Hell Is Real And Souls Go There

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

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.
[/quote]

The point was simply that something is not proved by virtue of the fact that people died for it, and the point stands. You offered Christian martyrdom as evidence of Christianity’s “truth.” This is simply fallacious reasoning.

Change it to the Cathars if you’d like. That they died because they believed what they did says absolutely nothing about the truth or falsity of that belief. It does, of course, speak to their commitment. But that is another story.

Regarding the rest of your post, which isn’t quoted here only for the sake of saving space: I understand that you believe, and what you provided is really a personal account of your belief. This I respect completely. But it isn’t really what we’re talking about, which is religion as an objectively demonstrable truth, or as something that you can convince me is “true.”

I say that religion is no such thing. I also say that this is obvious, given the importance of “faith,” which is really belief without proof. If Christianity could be proved in the way it’s been “proved” that AIDS is caused by HIV, then I would be Christian. Yes, there would always be some deniers, just as there are deniers who think that AIDS is a hoax, or caused by ARV, or whatever. But me–I’d be a Christian.

However, Christianity is not demonstrably true. It cannot be “proved,” and by “proved” I don’t mean shown to be objectively true beyond any doubt. I mean “proved” in the way that it was proved that AIDS is caused by HIV. If you think it can indeed be “proved” in a comparable way, then I challenge you to do it–to concisely and clearly lay out a simple argument in your favor. For the record, I’ve asked some incredibly studied Christians and Jews to do this for me, and it absolutely never has. Never even close.[/quote]

I can respect this. I also think that even if God came down and slapped you in the face you still would not consider this proof that he exists. Am I wrong?

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

Thanks beans, that’s gonna take me awhile to chew on. [/quote]

No problem, and I have the same issue, lol. Need to think on it.

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

Beans, this is a magnificent thought,[/quote]

Thank you, means a lot coming from you.

I want to say yes to the first part, but then again all my reasons keep leading back to it wasn’t a grand design. All my reasons to think it was a grand design make me want to say no to the second question.

And then I keep coming back to the fact that I know I believe the answer to the second part is no, we wouldn’t, because we likely couldn’t understand an omnipotent being or its intensions in the first place.

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

I thought you just said you don’t get caught up in the problem of evil and then you went straight to the problem of evil?
If you have freewill and choose to be evil, whose fault is that? All else aside, whose fault is that?
If people freely choose to be evil should there be no justice for it?
So for instance, these militias in the Congo who took child slaves, have verifiable gang raped little children, burned entire villages, dismembered and disfigured people, burned schools with the kids in it, what should happen to a person who does things like that? And for how long? 20 years in prison?
If that sounds like an extreme example, it’s sadly common in that region.

What if someone rapes and murders your kids, wife, mother, family? What should happen to them? Shall we treat them with kindness and mercy?

You should not have brought up the problem of evil.[/quote]

I said I don’t believe in God therefore I don’t get caught up in the problem of evil. Why would I? I don’t believe he exists so why argue about his morality. 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. I find it honestly completely lolworthy that Christians threaten other people with hell. Look at how kneedragger started this. You guys are headed to burn for all eternity. Thankfully I worship this guy so I won’t be burning. All he asks is that you devote your entire life to worshiping him and if you don’t well you deserve to be tortured for all eternity.

The next points are irrelevant. If someone rapes and murders my family I’d hope they would go to jail for life. [/quote]

But in not getting caught up in it, you made a moralistic judgement based on it. If you don’t get caught up in it, then it’s best not to talk about it. If you are going to talk about it, you caught up in it.

It’s a common misconception and I suppose there is no way to break, that we don’t have a relationship with God simply because we fear going to hell. We love God and like any relationship it’s give and take. It goes both ways, it’s reciprocal.

