Hell Is Real And Souls Go There

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
521

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

My only response to what you said above is “you might indeed, unless someone stops you.”[/quote]

They haven’t yet. And likely won’t. Bye-bye 2nd amendment. No loss, as it was merely a fairy tale.

[/quote]

A government that wishes to disarm you will attempt to do so.

They may take the trouble to officially repeal the second amendment, but it is not necessary.

The second amendment is a chain link fence and a “no trespassing” sign around a vacant lot.

It is an expression of your wishes that nobody set foot on that lot, but won’t actually stop someone who wants to enter.

523

See, I don’t judge good or evil by our will. I can hope blue would be your favorite color, too. But it still isn’t good if it is. Or, evil if it isn’t your favorite color. It’s still just an opinion. I don’t see morality as a personal opinion that I hope others share. If I did, I wouldn’t lie to myself by holding the opinion that some things aren’t allowed to me.

Because intellectually I’ve already decided that’s just not true. That it’s superstition. It would just be risk assessment. No good, no evil. No hope in it’s existence.

If I want a slave, it’s ok. In fact, it’s completely rational. So long as I understand the risks.

Me robbing by gunpoint isn’t evil, or irrational. Now if I tried to rob you by threatening to shoot you with a banana, that is irrational. A banana isn’t a gun. So long as I understand and accept the risk (like deciding to go parachuting), it’s perfectly rational, reasonable, and not “evil.” .

524

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

My only response to what you said above is “you might indeed, unless someone stops you.”[/quote]

They haven’t yet. And likely won’t. Bye-bye 2nd amendment. No loss, as it was merely a fairy tale.

[/quote]

A government that wishes to disarm you will attempt to do so.

They may take the trouble to officially repeal the second amendment, but it is not necessary.

The second amendment is a chain link fence and a “no trespassing” sign around a vacant lot.

It is an expression of your wishes that nobody set foot on that lot, but won’t actually stop someone who wants to enter. [/quote]

Why would they try to stop them? Who wants to die for a right they don’t believe they have. Especially when they’re more likely to be killed, presently, by private fire arms.

525

Just to make sure you guys know, I do appreciate your participation. I’m passionate in what I believe, and I know it shows. But I hope you all understand I enjoy your participation Varq, and Smh. The passion is going to come through, but don’t read it as if I’m screaming at you. In the end, I think I’m right (who would have thought it). Yet, don’t take that as doubting your intelligence. Either of you. It’s obvious you guys are highly thoughtful and intelligent. And present yourselves, and thoughts, as such. It’s always a better thread when you guys jump in. Even when we’re in disagreement. I’ll check back later, just wanted to thank you two for the vigorous exercise before heading out.

527

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

My only response to what you said above is “you might indeed, unless someone stops you.”[/quote]

They haven’t yet. And likely won’t. Bye-bye 2nd amendment. No loss, as it was merely a fairy tale.

[/quote]

A government that wishes to disarm you will attempt to do so.

They may take the trouble to officially repeal the second amendment, but it is not necessary.

The second amendment is a chain link fence and a “no trespassing” sign around a vacant lot.

It is an expression of your wishes that nobody set foot on that lot, but won’t actually stop someone who wants to enter. [/quote]

Why would they try to stop them? Who wants to die for a right they don’t believe they have. Especially when they’re more likely to be killed, presently, by private fire arms.
[/quote]

Dying to defend one’s life is no different than dying to defend one’s right to life. One would be just as dead.

I would fight because I don’t want to die, not necessarily because I “believe” in my inherent right to life. I would fight to retain my weapons and my liberty, because I want to keep them, not necessarily because I have strong convictions about my rights to them. Dying to defend a right is dumb. Fighting to preserve one’s life, less dumb.

If someone gave you the choice to die in the name of Jesus, Allah or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, it would probably make a great deal of difference to you, but in the end you would be equally dead, regardless of what you might believe about your soul’s final destination.

528

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Just to make sure you guys know, I do appreciate your participation. I’m passionate in what I believe, and I know it shows. But I hope you all understand I enjoy your participation Varq, and Smh. The passion is going to come through, but don’t read it as if I’m screaming at you. In the end, I think I’m right (who would have thought it). Yet, don’t take that as doubting your intelligence. Either of you. It’s obvious you guys are highly thoughtful and intelligent. And present yourselves, and thoughts, as such. It’s always a better thread when you guys jump in. Even when we’re in disagreement. I’ll check back later, just wanted to thank you two for the vigorous exercise before heading out.[/quote]

Likewise, Sloth.

