The Christian Hell

[skasian]

I see some are discussing about speaking tongues, and it is just an incredible experience, when someone is speaking in tongues, they cannot understand what they are saying however a person originating from the nationality the other person is speaking can understand everything perfectly. There is another gift from God: when someone is speaking in tongues, this person can interpret everything regardless what language the person is speaking.

[Redzeppelin]

it was neither. her comparison is quite right. many happen to worship big foot. and they got news for you...if you don't choose him, you can be sure you'll spend eternal damnation as one of the provokers who's messin with Sasquatch in the jack links commercials. rather than a book to prove their beliefs, they have film evidence: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tXEE...eature=related

Hi billy - I get to call it as I see it; she expressed her opinion, and I evaluated her opinion. I get to do that. Her comparison only has validity if an equality between God and bigfoot can be established. Bigfoot has not given us a revelation establishing himself as the creator of the universe. That people "worship" him/her/it does not establish him/her/it as a divine being. I notice that there are virtually no forums threads here discussing the theology of Bigfoot (except or course, this one).

As if video cannot be manipulated relentlessly. Got Photoshop?

Red Zeppelin: Excellent Job on the dissection of the word! I enjoyed reading your thesis and reply to Limajean. permit me to add something. Accepting God is more than just about going to hell or Heaven for me, but Its about getting to know the God who made me and to enjoy his love for me, while I show my love for him in the ways I know possible. Its more than just about heaven or hell, because heaven is a given for any Child of God. Let your motivation be to get to Know God. If it is your motivation,m Heaven is the least of the bliss you'll get to enjoy.

Thank you for your kind words. I like your responses as well and agree with your comments. You are absolutely right about knowing God - I left that out in the interest of being concise and refuting limajean's vision of hell as a destination based upon works.

[The Atheist]

So you are telling me that you need proof of everything?

Nope, in fact, I don't need proof of anything, which is why I'm not into solipsism at all.

It's always interesting to me that theists worry about science/proof/truth, and often try to cast aspersions at science regarding the level of "truth" or "proof" required, because science is just observation. A scientist will kick back and go, "wonder what happens if I run 1,000,000 amps through this mixture of DNA and toenail clippings", then he flicks the switch and watches what happens. (This is why Mary Shelley wrote Frankenstein.)

Science isn't concerned with a search for truth, that kind of thing is best left to theologians and philosophers.

By constant repetition, we come to accept that many things science has observed are true - in the legal sense of the word.

And that's pretty much where I stand - show me something and then tell me about it.

You have stories about the successes of your god and your religion. That's fine, because you believe in it. On the other hand, I'll list just a few of the subjects where people defend non-material things, and use exactly the same language, arguments, assertions and aspertions that evangelical christianity does:

homeopathy
psychics
astrologers
dowsers
telepaths
telekinetics

(and I repeat, that is just a few of the types)

Now, your religion will exclude some of those as complete rubbish, or work of the devil. I'd be the first to point out that they cannot all be true, and science pretty much guarantees that they cannot. They all work on exactly the same principle - 100% anecdotal stories, with no evidence whatsoever.

When I'm faced with a choice between accepting magic as real or not, I take the simple option, "Show me".

49 years, 10 months and counting....

Is it so much to ask to believe in miracles that someone show me something, anything? ........beyond a book written several thousand years ago?

I don't think that's demanding proof.

The reason why God sends us miracles are because He wants people to have stronger faith in Him, simply, as a proof that He is with us all the time.

On the basis of that claim, then my request for "show me" is going to be a piece of cake!

I heavily doubt that your eyes will tell you that God exists even though miracles, impossible visual proofs occur before them.

Nah, like I said, I keep both eyes wide open, and I proved yesterday that they're as good as they ever were, because I could read signs at a greater distance than my kids when we were checking yesterday.

Show me, and I'll believe it. You will only have to satisfy that niggly part of my brain which insists on checking a few minor details.

So are you telling me that you need more proofs? To what extent exactly do you need further proof to tell yourself it is time to believe in God? I fear to know your answer.

Why?

What's to fear?

Honestly, have a talk to your pastor and tell him about this bloke who wants to believe in your miracles, but wants to see it with his own eyes, make recordings of them, talk to a few people and find out whather these miracles are true. If he agrees, I will come and do just that!