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[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]

Seriously dude?
[/quote]

I have been gone for a day and this thing has blown up. I am trying to get back to all this. My point was that I did not believe this happened. My reasoning for my post was how people will look at History and accept some of it as truth and some not truth. We were not in Salem when it happened, but people say it happened, but that Jesus never lived and the Bible is a Myth and it never happened. The same proof to prove Jesus lived and the Bible is truth is the same proof that is needed to prove the Salem Witch Trials happened. This was my train of thought. Am I wrong?
[/quote]

What is the standard of historical or journalistic evidence that you would accept to believe that any prior event that you were not alive for and personally able to witness is true?

How do we know that Washington actually crossed the Delaware? That Paul Revere made a Midnight Ride? That Colombus sailed the Ocean Blue?

Do we believe it because evidence suggest that it happened? Or do we take it all on faith?

Do you truly believe that the contemporary eyewitness accounts and corroborating archaeological evidence to support the proposition that the Salem Witch Trials actually occurred are fabricated and unreliable, whereas the evidence supporting the veracity of the events depicted in scripture is genuine beyond question?

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
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.

[/quote]

This is the exact point. The Bible only talks about the Jews destroying the people in the Holy Land when they were taking possession of it. Then Jesus comes and wants to show Grace to everyone. Now lets look at the Quoran. Starts off with love the Jew and Love the Christian, but then all of a sudden turns to kill the Infidel if they do not convert.

The Quoran was written by one person, and just on a side note there are different Quorans. This is the reason the two faiths still hate each other and turn back to killing each other when there is no infidels around. I will say this could have been the Protestants and Catholics 300-400 years ago, but those two stopped doing it while the Muslims have been doing it since Muhammad died. Now the Bible was written over 1500 years and with 39 authors.

There is a big difference between the two holy texts. I guess you do not see it because you really do not care.[/quote]

You’re making my point for me D. You’re saying you interpret the Bible in a certain way despite numerous instances where one could interpret the Bible as calling for bloodshed. The Bible is an old book and has ALWAYS meant different things to different people. You are claiming that those who have used the Bible to justify bloodshed are coming to the wrong conclusion.

I have never said a difference doesn’t exist between the two holy texts. The differences really don’t matter though. One can (and has in numerous examples) used the Bible to justify atrocities. One can (and has in numerous examples) used the Quoran to justify atrocities. And yet when it’s your side they are reading it wrong, and when it’s the other team it’s because the book is flawed? Why are Muslims who denounce terrorism not allowed to defend their faith, but you are yours? Because you believe their book is flawed? They think the same thing about you my friend.

[/quote]

The Quoran also allows all Muslims to lie to the Infidels. This also includes Varq’s post about all the Muslims that came out against the 9/11 bombings. How are we to believe anything they say? A peace loving Muslim will always back their radical brethren first and foremost or they will be an apostate. That will mean they should be stoned to death. The Christians have made a lot of mistakes in the past. I will not deny that. We are all humans and have sinned. The heart of God as we have learned from the Bible is that God is a loving God that wants to be with us. He does not want us to go to Hell. Hell is what we have chosen (free will) because we have chosen to sin.

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

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.
[/quote]

The point was simply that something is not proved by virtue of the fact that people died for it, and the point stands. You offered Christian martyrdom as evidence of Christianity’s “truth.” This is simply fallacious reasoning.

Change it to the Cathars if you’d like. That they died because they believed what they did says absolutely nothing about the truth or falsity of that belief. It does, of course, speak to their commitment. But that is another story.

Regarding the rest of your post, which isn’t quoted here only for the sake of saving space: I understand that you believe, and what you provided is really a personal account of your belief. This I respect completely. But it isn’t really what we’re talking about, which is religion as an objectively demonstrable truth, or as something that you can convince me is “true.”

I say that religion is no such thing. I also say that this is obvious, given the importance of “faith,” which is really belief without proof. If Christianity could be proved in the way it’s been “proved” that AIDS is caused by HIV, then I would be Christian. Yes, there would always be some deniers, just as there are deniers who think that AIDS is a hoax, or caused by ARV, or whatever. But me–I’d be a Christian.

