The agnostic's cry for understanding.

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by wildjedi

Anybody ever heard of Josh McDowell? He didn't grow up believing in any religion (or relationship).

 

Or so he says. For those interested, here's a critical review of his book: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/

[Elijah]

Ah the extent people will go to, to try and prove that they "dont care' about religion. Josh McDowell lied about not believeing, is that what you are trying to say SkinWalker?

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by ZDawg

Ah the extent people will go to, to try and prove that they "dont care' about religion. Josh McDowell lied about not believeing, is that what you are trying to say SkinWalker?

 

I'm only saying that we have only his anecdotal assurance that he went from "unbeliever to believer." His books suggest that he is interested in evidence to support his beliefs. Since many people who are non-believers/agnostic/atheist freely admit their roots in judao-christian mythology, it seems an effective method of marketing to promote oneself as being a believer who was once a non-believer. One who has "seen the light."

 

If he's not lying, he's dellusional. IMO

 

Oh. And I certainly care about religion. It ranks up there with cardiac disease, aids, and drunk-driving as societal afflictions that need to be solved. IMO

[Druid Bremen]

Originally posted by SkinWalker

I'm only saying that we have only his anecdotal assurance that he went from "unbeliever to believer." His books suggest that he is interested in evidence to support his beliefs. Since many people who are non-believers/agnostic/atheist freely admit their roots in judao-christian mythology, it seems an effective method of marketing to promote oneself as being a believer who was once a non-believer. One who has "seen the light."

 

If he's not lying, he's dellusional. IMO

 

Oh. And I certainly care about religion. It ranks up there with cardiac disease, aids, and drunk-driving as societal afflictions that need to be solved. IMO

 

Hah, indeed, I really don't believe in gods, angels, and whatever miracles/relevations supposed to be caused by god. They could simply be hallucinating. It is an illness of the mind.

[SkinWalker]

Actually, I was probably too harsh. There is considereable evidence that people are simply hardwired to believe in something bigger than themselves.

 

I give you the work of Pascal Boyer, author of Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought, and Vilayanur S. Ramachandran, who has done extensive work on the neuroscience of perception.

 

Barnes and Noble carries the former, Google has the latter.

[El Sitherino]

Originally posted by ZDawg

I would probably be one of the most open minded understanding Christians you will meet.

pardon me if I find this hard to believe.

 

Originally posted by ZDawg

If we were in fact an experiment of life, than life would not be what we think it is... in order for life to be made, it must first be given, unless their IS a almighty God, God being God because he IS the final for everything, the begging of time, the end of time, the beginning of life, and the end of it, that is what would make him God.

instead of avoiding the question, why not answer it, I stated if one bought into the belief of god in that question. And what does this have to do with the experiment or construct of his boredom idea? nothing.

 

Originally posted by ZDawg

Yes, maybe evolution, maybe we came from nothing, maybe we were a cosmic accident that happened out of nothing, but in order of that to happen, time would have to exist, and space, which is caused by a lack of something, the chances of that happening, and the faith required to believe that something did in fact form from nothing, nearly the same if not more to believe that we are all a creation of a God with a master plan, a God who CREATED time, CREATED life... Yea, I cannot explain how God always was, without saying that he exists outside of time, but I also cant explain how something (I.E a cell or a protein) can come from nothing.

and I believe I stated that I do not know in my original post. Also, religion was designed to "explain" away the uncertain, the unknown.

 

Originally posted by ZDawg

Bottom line on that is, BOTH require faith, even if you claim to have none.

bottom line is I atleast have visible and reproducable evidence to support most of my beliefs. But because I can only support most, I as a scientist, cannot close all the doors yet, thus I am open to the possibility of a deity.

 

Originally posted by ZDawg

Yes, God can infact make an unchangeable word that can never be altered, he can also make us believe in him, IF he wanted to remove your freedom of choice, your freewill.

how does making a word incapable of being misinterpreted changing our freewill. It doesn't.

 

 

Originally posted by ZDawg

Yes, God allows things to happen, because he gave us freewill, we do what we may with the freedom given to us.

okay, so why does he punish us for not worshipping him, or for not following his "true" path to righteousness?

How exactly can he be infallible if he claims to love us unconditionally as a parent, yet will openly condemn us to a never ending torrent of pain? no parent does that, sure they punish the children, but not for all eternity. All eternity is a hell of a ground that I figure should only be grounds on which someone raped or murdered someone. But not worshipping him, or working on sunday, or eating meat on a friday, that's hardly grounds for eternal suffering of the highest order.

 

Originally posted by ZDawg

I whole heartedly agree that people should not press their beliefs on people, because everyone should be given freewill, everyone should be able to make a choice for themselves, and to push your belief on someone simply because you think your right, is, even in a Christian standpoint, removing peoples freewill that was given to them by GOD.

and people pushing for gays not being allowed to wed is pushing beliefs on others, by force of law. This is immoral and wrong.