Hell, if there's a church anywhere which can cure diseases through belief, then I'm a believer! I'm at an age where medical advantages like that would be worth a bit, too. A mate of mine who was (damn, I still wrote "is") three months younger than me croaked last week.

Fear? I'd love what you say to be true! Sheesh, you don't need to hard-sell health benefits at my age.



Honestly - talk to your pastor. Get him to come online. Wherever you are in NZ, I can be there. (And I'm pretty well known, in business and media, and you can find links to it all if you check my profile - I'm not some crazy stalker - so your pastor can even check me out first, how fair is that?)

Let me ask you, wouldnt this be your reaction, to tell yourself you are having metal malfunctioning if one day you have a vision of Jesus crying in front of you, asking why you reject Him.

It ould depend on a couple of things. If it looked like Jesus would have - rather than the absurd icon every christian church I've ever seen use - and he asked a question along those lines, "Why won't you believe in me" or very close to it, then yes, I would believe immediately, offering to shake his hand and helping him up. No question at all.

If, however, I have a vision of a blond, or fair-ish Jesus, I will be off to the nut-farm immediately.

The reality is, even with the impossible happening, atheists like you wont ever accept God. I bet that even with new evidences to proofs, it just wont ever be sufficient.

Wronger than the wrongest thing ever.

I guess, of all the things said to rationalists, this is the worst mistake you can make - to accuse one, whose only position is "show me", of being closed-minded (which is what you've done), while you yourself believe in magic and miracles.

There is another gift from God: when someone is speaking in tongues, this person can interpret everything regardless what language the person is speaking.

Try going to a stage hypnotism show at some stage and you will see the identical thing done. At least then, it's funny.

[Pendragon]

Science isn't concerned with a search for truth, that kind of thing is best left to theologians and philosophers.

If this is true, then every science class I ever took was a waste of time and religion should be taught in school, as at least they try to search for the truth, or their interpretation of it.

I like to think I came out of my science classes with something to cling to as truth, anyway.

[The Atheist]

If this is true, then every science class I ever took was a waste of time and religion should be taught in school, as at least they try to search for the truth, or their interpretation of it.

I like to think I came out of my science classes with something to cling to as truth, anyway.

Now, that's a little unfair without the next sentence:

By constant repetition, we come to accept that many things science has observed are true - in the legal sense of the word.

Once you add that in, the point of those science classes becomes clear.

[Zee.]

"Freedom" does not mean three or more choices, and it doesn't mean you have to like either choice; it simply means you have a choice.



Says who? Have you read Plato? Are you familiar with how our legal system works? Nobody has absolute, total freedom. All of us have limited freedom in order to live peaceably among each other.



I have bad news for you: human beings are generally consequence-driven creatures. We are capable of altruism, but we also tend to do as we wish if there are no real consequences for our actions. As such, all of us - including you - make decisions based upon potential consequences. Many people don't smoke because they fear cancer. Many people avoid crime because they're afraid of jail. Don't expect me to believe that you think the world could operate in some way where criminals will not commit crime because of altruism. Your life is not devoid of decisions based upon consequences.




Translation: "God should let me live in whatever way I please without consequence." If that cannot happen here on earth, why should God make it so in the afterlife? God cannot change reality from what it is: hell is not created as a place of hellfire and agony - it is a place that honors your choice to not live in God's presence - annihilating sinners does the opposite. So, ironically, God - in creating hell - honors your freedom to reject Him. But if you reject Him - and the universe is filled with Him (because He created it) then where can He put you to honor your wish to live without Him except by "quarantining" you in hell? God can't change the fact that without Him is only darkness, emptiness, bitterness, regret.



But according to the Bible, our "good deeds" are like "filthy rags" when placed next to the utter perfection of holiness that is God. We cannot "earn" our way into God's graces by being "good." We attain salvation by accepting the gift of eternal life that Christ purchased through his death for all of us. Hell is not a destination for those who did bad things as much as it is the chosen location for those who do not wish to submit their lives to God's will.



I assume your sentence up above intended the word "creatures"?

It is not merely "not accepting" or "not believing" - it is the sustained and persistent refusal to acknowledge the Holy Spirit's conviction on our hearts that God is our creator. He created us - therefore He has a right to call his creations to Him; refusing to honor that call is like a child who refuses to acknowledge the authority of his/her parents. Again: God doesn't "send" people to hell - THEY CHOOSE IT BECAUSE THEY DO NOT WISH TO SERVE GOD; they wish - as you have expressed here - to live according to their will instead of God's. That choice gives God no choice but to honor that wish by quarantining the sinners into the only place in the universe that they can escape from the Being they wished to avoid. You can't see the logic in that?