We’ve always had good debates, and I trust we’ll have plenty more.

Talk to you later.

534

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

(Let’s leave the New Testament out of this discussion for a moment)

[/quote]

Hey, can we do that at will in a discussion? Chop off the parts that directly address a subject?

That would be mighty convenient! I’m gonna start trying that one out from time to time.[/quote]

Yes I can make that restriction, and you prove why I do so:
If it cannot be found in the Old testament, then why does it appear in the New Testament, and from what source?

535

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
…I actually envy people who are able to believe so completely in something without skepticism. It must be a wonderful feeling, one that I have missed out on all my life. [/quote]

The fact that you said this and feel this way is astounding. You really don’t realize how you’ve stumbled here?[/quote]

You read my tiger story.

Reread the final installment.

I am so skeptical that sometimes I am even skeptical of my skepticism. “I used to be agnostic, but now I’m not so sure…”

536

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

(Let’s leave the New Testament out of this discussion for a moment)

[/quote]

Hey, can we do that at will in a discussion? Chop off the parts that directly address a subject?

That would be mighty convenient! I’m gonna start trying that one out from time to time.[/quote]

Yes I can make that restriction, and you prove why I do so:
If it cannot be found in the Old testament, then why does it appear in the New Testament, and from what source?[/quote]

To what extent was Isaiah influenced by Babylonian eschatology, in your estimation?

537

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[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]

I think you’ll have the chance to ask Him these questions someday.

Your post is nothing but an age old game of semantic “gotcha.” There is nothing new under the sun.[/quote]
It would be awfully presumptuous of anyone to think he could ask God anything and expect an answer.

Besides, I believe however not like you. I may give God my soul. I may give Him my heart. I won’t give Him my intellect because, well, that would defeat the whole free will thing, now wouldn’t it?

538

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

You honestly believe that if one thinks that child rape is ok, that makes it ok? Or if society thinks it’s ok to rape and kill children, then it’s ok? What about the kids, don’t their opinions count?

[/quote]

Dude is totally on board with vacuuming out those same babies because of what the dictionary says… I doubt he has a problem with much as long as society says it is okay. [/quote]
Did I steal your girlfriend or are you just naturally catty?

539

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Just to make sure you guys know, I do appreciate your participation. I’m passionate in what I believe, and I know it shows. But I hope you all understand I enjoy your participation Varq, and Smh. The passion is going to come through, but don’t read it as if I’m screaming at you. In the end, I think I’m right (who would have thought it). Yet, don’t take that as doubting your intelligence. Either of you. It’s obvious you guys are highly thoughtful and intelligent. And present yourselves, and thoughts, as such. It’s always a better thread when you guys jump in. Even when we’re in disagreement. I’ll check back later, just wanted to thank you two for the vigorous exercise before heading out.[/quote]

Likewise, sir. Everyone against whom I’m arguing in this thread I have the utmost respect for. I, too, will check back later in order to continue the discussion.

540

[quote]pushharder wrote:

I understand where you’re coming from but you’re demanding something you’re not going to get in entirety in this life – you’re demanding all the answers without faith.

Redemption and faith. The two central themes of the Scripture.

You don’t need – you can’t supply enough – works to be redeemed. But you can – you must – supply the faith.

You’ve got to humble yourself and say, “God, I don’t get you. I am confused. It seems as though you differ from the Old Testament to the New. You say you want to be close to me but you seem so far away if you exist at all. But I am a mere man, a mortal created being and I defer to your infinite wisdom, power and grace. I will trust you, put my faith in you, and let you captain my ship. I understand you won’t instantly flood my mind and soul with all the answers but I’m just going to do the Nike thing and believe in you regardless of where it takes me. I’m going to do what seems to be so tough for me and have faith in something intangible. Help me.”[/quote]

I do understand, but here’s the thing: I’m making no demands. I’m simply saying that I won’t believe things without a reason to believe them, and I won’t believe extraordinary things without an extraordinary reason to believe them.

To draw a secular analogy, Stephen Hawking says that “because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist.” I don’t believe him, because I don’t see the evidence of it. (In this case, it doesn’t help that I can’t understand whatever evidence there is. But, still, I find this notion something of an enormous reach.)

You want people to suspend their skepticism with regard to Christianity. But why Christianity? Belief in Agni and the other Vedic gods requires an equal amount of faith, and there is no reason that I wouldn’t choose to believe in them. Come to think of it, why not choose to believe in Gravity, as Hawking does, rather than in YHWH? Agni, Gravity, YHWH, Zeus, Ahura Mazda–there needs to be a logical reason to choose one over the other.