 

And all who judge and cast the name of sinner upon one are guilty of a greater sin than the gay, or the non-worshipper. They are guilty of playing god, for only god has the right to judge and name those that are of sin.

 

that's right, I read the bible.

[CapNColostomy]

Originally posted by InsaneSith

and I believe I stated that I do not know in my original post. Also, religion was designed to "explain" away the uncertain, the unknown.

 

How can you not know ANYTHING regarding religion, yet claim to know it's origins in one paragraph? For someone that doesn't entirely dismiss religion, you sure seem ready to "explain away" how it might have came about. Were you there? Neither was I. So I guess we'll both know who was right and wrong one day. I hope the previous sentence didn't imply that I thought I was right. Because, without presuming to have insider knowledge, I can admit that I honestly don't know. Unlike some people. hehe

 

 

Originally posted by InsaneSith

bottom line is I atleast have visible and reproducable evidence to support most of my beliefs. But because I can only support most, I as a scientist, cannot close all the doors yet, thus I am open to the possibility of a deity.

 

Please. Stop making it sound like your posting between the changing of lab coats. Okay, so you don't believe in God, but don't totally discount him either. I think that hardly qualifies you as a "scientist", professor. No offense meant by that mind you. It just seems like your making way more importance of your stance on the subject than is required or believable. "Scientist". Sounds like you have a goverment funded lab. You don't.

 

 

Originally posted by InsaneSith

okay, so why does he punish us for not worshipping him, or for not following his "true" path to righteousness?

How exactly can he be infallible if he claims to love us unconditionally as a parent, yet will openly condemn us to a never ending torrent of pain? no parent does that, sure they punish the children, but not for all eternity. All eternity is a hell of a ground that I figure should only be grounds on which someone raped or murdered someone. But not worshipping him, or working on sunday, or eating meat on a friday, that's hardly grounds for eternal suffering of the highest order.

 

Ah. A popular misconception. Lots of people claim to have read the bible. You're one of them. I'd like to know where you saw something that says you'll be poked in the ass with a picthfork in a really hot place by a guy with horns and a pointy tail. No bible I've read mentions that. The ones I've read talk about how if your name isn't in the book of life, you'll be judged and sent to die in hell. A second death. A spiritual one. Death for the soul. And denied the presence of God. And while to some people that might be as bad as infinite torture, it's still technically not infinite torture. You die for good. Maybe I read somethign different.

 

Originally posted by InsaneSith

and people pushing for gays not being allowed to wed is pushing beliefs on others, by force of law. This is immoral and wrong.

 

 

 

 

Originally posted by InsaneSith

And all who judge and cast the name of sinner upon one are guilty of a greater sin than the gay, or the non-worshipper. They are guilty of playing god, for only god has the right to judge and name those that are of sin.

 

Well how exactley can you talk about how people are bigtime sinners if they judge, by saying I judge the sin of judging in Gods place to be greater than...whatever. You're trying to talk for God. And it isn't working for you anymore than when other people do it and try to tell you about it. And it's just as big a hypocrisy.

 

Originally posted by InsaneSith

that's right, I read the bible.

 

Do tell. This isn't a flame, Insane Sith. Hope it doesn't come off that way. We're just talking, which is what this place is for if I'm not mistaken.

[El Sitherino]

well let me ask you this, what is the most common reason people turn to religion? for emotional healing and comfort that what they do not know has something lying behind it. The afterlife is the main draw of religion, the big end. People wonder whats at the end, religion brought peoples hopes to light by saying there was a shiny place at the end where you sit with the creator, or that you are reborn as a new life form to live a new life.

Religion is sought by those that seek comfort where they can find no certainty to.

 

and at no point did I explain anything away, I just stated what religion is, the same as science, a way to try and explain the inexplicable. To "know" the uncertain, but unlike most religion, the science and principles I live by have more founding than just one book written thousands of years ago, by multiple men with obvious prejudices.

just because I personally put something aside because I don't believe in it doesn't mean someone else has to. But I'm just trying to explain where I'm coming from.

 

I admit I could be wrong about religion, but going from what I've seen, and what others have uncovered, I'm pretty sure. But being someone that lives by my standards I will always have that 1% of questioning left.

 

Originally posted by CapNColostomy

How can you not know Please. Stop making it sound like your posting between the changing of lab coats. Okay, so you don't believe in God, but don't totally discount him either. I think that hardly qualifies you as a "scientist", professor. No offense meant by that mind you. It just seems like your making way more importance of your stance on the subject than is required or believable. "Scientist". Sounds like you have a goverment funded lab. You don't.

scientist

 

\Sci"en*tist\, n. One learned in science; a scientific investigator; one devoted to scientific study; a savant.

Over 4 years of constant studying on science, I believe allows me some standpoint as someone able to claim being a scientist, licensed? no, but one none the less, I live my life by scientific principal standards.