No, it doesn't. Accepting God does, however, offer me forgiveness and to start anew, because all offenses are - ultimately -against God.



Why do you insist on repeating this? How does it matter? Hell isn't about being "good" or "bad" - it's about whom you choose to serve in this life; that choice is either God, or yourself. Period.



According to the Bible and Jesus both, nobody but God is good. And I would never brag that I thought I was a better person than "many nonbelievers" or "many Moslems," or "many anybody." Why do you do that?

And "goodness" in you is there because of God's presence in your heart.



To an extent, you're right; as such, the fear of hell converts nobody in any permanent way - just as the warnings on cigarette packs don't deter all people from choosing to smoke. But for some people, that warning is the catalyst that points them in a new direction. The fear of hell can't sustain you, but it may make you think a bit harder.



Those we have wronged deserve our apologies and restitution - but all offenses, all sins, all crimes are ultimately against God. We do need His forgiveness because His forgiveness is the only one that actually "rights" or "restores" wrongs. Our human forgiveness cannot do that.




God's forgiveness does not relieve us of the consequences of our actions. He may forgive us for killing that person while driving drunk, but He still lets us go to jail.



There you go again with that "good" comment -



Once again: heaven and hell are not about behavior. They're about who you choose to serve.



But if God created the universe and is the author of reality and He tells us the consequences, why are you so bugged about them? Your argument is based upon the idea that God could just let you reject Him and continue to have a good life; but without God there is NO good life because all goodness, all beauty, all love, all that is worthy - COMES FROM HIM. He can't give you things if you reject Him when the things you want come from Him.



Nobody is completely innocent - even "good" people like you. It is not believing in God that's the problem - it is the persistent and sustained refusal to believe despite the evidence that God gives you.



If God worked off that principal, we'd all be condemned to hell. Luckily, since God is love, He sacrifices Himself - in the person of Christ - to pay the penalty of sin we all owe, so that we are forgiven and can inherit eternal life simply by accepting that God is our rightful master. You want justice, but not applied to YOU.

What makes you deserving of anything? As a sinner (like me), you deserve death (like me). Christ's sacrifice allows you and me both to live eternally in the presence of God if we so choose.



That's the problem. The Bible makes it clear that our own efforts at goodness are insufficient to "earn" our way into heaven. Nobody gets there because she/he "deserves" to be there - they are there because God has extended a magnificent, and free, gift. But you don't have to take it if you don't want to.

The "bigfoot" comment was disrespectful and unnecessary.

Yes I am aware and know quite a lot about the legal system - infact I want to be a lawyer.

and i think you misunderstood my comment..

To me, you can't be a little ..free. To me, freedom, true freedom, must be absolute. The freedom you're talking about, is the "freedom" that is "governed", distributed. You know the freedom that is presented to you.

Look - reading over what you said, great, good on you, but none of that applies to me.

Christianity, Jesus.. with all due respect, I don't believe in any of it.
So how can I possibly debate it with someone when proof that there is a Hell or there is a this or that, doesn't exist, furthermore making it easier for me to not believe in any of it.


I focus on buddhism, i care little for the rest.

[Zee.]

We can debate it and debate it again and again but none of us will know until the day we're hit by a bus. So buckle up and enjoy the ride because know matter how certain you think you are, you have no clue whatsoever.

The bigfoot comment was just as about disrespectful as the constant "you're going to hell" crap i've heard one two many times.

[Redzeppelin]

Yes I am aware and know quite a lot about the legal system - infact I want to be a lawyer.

and i think you misunderstood my comment..

To me, you can't be a little ..free. To me, freedom, true freedom, must be absolute. The freedom you're talking about, is the "freedom" that is "governed", distributed. You know the freedom that is presented to you.

Then surely you get the reality that unconstrained freedom creates tyranny. If everybody desires "absolute freedom" to do as they wish, liberties are bound to collide; that's the function of law - it allows us to have liberty that does not infringe substantially on the liberty of others. The existentialists understood that absolute freedom was utterly terrifying. Sorry - you live in a universe with laws - physcial laws, and moral laws. If you try to act with absolute freedom here on earth, you'll trample others.

Look - reading over what you said, great, good on you, but none of that applies to me.