However, Christianity is not demonstrably true. It cannot be “proved,” and by “proved” I don’t mean shown to be objectively true beyond any doubt. I mean “proved” in the way that it was proved that AIDS is caused by HIV. If you think it can indeed be “proved” in a comparable way, then I challenge you to do it–to concisely and clearly lay out a simple argument in your favor. For the record, I’ve asked some incredibly studied Christians and Jews to do this for me, and it absolutely never has. Never even close.[/quote]

I can respect this. I also think that even if God came down and slapped you in the face you still would not consider this proof that he exists. Am I wrong?
[/quote]

From what I have read of SMH’s posts, I surmise that this would not be his reaction.

He would, I think, go from being an agnostic theist to being a quite literally gnostic one.

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
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.

[/quote]

This is the exact point. The Bible only talks about the Jews destroying the people in the Holy Land when they were taking possession of it. Then Jesus comes and wants to show Grace to everyone. Now lets look at the Quoran. Starts off with love the Jew and Love the Christian, but then all of a sudden turns to kill the Infidel if they do not convert.

The Quoran was written by one person, and just on a side note there are different Quorans. This is the reason the two faiths still hate each other and turn back to killing each other when there is no infidels around. I will say this could have been the Protestants and Catholics 300-400 years ago, but those two stopped doing it while the Muslims have been doing it since Muhammad died. Now the Bible was written over 1500 years and with 39 authors.

There is a big difference between the two holy texts. I guess you do not see it because you really do not care.[/quote]

You’re making my point for me D. You’re saying you interpret the Bible in a certain way despite numerous instances where one could interpret the Bible as calling for bloodshed. The Bible is an old book and has ALWAYS meant different things to different people. You are claiming that those who have used the Bible to justify bloodshed are coming to the wrong conclusion.

I have never said a difference doesn’t exist between the two holy texts. The differences really don’t matter though. One can (and has in numerous examples) used the Bible to justify atrocities. One can (and has in numerous examples) used the Quoran to justify atrocities. And yet when it’s your side they are reading it wrong, and when it’s the other team it’s because the book is flawed? Why are Muslims who denounce terrorism not allowed to defend their faith, but you are yours? Because you believe their book is flawed? They think the same thing about you my friend.

[/quote]

The Quoran also allows all Muslims to lie to the Infidels. This also includes Varq’s post about all the Muslims that came out against the 9/11 bombings. How are we to believe anything they say? A peace loving Muslim will always back their radical brethren first and foremost or they will be an apostate. That will mean they should be stoned to death. The Christians have made a lot of mistakes in the past. I will not deny that. We are all humans and have sinned. The heart of God as we have learned from the Bible is that God is a loving God that wants to be with us. He does not want us to go to Hell. Hell is what we have chosen (free will) because we have chosen to sin.
[/quote]

The Qur’an permits a Muslim to lie in order to save his own life or te life of his family. If a Muslim were at the point of a Frankish sword and given the choice of “convert to Christianity or die”, then he would be permitted to “convert” (even if falsely) in order to keep from being killed. Just like how Jews converted to Catholicism to avoid being killed during the Inquisition, the pogroms and the Holocaust, but never actually abandoned their Jewish faith. Similarly, if a Muslim were lost in the wilderness and about to starve to death, and the only thing around to eat is a pig, Allah will give him a pass to eat that pig.

The Muslims who protested the 9/11 attacks did so because they abhorred the atrocity of the 9/11 attacks, because believe it or not, they are human.

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[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]

And guess who else happened in history? Jesus…

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

Pat, you know as well as anyone that one cannot “prove” a negative.

All one can do is attempt to verify a claim of veracity with evidence supporting it, and failing that, conclude that the initial claim was false.

SMH can no more “prove” that the whole Bible is false than you could prove that elves and pixies and the gods of Asgard don’t exist. Absence of evidence of elves and pixies and Asgardian gods not equalling evidence of their absence, after all.