 

 

Originally posted by CapNColostomy

Ah. A popular misconception. Lots of people claim to have read the bible. You're one of them. I'd like to know where you saw something that says you'll be poked in the ass with a picthfork in a really hot place by a guy with horns and a pointy tail. No bible I've read mentions that. The ones I've read talk about how if your name isn't in the book of life, you'll be judged and sent to die in hell. A second death. A spiritual one. Death for the soul. And denied the presence of God. And while to some people that might be as bad as infinite torture, it's still technically not infinite torture. You die for good. Maybe I read somethign different.

where did I say there was a guy with a pitchfork? Hell is explained as a place of fire and brimstone where a sinner goes to suffer eternal damnation, the punishment consists of unimaginable horror and pain. the words eterntal damnation strike me as infinite, perhaps my understanding of eternity is misconstrued?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Originally posted by CapNColostomy

Well how exactley can you talk about how people are bigtime sinners if they judge, by saying I judge the sin of judging in Gods place to be greater than...whatever. You're trying to talk for God. And it isn't working for you anymore than when other people do it and try to tell you about it. And it's just as big a hypocrisy.

I never claimed to follow gods laws or obey him. and I'm just mentioning that acting as god is one of the greatest sins, atleast according to many christian athorities. I'm just spreading the news that their own book tells them, only god can judge and only god is allowed to judge. I never said I spoke for god.

 

 

nice job on the trying to make me out as a hypocrit though.

 

and no offense taken.

[CapNColostomy]

Originally posted by InsaneSith

I admit I could be wrong about religion, but going from what I've seen, and what others have uncovered, I'm pretty sure. But being someone that lives by my standards I will always have that 1% of questioning left.

 

Yes, 1%. Please, don't overdue it with your generous helpings of being objective, InsaneSith.

 

 

Originally posted by InsaneSith

Over 4 years of constant studying on science, I believe allows me some standpoint as someone able to claim being a scientist, licensed? no, but one none the less, I live my life by scientific principal standards.

 

Over four years, aye? Well in that case, since I also went to junior and high school, I too am now a scientist. Also, I'm a mathmetician, English professor, and professional weed smoker.

 

 

 

Originally posted by InsaneSith

where did I say there was a guy with a pitchfork? Hell is explained as a place of fire and brimstone where a sinner goes to suffer eternal damnation, the punishment consists of unimaginable horror and pain. the words eterntal damnation strike me as infinite, perhaps my understanding of eternity is misconstrued?

 

Perhaps your understanding of what (according to the bible you claim to have read) is supposed to happen for eternity is misconstrued. You die. Your soul dies. Hell doesn't continue, and neither do you. That's eternal. That's all I was saying. People have some silly-ass notion that the bible says somewhere that you suffer forever and ever and ever and ever. That doesn't exactley change what you said about God punishing people, but it's still not the same.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Originally posted by InsaneSith

I never claimed to follow gods laws or obey him. and I'm just mentioning that acting as god is one of the greatest sins, atleast according to many christian athorities. I'm just spreading the news that their own book tells them, only god can judge and only god is allowed to judge. I never said I spoke for god.

 

I never said you made such a claim. What I said you did, you actually did. You said

And all who judge and cast the name of sinner upon one are guilty of a greater sin than the gay, or the non-worshipper. They are guilty of playing god, for only god has the right to judge and name those that are of sin.

 

Which is basically saying that you've judged people who judge, and found their sins (judging) to be greater than being gay, or a non-worshipper. If you judge their sin, which you claim is passing judgement, then are you not as guilty of playing god? Because like you said, only god has the right to judge and name those that are of sin. I mean, you said that right? That makes this:

Originally posted by InsaneSith

nice job on the trying to make me out as a hypocrit though.

hillarious.

[El Sitherino]

Originally posted by CapNColostomy

Yes, 1%. Please, don't overdue it with your generous helpings of being objective, InsaneSith.

sarcasm, how wonderful.

Atleast I give second thought to others beliefs instead of shutting them off like many atheists and many theists.

take what you can get my friend.

 

Originally posted by CapNColostomy

Over four years, aye? Well in that case, since I also went to junior and high school, I too am now a scientist. Also, I'm a mathmetician, English professor, and professional weed smoker.

now you're getting it. From a technical standpoint you are, you are able to educate people on these matters.

 

 

 

Originally posted by CapNColostomy

Perhaps your understanding of what (according to the bible you claim to have read) is supposed to happen for eternity is misconstrued. You die. Your soul dies. Hell doesn't continue, and neither do you. That's eternal. That's all I was saying. People have some silly-ass notion that the bible says somewhere that you suffer forever and ever and ever and ever. That doesn't exactley change what you said about God punishing people, but it's still not the same.

Perhaps, but having been raised in the bible belt told and taught that the lord punishes the wicked for all eternity for their sins has held a different weight of words on me.

But I give you the fact that the bible is mis-represented, my observation of this has been tainted. My bad.

but then I wonder about this.... *ponders*

"And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched'' (Mark 9:43-48).