Christianity, Jesus.. with all due respect, I don't believe in any of it.
So how can I possibly debate it with someone when proof that there is a Hell or there is a this or that, doesn't exist, furthermore making it easier for me to not believe in any of it.


I focus on buddhism, i care little for the rest.

Then why did you bother entering into the discussion in the first place if you're just going to turn tail and run now, claiming "Well I don't believe any of this anyway"? You made comments about the unfairness of God and hell and now that I've answered your charges you're just going to bow out by dismissing the whole thing? So that's how you work: lay out a challenge, then wait for your opponent to answer and then you just crumple the entire thing up into a ball, toss it in the trashcan and say "I don't feel like playing anymore"?

I already addressed earlier the mistaken notion that the only things that exist are those that we can "prove." Buddhism isn't much about empiricism either if I recall correctly.

[Redzeppelin]

We can debate it and debate it again and again but none of us will know until the day we're hit by a bus. So buckle up and enjoy the ride because know matter how certain you think you are, you have no clue whatsoever.

Oh, I have a clue; I may not know all the details, but I've been given a pretty good idea.

The bigfoot comment was just as about disrespectful as the constant "you're going to hell" crap i've heard one two many times.

A cheap excuse - because you're justifying a comment towards me based upon something I never said to you. Let's not engage in transference if we can avoid it.

[Zee.]

Then surely you get the reality that unconstrained freedom creates tyranny. If everybody desires "absolute freedom" to do as they wish, liberties are bound to collide; that's the function of law - it allows us to have liberty that does not infringe substantially on the liberty of others. The existentialists understood that absolute freedom was utterly terrifying. Sorry - you live in a universe with laws - physcial laws, and moral laws. If you try to act with absolute freedom here on earth, you'll trample others.



Then why did you bother entering into the discussion in the first place if you're just going to turn tail and run now, claiming "Well I don't believe any of this anyway"? You made comments about the unfairness of God and hell and now that I've answered your charges you're just going to bow out by dismissing the whole thing? So that's how you work: lay out a challenge, then wait for your opponent to answer and then you just crumple the entire thing up into a ball, toss it in the trashcan and say "I don't feel like playing anymore"?

I already addressed earlier the mistaken notion that the only things that exist are those that we can "prove." Buddhism isn't much about empiricism either if I recall correctly.

I didn't say that freedom wouldn't create chaos - i said that the word freedom in my opinion, should only be applied when it is absolute.



No no, i stopped playing a long time ago.

[Zee.]

You know, this talk of "proving" things. I'm not silly, I understand and believe that not everything can be proven, of course it can't. It doesn't have to be before our eyes for it to exist.
But when we're dealing with something serious like telling others they're going to hell - why should i nod my head and say "so be it?", i wont.

[Redzeppelin]

I didn't say that freedom wouldn't create chaos - i said that the word freedom in my opinion, should only be applied when it is absolute.

"Absolute" meaning what? That you get choices you like? You have the freedom to do whatever you want in this life - but there are consequences. That is how all of reality works - it's called "cause-effect." We live in a causal universe - all actions, all choices, no matter how freely made, attach to consequences. Sorry you don't like the consequences.

No no, i stopped playing a long time ago.

Well, I don't enter into debate to "play" - I enter to learn something or to answer something. If you're not going to follow your charges out to the end, why make them in the first place?

[Zee.]

I didnt say i didn't "like" the consequences.
You're getting pretty personal now and obviously not understanding what i'm telling you.

The "play" comment - was a comment I made going off of what YOU said, when you assumed how I work, because you know me so well and everything.

And I did follow them out to the end - and it ended with both Skasian and I respecting both each other's beliefs and views, even though we fought to the death at the beginning, and that's enough for me.

[Redzeppelin]

You know, this talk of "proving" things. I'm not silly, I understand and believe that not everything can be proven, of course it can't. It doesn't have to be before our eyes for it to exist.
But when we're dealing with something serious like telling others they're going to hell - why should i nod my head and say "so be it?", i wont.

You don't have to do any head-nodding or "so be it-ing" - but I think it interesting that you pick and choose when you wish to play the "there's no evidence" card. Since it deals with the spiritual realm, you cannot "prove" it exists anymore than you can prove God exists - both exist in a realm immune to our ability to perceive and measure.

[Zee.]

I'll admit, i do pick and choose. I can be quite on and off during a debate/discussion.

I'll give you that.
1 point to you.