What SMH can do, and likely does, is view extraordinary claims such as those found in the Bible with no evidence supporting them, such as nine-hundred year old men, a planet stopping its entire rotation for several hours so that a battle on a dusty field may continue in sunlight, or five loaves of bread and two fish increasing parthenogenically so that they were able to feed a crowd of five thousand people, with a degree of skepticism and incredulity.

You’re not stupid, Pat. Not a caveman by any stretch, which probably adds to SMH’s amazement: that you find it so easy to believe the entirety of the implicit claims of the Bible without evidence, going so far as to say that they have been proven, by virtue of their being in the Bible, and that you find it just as amazing that anyone would not believe them.

No, one cannot “prove” the Bible is false, and it would serve no purpose to do so. A believer would still believe, because faith requires no proof. 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]

Well said V. I agree even on the point of being somewhat envious. My skepticism won’t allow me to believe just like my skepticism won’t allow me to think the Holocaust didn’t happen or 9/11 was done by the government. Even being raised as a Methodist I reached a point where I said, I think this all sounds like a load of crap.

It’s not really something I feel like I could change even if I wanted to. [/quote]

Seconded, very well said, and an apt description of my view of things. And I, too, have experienced times–especially in the wake of loss–when I was envious of the devout.[/quote]

I doubt most believers haven’t had moments of skepticism about it all. The skepticism may be blamed on the devils work or brushed over by faith, but it’s still there. Personally, and of coarse I could be wrong, I feel that many deny their skepticism because they are so invested in their religion and in too deep to turn back. Imagine a 60 year old man who worked in the church for a number of years and raised 5 children to believe. It would be extremely difficult to change at that point no matter how skeptical. But once you do turn away, there is no going back. [/quote]

I believe from my experiences you would be wrong in this. There is no doubt that some fraction may do this. That is to say, I think that in any statistically wide spread of population pool claiming to be Christian–and by this I don’t mean “go to church on Christmas and Easter Christian”–that there is a fraction who abide by this. Just as there are those who have been proponents of just about any belief or political position that would do the same because of the time they spent trying to convince others or giving fundraising or whatever.

However in my experience you misunderstand the way they deal with it, as a whole. There are a lot of Christians going through crises of belief and there always have been. Even the illustrious C.S. Lewis, when his wife died, went through a period of years of this. They don’t bury it or gloss over it, whatever the outcome. They wrestle with it pretty intensely for a long period of time. Also, although I understand the sentiment you made with your last sentence I disagree with it. Pat (or maybe Sloth, I can’t remember?) made this point earlier in this thread about most of his family having turned away for years–quit going to church, quit believing, quit pretty much everything–and then coming back to it. So it is to say, there is going back for some people, even after choosing to disbelieve in God for years. You would probably be tempted to simply say “well they never left” or “they’re just returning to childhood indoctrination” but I do not think this is the case.

Mohamed happend, too.
Or better: he definitely existed.
As did Baha’ullah.

The proof for a historical Jesus, on the other hand, is shaky at best.

What proof does it take to make you a muslim?

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[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]

And guess who else happened in history? Jesus…
[/quote]

but Jesus willed it to happen

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

He would, I think, go from being an agnostic theist to being a quite literally gnostic one. [/quote]

It’s funny that you mention this. I have been fascinated by Gnosticism ever since I read Blood Meridian a decade ago.

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
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.[/quote]

Ask Him for the reason. Earnestly ask him. With humility.

Ask Him for the reason for which sect/denomination/religion. Earnestly ask him. With humility.
[/quote]

I am not being disingenuous when I say that I am open to doing this at some point in my life. I’m an agnostic theist, after all, so I can’t rule out the possibility that such a God exists.

My question to you is this: What if I do this, and no response comes but silence? Would you not agree that, in such an eventuality, I should go on believing exactly what I believe?[/quote]

I would say yes. However, just as with most things in life–weightlifting, academic learning, science experiments, struggling with new philosophical ideas or viewpoints–you should probably do so more than once. Generally speaking, how many hundreds of times have newbs on here said “I’m open to anything to get big and strong, just tell me what I need to do” and honestly believed it…and then gone ahead and put all the pre-conceptions they said they had ditched in the forefront of the thread by asking the vets “why should I do that? Doesn’t so and so magazine say blah blah blah”.