 

Taken from bible.com

We don't have to cut our limbs or pluck out our eyes to be free from hell, Jesus made a way for us to escape this evil through our repentance and acceptance of what He did for us on the cross when He died for the sins of our flesh. However, we see clearly that His statement signifies the exclusion of the hope of restoration and that punishment is eternal once a person is there. He repeats the words, "where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched," three times for emphasis.

surely such devout believers cannot be wrong and thus destroying the word of the bible so carelessly without studying the words themselves.

 

e·ter·nal (-tûrnl)

adj.

 

1. Being without beginning or end; existing outside of time. See Synonyms at infinite.

2. Continuing without interruption; perpetual.

3. Forever true or changeless: eternal truths.

4. Seemingly endless; interminable. See Synonyms at ageless. See Synonyms at continual.

5. Of or relating to spiritual communion with God, especially in the afterlife.

hmmmm interesting.

 

Originally posted by InsaneSith

and I'm just mentioning that acting as god is one of the greatest sins, atleast according to many christian athorities. I'm just spreading the news that their own book tells them, only god can judge and only god is allowed to judge. I never said I spoke for god.

but I suppose I could give you the point for judging those that judge others. But that's hardly of relevance to my beliefs, but touche none the less. Pardon me for helping others getting their own message to them.

[swphreak]

I don't believe in god..... because I don't :/

 

I don't know why. I've been to church every Sunday when I was a kid, but I really don't like any religion.

 

And I dislike others who try to pressure religion onto me, or claim I am wrong and they're right.

 

Just my comment to the topic.

[CapNColostomy]

Podering, huh? Well while you're at it, here's some more for you to ponder.

 

"The wages of sin is death." Romans 6:23.

 

"He shall destroy the sinners."Isaiah 13:9.

 

The Hebrew word, Sheol is translated to English to mean several different things, the most common use found in the Old Testament, is grave. Other translations of Sheol include die, realm of the dead, hades, underworld, pit, hell.

 

"All the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up." Malachi 4:1. "Fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them." Revelation 20:9. "The elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up." 2 Peter 3:10. "Ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet." Malachi 4:3. "Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness." 2 Peter 3:13.

 

More: "The soul that sinneth, it shall die." Ezekiel 18:20.

"Every living soul died in the sea." Revelation 16:3.

 

Souls die in hell. Man is mortal (Job 4:17). Only God is immortal (1 Timothy 6:15, 16).

 

More on how you've been mislead:

Matthew 10:28 says, "Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul. But rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell."

 

Still more:"The wicked is reserved to the day of destruction." "Yet shall he be brought to the grave, and shall remain in the tomb." Job 21:30, 32.

 

*sighs* Yes, more:"The wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." Romans 6:23.

"Sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death." James 1:15.

"God ... gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." John 3:16.

 

"But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death." Revelation 21:8.

 

The Bible says the wicked suffer "death" (Romans 6:23), will suffer "destruction" (Job 21:30), "shall perish" (Psalm 37:20), will "burn" up (Malachi 4:1), "shall be destroyed together" (Psalm 37:38), will "consume away" (Psalm 37:20), "shall be cut off" (Psalm 37:9), "shall be slain" (Psalm 62:3). God will "destroy" them (Psalm 145:20), and "fire shall devour them" (Psalm 21:9).

 

Note that all of these references make it clear that the wicked die and are destroyed. They do not live forever in misery.

 

The Bible does not tell how long the wicked will be punished before receiving death in the fire. God does specifically state, however, that all will be punished according to their deeds. This means some will receive greater punishment than others, based upon their works.

 

"And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be." Revelation 22:12.

"And then he shall reward every man according to his works." Matthew 16:27.

"That servant, which knew his lord's will, and ... neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes." Luke 12:47, 48.

 

Does Hells fire eventually go out?

 

 

"Behold, they shall be as stubble; the fire shall burn them; they shall not deliver themselves from the power of the flame: there shall not be a coal to warm at, nor fire to sit before it." Isaiah 47:14.

"And I saw a new heaven and a new earth." "And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away." Revelation 21:1, 4.

 

the Bible specifically teaches that hellfire will go out and that there will not be left "a coal to warm at, nor fire to sit before it." The Bible also teaches that in God's new kingdom all "former things" will be passed away. Hell, being one of the former things, is included.

 

Still more to disprove what you've been taught un the Bible Belt (also where I've been raised.)

 

"For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch." "And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day that I shall do this, saith the Lord of hosts." Malachi 4:1, 3.

 

Notice the verse does not say the wicked will burn like asbestos, as many today believe, but rather like stubble, which will be burned up. The little word "up" denotes completion. Nothing but ashes will be left when the fire goes out. In Psalm 37:10, 20, the Bible says the wicked will go up in smoke and be completely destroyed.

 

"It is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell." Matthew 5:30.

"Rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." Matthew 10:28.

