1) I was adding that on to the original point as a question. And the question is still unanswered.
It also has nothing to do with the thread. If you want to discuss which religion's followers behave in a morally superior way, you can create your own thread.
2) I didn't state that it wasn't talked about.
You seemed to think it wasn't talked about, which indicates you didn't actually read the thread before you posted.
Simply asking the question to those arguing against Islam that still wear a cross and go to church every sunday.
What do you mean "arguing against Islam"? bakgat was criticizing Islam for its alleged historically inaccurate claims on the crucifixion but the discussion has since moved to other topics because his argument was pretty much thrown out by the end of page 1.
Would people be happy if God sent bad people to heaven? Seems to me he has four options regarding the afterlife he could...
1) Send everyone to good place (Heaven). Including the mass murder and rapist of the world.
2) He could send everyone to a bad place (Hell) So that includes Mother Theresa.
3) He could send bad people to a good place and good people to a bad place.
OR
4) He could send bad people to a bad place and good people to a good place.
Seems like he has chosen number four. Seems reasonable to me.
False Dichotomy. In truth, He chose number 5.
Send people who accept Jesus Christ as their savior to a good place, which includes rapists and murderers and all kinds of "used to be" awful people, and everyone else goes to the bad place, which includes a ton of good people.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"[Screw] you and the green you ramped in on." - My EDH battle cry. If I had one. Which I don't.
Would people be happy if God sent bad people to heaven? Seems to me he has four options regarding the afterlife he could...
1) Send everyone to good place (Heaven). Including the mass murder and rapist of the world.
2) He could send everyone to a bad place (Hell) So that includes Mother Theresa.
3) He could send bad people to a good place and good people to a bad place.
OR
4) He could send bad people to a bad place and good people to a good place.
Seems like he has chosen number four. Seems reasonable to me.
Given those options, I think option 1 is the most moral option.
You can scream "mass murderer" and "rapist" all you want, but nobody who has ever lived deserves Hell. If we took the aggregate of all of human suffering and multiplied it a thousand million times, then found a single person responsible for it, that person would not deserve Hell.
Would people be happy if God sent bad people to heaven? Seems to me he has four options regarding the afterlife he could...
1) Send everyone to good place (Heaven). Including the mass murder and rapist of the world.
2) He could send everyone to a bad place (Hell) So that includes Mother Theresa.
3) He could send bad people to a good place and good people to a bad place.
OR
4) He could send bad people to a bad place and good people to a good place.
Seems like he has chosen number four. Seems reasonable to me.
Given those options, I think option 1 is the most moral option.
You can scream "mass murderer" and "rapist" all you want, but nobody who has ever lived deserves Hell. If we took the aggregate of all of human suffering and multiplied it a thousand million times, then found a single person responsible for it, that person would not deserve Hell.
This assumes, of course, the classical definition of hell, what with the burning eternal torture.
This assumes, of course, the classical definition of hell, what with the burning eternal torture.
As opposed to?
The college pastor at the church that I frequent (Baptist) seems to subscribe to the idea that hell is an existence where you are eternally separated from God.
Basically, since non-believers have spent their lifetime separating themselves from God, that is what they get when they die and receive judgment.
This assumes, of course, the classical definition of hell, what with the burning eternal torture.
As opposed to?
The college pastor at the church that I frequent (Baptist) seems to subscribe to the idea that hell is an existence where you are eternally separated from God.
Except Zaphrasz's point still stands.
Basically, since non-believers have spent their lifetime separating themselves from God, that is what they get when they die and receive judgment.
That would make God neither loving nor good.
Since he is both of these, what you're saying cannot be.
Hell is the absence of God. Since God is the source of all that is good (love, peace, beauty, etc.) Hell happens to be a place of suffering in the same sense that regions in the absence of sunlight, and thus heat, are cold but that cold as an entity does not really exist.
People's decisions condemn them to Hell, not God. Those are the terms of free will. Jesus has provided the conditions. You can't blame the government for being in prison for murdering someone. God must, after all, represent justice. He isn't torturing people himself. He's allowing people the free will to distance themselves from him as much as they choose to allow. At some threshold, they've condemned themselves to isolation from God and thus, Hell. God weeps knowing that people choose this fate for themselves. But it's very complicated because only he knows who goes to Hell and the details of how that all comes about. They say he knows the intentions of the soul, and it's really a matter of being the best that you can be and living in accordance with what Jesus (from a Catholic perspective) has left as law. Which frankly isn't so absurd. What, be a good person and have faith in God? Love everyone?
Hell is the absence of God. Since God is the source of all that is good (love, peace, beauty, etc.) Hell happens to be a place of suffering in the same sense that regions in the absence of sunlight, and thus heat, are cold but that cold as an entity does not really exist.