I can’t count the amount of times I’ve had to deal with this as a coach, and as a teacher in biochemistry, and as a student.

In other words, the idea of being open to something takes a good bit of self reflection and a lot of repetitive effort before you actually do ditch the hang-ups you’ve accumulated over the years. Witness any stereotypical kung fu move teacher/student montage ever. That’s not to say you should force belief–which I hope would be obvious. I do not believe in forcing belief of ANYTHING. Belief cannot be forced. It can be struggled with, however.

Oh, and thanks for your big answer to unpacking previously confusing answer. I’m skimming this monster of a thread to try to catch up but I’ll read it later.

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Mohamed happend, too.
Or better: he definitely existed.
As did Baha’ullah.

The proof for a historical Jesus, on the other hand, is shaky at best.

What proof does it take to make you a muslim?
[/quote]

None whatsoever. Just an attestation of belief.

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
How do we know that Washington actually crossed the Delaware?

Do we believe it because evidence suggest that it happened? Or do we take it all on faith?

[/quote]

I have to take on faith that the Delaware even exists.

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

He would, I think, go from being an agnostic theist to being a quite literally gnostic one. [/quote]

It’s funny that you mention this. I have been fascinated by Gnosticism ever since I read Blood Meridian a decade ago.[/quote]

The thing is- why would he become christian?
I think everybody would accept the existance of the slapper [see post]- but worship is another matter.

Why do religious people always assume hundreds of weird things from one supposed proof (which is more a leap of faith, to be honest) ?
The causal chain of a former muslim collegue of mine was: “my aunt/uncle (don’t remember anymore) heard god’s voice, therefore everything the Quran writes is true, therefore pork is bad”
Of course he didn’t put it like this, but his demented relative’S story was the best reason for him to limit his diet.

So why should anyone become christian if a higher being beats him up?

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Mohamed happend, too.
Or better: he definitely existed.
As did Baha’ullah.

The proof for a historical Jesus, on the other hand, is shaky at best.

What proof does it take to make you a muslim?
[/quote]

None whatsoever. Just an attestation of belief. [/quote]

If Jahwe and Allah spanked your pubis at the same time, wouldn’t your disbelief change into some kind of dualism?

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

He would, I think, go from being an agnostic theist to being a quite literally gnostic one. [/quote]

It’s funny that you mention this. I have been fascinated by Gnosticism ever since I read Blood Meridian a decade ago.[/quote]

The thing is- why would he become christian?
I think everybody would accept the existance of the slapper [see post]- but worship is another matter.

Why do religious people always assume hundreds of weird things from one supposed proof (which is more a leap of faith, to be honest) ?
The causal chain of a former muslim collegue of mine was: “my aunt/uncle (don’t remember anymore) heard god’s voice, therefore everything the Quran writes is true, therefore pork is bad”
Of course he didn’t put it like this, but his demented relative’S story was the best reason for him to limit his diet.

So why should anyone become christian if a higher being beats him up? [/quote]

To be clear, I meant SMH, having been slapped by the Hand of God, would become a gnostic (little g) theist, literally one who knows that God exists, not necessarily a Gnostic (big G) with all that Gnosticism entails.

Had your Muslim friend’s uncle been Jewish, he would have without question come to the same conclusion about pork, but by way of the Torah rather than the Qur’an. It’s all a matter of circumstance, not necessarily which “truth” is “truest”.

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Mohamed happend, too.
Or better: he definitely existed.
As did Baha’ullah.

The proof for a historical Jesus, on the other hand, is shaky at best.

What proof does it take to make you a muslim?
[/quote]

None whatsoever. Just an attestation of belief. [/quote]

If Jahwe and Allah spanked your pubis at the same time, wouldn’t your disbelief change into some kind of dualism?
[/quote]

It would be confusing to say the least, inasmuch as Yahweh and Allah just are two names for the same deity.