"The soul that sinneth, it shall die." Ezekiel 18:20.

"I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee. ... And never shall thou be any more." Ezekiel 28:18, 19.

 

The word "hell" is used 54 times in the Bible, and in only 12 cases does it refer to "a place of burning." The word "hell" is translated from several different words with various meanings.

 

IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

31 times from "Sheol," which means "the grave."

 

IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

10 times from "Hades," which means "the grave."

12 times from "Gehenna," which means "the place of burning."

1 time from "Tartarus," which means "a place of darkness."

54 TIMES TOTAL

 

Note: The Greek word "Gehenna" (mentioned above) is a transliteration of the Hebrew "Ge-Hinnom," which means the "Valley of Hinnom." This valley, which lies immediately south and west of Jerusalem, was a place where dead animals, garbage, and other refuse were dumped. Fire burned constantly, as it does at modern sanitation dump sites. The Bible uses "Gehenna" or the "Valley of Hinnom" as a symbol of the fire that will destroy the lost at the end of time. The fire of Gehenna was not unending. Otherwise it would be still burning southwest of Jerusalem today. Neither will the fire of hell be unending.

 

Here's some more, if you're still with me:

 

"As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die?" Ezekiel 33:11.

"For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them." Luke 9:56.

"For the Lord shall rise up ... that he may do his work, his strange work; and bring to pass his act, his strange act." Isaiah 28:21.

 

As for your " unquenchable fire" quote:

 

Unquenchable fire is fire that cannot be put out, but which goes out when it has turned everything to ashes. Jeremiah 17:27 says Jerusalem was to be destroyed with unquenchable fire, and in 2 Chronicles 36:19-21 the Bible says this fire burned the city "to fulfill the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah" and left it desolate. Yet we know this fire went out, because Jerusalem is not burning today.

 

Matthew 25:46 says the wicked will receive "everlasting punishment". Matthew 25:46

Notice the word is punishment, not punishing. Punishing would be continuous, while punishment is one act. The punishment of the wicked is death, and this death is everlasting, or

e·ter·nal (-tûrnl)

adj.

 

1. Being without beginning or end; existing outside of time. See Synonyms at infinite.

2. Continuing without interruption; perpetual.

3. Forever true or changeless: eternal truths.

4. Seemingly endless; interminable. See Synonyms at ageless. See Synonyms at continual.

5. Of or relating to spiritual communion with God, especially in the afterlife.

 

Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed with everlasting, or eternal, fire (Jude 7), and that fire turned them "into ashes" as a warning to "those that after should live ungodly." 2 Peter 2:6. These cities are not burning today. The fire went out after everything was burned up. Likewise, everlasting fire will go out after it has turned the wicked to ashes (Malachi 4:3). The effects of the fire are everlasting, but not the burning itself.

 

The term "for ever," as used in the Bible, means simply a period of time, limited or unlimited. It is used 56 times in the Bible in connection with things that have already ended. (To check in a concordance, look up the word "ever.") It is like the word "tall," which means something different in describing men, trees, or mountains. In Jonah 2:6, "for ever" means "three days and nights." (See also Jonah 1:17.) In Deuteronomy 23:3, this means "10 generations." In the case of man, this means "as long as he lives" or "until death." (See 1 Samuel 1:22, 28; Exodus 21:6; Psalm 48:14.) So the wicked will burn in the fire as long as they live, or until death. This fiery punishment for sin will vary according to the degree of sins for each individual, but after the punishment, the fire will go out.

 

Sorry, I know all of this is dreadfully off topic. Having said that, please continue your fine discussions with the knowledge that I've said my piece, and won't hijack it any further. I'd like to add that in case someone tries to turn this into a atheism or whatever else vs. Christianity thread, that I'm not trying to imply that one or the other is the correct way. I was merely pointing out what I've been taught Hell is. That's all.

[TheLiberator34]

ya know, it is exactly these (^) kind of arguments that make me glad I acceped the morals of christianity without caring about the myths. I'd much rather worry about how I can do good in the here and now than worry about interpreting a 2000 year old document. Besides, I have yet to see someone who actually hasn't made up their mind about whether or not there is a god. The agnostics' position in doubt seems like a fleeting thing rather than an entrenched position in the theological debate.

The fact of the matter is that everyone who claims to believe in one thing or another has their moment of doubt. Its just a part of being alive.

[CapNColostomy]

And it's these (^) kinds of posts that make me scream "STOP SKIM-READING, AND READ THE WHOLE POST, *******!!!. In particular, the last paragraph where I said I was NOT arguing that Christianity is the right and only way to live. Once again, in a short easy for even you to read sentence, MY ARGUMENT IS NOT THAT CHRISTIANITY IS THE RIGHT WAY, BUT INSTEAD WHAT I'VE BEEN TAUGHT ABOUT WHAT HELL IS SUPPOSED TO BE ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE.