People's decisions condemn them to Hell, not God. Those are the terms of free will. Jesus has provided the conditions. You can't blame the government for being in prison for murdering someone. God must, after all, represent justice. He isn't torturing people himself. He's allowing people the free will to distance themselves from him as much as they choose to allow. At some threshold, they've condemned themselves to isolation from God and thus, Hell. God weeps knowing that people choose this fate for themselves. But it's very complicated because only he knows who goes to Hell and the details of how that all comes about. They say he knows the intentions of the soul, and it's really a matter of being the best that you can be and living in accordance with what Jesus (from a Catholic perspective) has left as law. Which frankly isn't so absurd. What, be a good person and have faith in God? Love everyone?
I'd be perfectly happy to discuss the immorality of Hell, even as you describe it, but it doesn't seem to have a whole lot to do with the historical accuracy of the Islamic scriptures with regards to Jesus. That was the original topic, I think.
1) I was adding that on to the original point as a question. And the question is still unanswered.
It also has nothing to do with the thread. If you want to discuss which religion's followers behave in a morally superior way, you can create your own thread.
I wasn't. If you read my posts instead of misreading it you would know thats not my intention.
2) I didn't state that it wasn't talked about.
You seemed to think it wasn't talked about, which indicates you didn't actually read the thread before you posted.
Except your wrong.
Simply asking the question to those arguing against Islam that still wear a cross and go to church every sunday.
What do you mean "arguing against Islam"? bakgat was criticizing Islam for its alleged historically inaccurate claims on the crucifixion but the discussion has since moved to other topics because his argument was pretty much thrown out by the end of page 1.
I was talking about the original intent of the thread and how it couldn't have been more ironic given the facts.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It also has nothing to do with the thread. If you want to discuss which religion's followers behave in a morally superior way, you can create your own thread.
You seemed to think it wasn't talked about, which indicates you didn't actually read the thread before you posted.
What do you mean "arguing against Islam"? bakgat was criticizing Islam for its alleged historically inaccurate claims on the crucifixion but the discussion has since moved to other topics because his argument was pretty much thrown out by the end of page 1.
1) Send everyone to good place (Heaven). Including the mass murder and rapist of the world.
2) He could send everyone to a bad place (Hell) So that includes Mother Theresa.
3) He could send bad people to a good place and good people to a bad place.
OR
4) He could send bad people to a bad place and good people to a good place.
Seems like he has chosen number four. Seems reasonable to me.
False Dichotomy. In truth, He chose number 5.
Send people who accept Jesus Christ as their savior to a good place, which includes rapists and murderers and all kinds of "used to be" awful people, and everyone else goes to the bad place, which includes a ton of good people.
Pristaxcontrombmodruu!
You can scream "mass murderer" and "rapist" all you want, but nobody who has ever lived deserves Hell. If we took the aggregate of all of human suffering and multiplied it a thousand million times, then found a single person responsible for it, that person would not deserve Hell.
YES! That's the whole point of Christianity: the redemption of the sinful.
The sinful being every one of us.
This assumes, of course, the classical definition of hell, what with the burning eternal torture.
As opposed to?
The college pastor at the church that I frequent (Baptist) seems to subscribe to the idea that hell is an existence where you are eternally separated from God.
Basically, since non-believers have spent their lifetime separating themselves from God, that is what they get when they die and receive judgment.
Except Zaphrasz's point still stands.
That would make God neither loving nor good.
Since he is both of these, what you're saying cannot be.
People's decisions condemn them to Hell, not God. Those are the terms of free will. Jesus has provided the conditions. You can't blame the government for being in prison for murdering someone. God must, after all, represent justice. He isn't torturing people himself. He's allowing people the free will to distance themselves from him as much as they choose to allow. At some threshold, they've condemned themselves to isolation from God and thus, Hell. God weeps knowing that people choose this fate for themselves. But it's very complicated because only he knows who goes to Hell and the details of how that all comes about. They say he knows the intentions of the soul, and it's really a matter of being the best that you can be and living in accordance with what Jesus (from a Catholic perspective) has left as law. Which frankly isn't so absurd. What, be a good person and have faith in God? Love everyone?
|| UW Jace, Vyn's Prodigy UW || UG Kenessos, Priest of Thassa (feat. Arixmethes) UG ||
Cards I still want to see created:
|| Olantin, Lost City || Pavios and Thanasis || Choryu ||
Giving people what they want is not good?
I take it you believe that God forgives everyone at death and they all go to heaven?
http://uk.prweb.com/releases/2013/10/prweb11201273.htm
I'm just curious since I've done zero research beyond reading the article and don't have a dog in the hunt but knowing is better than not.
Seeing as how no one has what he claims to be his evidence besides him until the 19th, no one knows.
Someone who may have read the "Wars of the Jews" or has some insight in to the historical time periods being discussed could blow a hole in the idea.
His is a novel interpretation that he thinks is just plain right.
Just on the basis of the way interpretation works, there's a couple of things wrong with that scenario.
Not if what they want isn't good for them.
Yes.
I wasn't. If you read my posts instead of misreading it you would know thats not my intention.
Except your wrong.
I was talking about the original intent of the thread and how it couldn't have been more ironic given the facts.