a talking hermit crab, I don’t say to myself, “well, maybe he does and maybe he doesn’t.” I assume that it’s nonsense until it says “hello” to me.[/quote]

Burden of proof lies with the one who makes a claim. You just made the claim the whole bible is false. [/quote]

I made no such claim.

My claim is that it is the one who avers miracle who must prove miracle. It was on Joseph Smith to prove that he was visited by Moroni, not on the people to whom he was recounting the tale.

Christians aver miracle, and so they must prove it.

More simply, my claim is this: that it’s written that it happened is not sufficient proof for a reasonable person to believe that a man rose from the dead three days after his murder.

Or, if it is sufficient proof, then so must be the Upanishads for everything therein.

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

If you need to label a lightning strike, then yes. No injustice was done to the infant.
[/quote]

And my case rests.[/quote]

Which case? I don’t see the connection to anything.[/quote]

I am sure that you do.

You’re a moral relativist. If I live in a state which requires a minor to seek parental consent before having an abortion, and I allow my daughter to have an abortion, I’ve done injustice to the person in her womb.

But if God allows an infant to die by lightning strike–and nothing happens but by the leave of such a being–then no injustice has been done.

Moral relativism, simply of a different flavor that what we’re used to.

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans 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]

Please link to a story about a Christian “extremist” strapping a bomb to his daughter chest and detonating her in the middle of a market? Or sending a down syndrome sufferer to the same fate.[/quote]

What about those extremist assholes that murdered the “witches” in Salem?[/quote]

You have any proof that even happened?
[/quote]

it is called history

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

If you need to label a lightning strike, then yes. No injustice was done to the infant.
[/quote]

And my case rests.[/quote]

Which case? I don’t see the connection to anything.[/quote]

I am sure that you do.

You’re a moral relativist. If I live in a state which requires a minor to seek parental consent before having an abortion, and I allow my daughter to have an abortion, I’ve done injustice to the person in her womb.

But if God allows an infant to die by lightning strike–and nothing happens but by the leave of such a being–then no injustice has been done.

Moral relativism, simply of a different flavor than that to which we’re accustomed.[/quote]

Um no…

Moral objectivity. Morality being defined absolutely by the deity.

Lightning strike killing an innocent child. Not unjust. Just is.
Me killing an innocent child. Unjust.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

If there is a God, science is simply the process of trying to better understand the Being’s work…

[/quote]

Very true. But what do we do when the fruits of that endeavor stand in opposition to what’s said to be the Word of God?

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Lightning strike killing an innocent child. Not unjust. Just is.
Me killing an innocent child. Unjust.
[/quote]

Argument by assertion.

[quote]pat wrote:
No, I want to know the ‘truth’ that zcarlo speaks of. The truth that man does not know and invents gods to take it’s place. What is that truth.

I am not looking for some dead guy quotes whose opinion is as wrong then as it is now.

Cavemen used gods to explain not understood natural phenomena. We haven’t done that since at least Greek times, perhaps even earlier. [/quote]
Voltaire was right otherwise you are wrong. You have a choice: either all gods ever mentioned were real, some or one were real or none were/are real. If Voltaire was wrong then man has never invented any gods which means they are all real. You don’t believe that so you agree with Voltaire. Voltaire did not say all gods were invented.

What about the questions of good and evil? What about the purpose of our existence? You don’t look to religion and God for those answers?

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Lightning strike killing an innocent child. Not unjust. Just is.
Me killing an innocent child. Unjust.
[/quote]

Argument by assertion.[/quote]

Yes, that is what we assert.

“Dismembering an innocent child is unjust.”

It’s an assertion. God or not.

Would it be evil, to you?