 

And I also mentioned how that is off topic, and I was done talking about it. So thanks for dragging me back in with your deleted remark about something you obviously didn't even bother reading. My appologies again, InsaneSith.

[El Sitherino]

I see what you're talking about now CapN, I never read it that way. Thank you for bringing this to me in a new light.

 

I was always told that when they talked about the second coming was that it was only for the old testament saints who had no messiah to take their sins upon himself. But perhaps this might just be another inconsistency in the bible. Either way, you were right and I was partially(from a certain point of view). But I tip my hat none the less.

 

just to clear things up, the second death, isn't that the death of the soul? the first being the death of the mortal body.

 

Originally posted by JediLiberator

ya know, it is exactly these (^) kind of arguments that make me glad I acceped the morals of christianity without caring about the myths. I'd much rather worry about how I can do good in the here and now than worry about interpreting a 2000 year old document.

and what exactly would those messages of outstanding morality be.?

 

Originally posted by JediLiberator

I have yet to see someone who actually hasn't made up their mind about whether or not there is a god.

hello, I'm InsaneSith.

 

Originally posted by JediLiberator

The agnostics' position in doubt seems like a fleeting thing rather than an entrenched position in the theological debate.

...pardon me?

 

Originally posted by JediLiberator

The fact of the matter is that everyone who claims to believe in one thing or another has their moment of doubt. Its just a part of being alive.

indeed.

 

Originally posted by CapNColostomy

My appologies again, InsaneSith.

No problem.

[CapNColostomy]

Originally posted by InsaneSith

just to clear things up, the second death, isn't that the death of the soul? the first being the death of the mortal body.

 

Well, to continue to be off topic, yes. At least that's the way I take it. It's still debatable. I don't have all the answers, any more than you do.

[Kain]

Somebody get obi in here, he's a pastor...isn't he? Or the son of one or soemthing like that. He can clarify.

[TheLiberator34]

My oh my, I think I struck a cord...

Anywho,

CapNColostomy-Yes I am guilty of a little skim reading. But as far as I can tell you're just as guilty for getting too in depth in the text and words of religion. So far I haven't heard you talk that much about doubt, which seems to me to be part and parcel of what it is to BE an agnostic. As far as I can tell anyway.

InsaneSith- Sorry if it seems I sort of brushed you off there dude. When I said the agnostic position seems to me to be a fleeting thing, I'm again referring to doubt. It just seems kind of hard to constantly be unsure about whether or not there is a god. In fact I'm pretty sure you're the only person I know I've seen who is an agnostic.

As for morality, I talking about values. Compassion, honesty, wisdom, etc. I've come to view religion as just the most widespread means of teaching morals to people. The problem with religions is that they reach a position of rigidity. That is to say,"Because what I believe is right, then what everyone else believes is automatically wrong." This kind of exclusiveness is what has led people into schisms, "holy" wars, and other bloody and ridiculous exercises in futility. And it could all be caused by two people having different interpretation of a holy book. That's what I don't like about my own religion, or any other for that matter. Unity is better served by allowing different points of view than quashing them. The point is to teach people right and wrong and give them the tools they need to live without destroying one another.

[CapNColostomy]

Originally posted by JediLiberator

CapNColostomy-Yes I am guilty of a little skim reading. But as far as I can tell you're just as guilty for getting too in depth in the text and words of religion. So far I haven't heard you talk that much about doubt, which seems to me to be part and parcel of what it is to BE an agnostic. As far as I can tell anyway.

 

Unless going a little off topic to explain to InsaneSith my interpretation of Hell as read from the Bible is a crime, then I'm guilty of nothing. I was getting "in depth" to back up my points. That is usually not frowned upon in a debate, much less a whole section of a forum devoted to debate. My idea of making a valid point is not simply to say "well, I have no ground to stand on or anything to back up my claims. Just know that I am 100% correct, and you are not."

 

The reason you've not "heard" me talk about doubt, or being agnostic is simple enough. I'm not agnostic. I never made such a claim. What I was talking about, I openly stated was off topic (the topic being agnostic) on more than one occasion. And I think it's high-time this conversation went back to its original topic, or simply dies away. I'm sure IS didn't create this thread to discuss different Hellish possibilities, or the title would've been different.

[toms]

I sort of get what you are saying JediLiberator about agnosticism being fleeting, as most people will tend towards god being real or not.

But i'm not sure it really works that way.

 

I would define an aethist as someone who believes there is no god. To me, there seems no more evidence that there ISN'T a god than there is evidence that there IS one.

So i would feel fairly hypocritical claiming categorically that there wasn't one.

In fact, the more we learn about the highly complex mechanisms that make up our universe and ourselves the more I sometime feel that there might be some conciousness behind it.

 

So, while you could define being agnostic as doubt, or indecision about which way to jump, that is not how i feel. I simply feel that I have had no reason to believe either viewpoint, so i am reserving judgement. It may be that at some point i will have an experience that will make me jump to one side or the other, but in the absence of such an experience it would be a hollow gesture to "nominally" support a viewpoint that i didn't truely believe in.

 

If there isn't a god, i lose nothing. If there is a god then I figure he has yet to make contact with me, so he won't hold my scepticism against me.

[Druid Bremen]

An atheist is normally defined as a person who believes so strongly in the non-existence of God, he is equally as rigid in his way of thinking about God as other religious people, thus in a way directly opposite in his beliefs, but not in his rigidity.

 

toms, your statements of agnosticism, I have difficulty in believing. Your case is like an observer in a case in court, with each opposing team being atheism and theism respectively. You do not know which one is right. Let us say that the evidence is perfectly balanced, meaning that there can be no judgement against each other, yet. Thus you are doubtful, and do not know which team to believe, because there is no evidence to prove the right (and wrong) of the teams. Is this not doubt?

 

Oh and, regarding your last statement, has it occured to you that if God ever existed, he could think differently from what we think he does? What if he willed the human race to be scientific, and punished those who placed their proofless belief in him, because they deviated from the course he set for them? Imagine.

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

Let us say that the evidence is perfectly balanced, meaning that there can be no judgement against each other, yet. Thus you are doubtful, and do not know which team to believe, because there is no evidence to prove the right (and wrong) of the teams. Is this not doubt?

 

I very much agree with this.

I do think the agnostic view can be viewed as 'doubt', which I see as NO bad thing...

 

It's admitting that some things can't be known for sure. I personally perscribe to it because I find it not only the most logical view as far as belief in God, it's also the most humble and the most honest belief imo... (it goes without saying this comes from a given point of view...)

 

In fact I'm pretty sure you're the only person I know I've seen who is an agnostic.

 

Beleive me, there are plenty of agnostics in this world...

[Kurgan]

Originally posted by ckcsaber

This is my general take on agnosticism.

 

 

 

Regarding this quote, I think you are generalizing the word religion. I am a Christian. I follow the word of Christ. I am NOT religious. Religions are hijacked by others all the time. I only concern my faith with myself. I mean, I still tell others about my beliefs when the time is appropriate, and try to get other's become aware of Christ. I don't go knocking on people's doors trying to convert as many people as I can, but I do try and do little things here and there.

 

Other people's beliefs don't anger me, and certainly don't make me want to go out and start a holy war. All I do is follow Christ's example the best I can.

 

A couple of things this brings to my mind (not all aimed at you in particular, so don't think I'm singling you out)...

 

One is the idea that yes, while certain, shall we say "non-believers" like to diss on religion (I see this on a few internet sites that tend to attract zealots of all stripes) in general, this discounts people who do genuinely believe in their chosen faith and try to live it the best they can in the spirit it was intended, rather than just some elitest club or excuse to bash their neighbors (the common criticism of "religions" in general by non-adherents).

 

Your personal beliefs are between you and whichever deity or power you believe in and your conscience. What matters to the rest of the world around you is how you ACT.

 

I can understand and people should understand WHY some religious people feel the need to try to share their faith with you (or, try to convert you, as some do, and keep in mind not all religions believe in trying to convert, but rather bearing witness with our lives and sharing as free sharing of any other idea). It's because a person's belief is so wonderful and enlightening to them they want to share it with the whole world. They don't want to just keep it to themselves. If it did such great things for them, why would they not want to tell other people?

 

It's like if you had a new baby, a proud parent wants to "show off" a bit, and share their joy.

 

Granted, not everyone wants to know or may take this as the person trying to "stick it to them" that "I have something and you don't, I'm somehow better than you" and this is unfortunate. It's all in the delivery.

 

And yes, again, unforunately many "missionaries" act as if they are just salesmen, and we know how annoying salesmen can be if you don't want the product and they just don't get it that you're not interested.

 

That is why many more missionary groups are becoming witnesses (as in "witnessing") rather than "converting" as if you can somehow force a person to change their worldview.

 

As to the idea of "religion" being a bad thing (by religious people no doubt), I have a real problem with this.

 

First off, they are re-defining the word. "Religion? That's bad. But I have Spirituality, which is good. It's not a religion! It's a way of life!"

 

Now I realize that various surveys and studies have shown that in Western societies many people put their religion in a little box. They don't talk about God or think about God or do anything God-related except 1 hour a week and it is totally seperate from everything else they do. If you didnt' see them in church or synagouge you would never know they had any belief at all.

 

But this is more a modern phenomena, and not everyone is like this. Go to some other country, say India or some "Muslim Country" and you'll see that people don't seperate their religion from daily life as much as we do.

 

So they would agree with you "yes it is my way of life."

 

But different strokes for different folks. Mother Teresa is a good example. She taught people about her faith, surely (Catholicism), but most of her work was with people of other religions (Hindus, Muslims, etc). She didn't try to convert them, just bear witness. Lead by example. If people wanted to convert, fine, but she didn't rub it in anyone's face.

 

Some christians would look at Mother Teresa and say "what a terrible Christian! She had an opportunity to convert all those poor heathens and she didn't!" others would say "what a wonderful person, she tolerated others, and lived her faith rather than trying to shove it down everyone's throat."

 

At a political meeting with world leaders she told them her views of abortion and how wrong she felt it was. So she wasn't afraid to show her views either. But this was a meeting of important leaders, where discussing tough issues and politics is something they do for a living.

 

So there are many approaches.

 

But, is Christianity a "religion"? Yes it is. There are many kinds of Christianity, and many approaches, but it is still a religion in any sense of the word (Unless you make up a new negative definition).

 

James talks about "true religion" in the New Testament, so it's not an alien word to Christian theology. Jesus did have harsh words for hypocrites of his own religion, but he also welcomed sinners and those who had fallen. He even had contact with non-Jews, though most of that he gave as a mission to the Apostles after he left his earthly ministry (to preach to the whole world). And while Jesus said he would be the Judge of all people, at the end of the world, he also stopped the disciples who wanted to "bring down fire and brimestone" to destroy the people who rejected their message. Jesus said instead to shake the dust from your feet and move on. There's no sense trying to force people to believe if they won't.

 

I don't blame people for being agnostics. There is a lot of confusion in the world and not a lot of "proof." As a religious person myself, I do hope that you can find "the truth" in your life, but I can't make anyone see it, it's something that has to come to you, or from within you. It's not my job to convert anyone.

 

I can only try (in my imperfect way) to bear witness. It's not easy, but it's something that is expected of me.

 

I guess the best advice anyone can give here is to say "keep an open mind" and "tolerate another person's right to make up their own mind."

[Kurgan]

Originally posted by InsaneSith

 

I was always told that when they talked about the second coming was that it was only for the old testament saints who had no messiah to take their sins upon himself. But perhaps this might just be another inconsistency in the bible. Either way, you were right and I was partially(from a certain point of view). But I tip my hat none the less.

 

We Catholics answer the "what happened to the people who died before Jesus?" thing, with the idea of Purgatory. This can also be a way to explain what happens to people who have no way of knowing about Christ, either because they live say in an atheist country or in some remote area or whatever situation you can come up with. A truly loving merciful God wouldn't send these folks to hell just because of a technicality, so there must be a way for them to be given an opportunity to be enlightened.

 

For us, Jesus IS the way to heaven, but he understands that not everyone has an equal exposure to the Gospel ("good news" that through Christ we can have eternal life in heaven). That is why in the last half century, despite our emphasis on exclusive salvation, our church has emphasized that people of other faiths and even atheists have a chance at heaven. Those who seek God with a sincere heart and live according to the dictates of their conscience may be granted eternal salvation (all the more reason to be careful not to judge them).

 

Purgatory, though, is primarily the place (or "state") where the dead who to be purged of minor sins. If you're not in a perfect state of grace at death, you have to be cleansed of your sin to enter heaven (in the book of Revelation it talks about nothing sinful being able to enter, and St. Paul talks about cleansing as if by fire, and gold being tested). Some sins are mortal ('lead to death' ie: Hell) while others are not (we call them 'venial' or less serious sins). All sins are bad, but some are worse than others.

 

Also, the Second Coming of Christ, in our belief (and not just our's) WILL convince at least some people to change their lives and convert. I have heard Evangelical Christians apply this belief specifically to "the Jews" at the end of the world. Many Jews awaiting the (first) coming of the Messiah. Muslims believe that Jesus (whom they deny is in any way divine himself, only a Prophet) will return at the end of the world to teach Christians the error of their ways and defeat the Antichrist, etc. When we were kids we were able to end such theological arguments peacefully by saying "well, we all believe Jesus is going to come back and that will settle things." Of course that doesn't work for those who don't believe in Jesus coming back, but it should work for quite a few people (if only!).

 

Hell was actually created as a place to contain the angels who rebelled against God (demons). But it's also the place (or state) where we believe that the souls who cut themselves off from God with mortal sins go. Do they go there after the Last Judgement or immediately after death? Without having been dead, I can't say for sure, but there is some theological debate about this. Some try to get around it by saying that when you die and then are judged no time passes for you to know what happens in between. Others speculate that when you die you are "outside of time" (like God) so its simply an irrelevant question.

 

One thing that is harder for people to understand (including kids in Sunday School) is the idea that Jesus dies for all mankind, for all time, not just the people who lived in the 1st century or before it. Everyone. And, speculating that there are extraterrestrials out there that are in need salvation, he died for them too (it's only fair, right?).

 

Anyway, feel free to disagree, this is the Catholic point of view.

[Kain]

The Catholic Church...HA!!

 

These are the same people who sold chunks of oak for hefty HEFTY prices to villagers in medival times to 'speed there time in Purgatory'. Nice buncha guys, them Catholics.

 

Seriously, I can't understand how ANYONE can have faith in any branch of Chritianity after the atrocities that the church has commited.