Hell
- Thread starter Lady
- Start date
Frank4YAHWEH
Registered Member
Mark Yahweh's Word
Justine,
No, I would prefer to Mark Yahweh's Word over your word.
Here is a parable (illustation).
What happens to something when you place it in a fire. It is obviously DESTROYED.
Everlasting Fire Means Everlasting Destuction
"... Who shall be punished with everlating DESTRUCTION ... (2 Thessalonians 1:9; cf. Mattithyah [Matthew] 18:8 & 24:41)
All these things Yahshua spoke to the multitude in parables (illustrations); and without a parable He did not speak to them.
That it might be fulfilled by the prophet, saying: I will open My mouth in a parable. I will utter dark sayings - which have been kept secret since the foundation of the world. (Mattithyah [Matthew] 13:34,35; Psalm 78:2)
Oh, Hell!
Justine,
No, I would prefer to Mark Yahweh's Word over your word.
Here is a parable (illustation).
What happens to something when you place it in a fire. It is obviously DESTROYED.
Everlasting Fire Means Everlasting Destuction
"... Who shall be punished with everlating DESTRUCTION ... (2 Thessalonians 1:9; cf. Mattithyah [Matthew] 18:8 & 24:41)
All these things Yahshua spoke to the multitude in parables (illustrations); and without a parable He did not speak to them.
That it might be fulfilled by the prophet, saying: I will open My mouth in a parable. I will utter dark sayings - which have been kept secret since the foundation of the world. (Mattithyah [Matthew] 13:34,35; Psalm 78:2)
Oh, Hell!
Last edited:
Cris
Binary
Truth Seeker
This statement logically leads to the question; What is independent evidence and why would we assume that this independent evidence has any validity in establishing truth? The answer is that thinking in the manner quoted above will never allow one to accept anything as truth because then evidence would have to be independently verified. We all take our 'truths' on faith.
He selects us due to our choice. He judjes us. as we all make good and bad choices, and He is the one who ultimiately decides if we made enough good or enough bad choices. He has every right to judge us, He created us, He sustains us, we live on his property, we use his atoms for our bodies, heck... we use his everything for our existence. He has every right. Not to mention He has the ultimate wisdom.
This is one of the most seriously botched up arguments I've ever seen presented. Oh... and it also illustrated some really short-sighted rationale.. wow. (Now that's true myopia). I'm not God but I thought Cris was better than that (seriously).
Binary
Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, New Age, Christians - all religionists have a spiritual mind. I'm sure they don't all see the same meaning in the Biblical text. You will understand the true meaning of scripture when you embrace the sovereignty of God, accept the gift of His Son, and utilize the presence of His Holy Spirit. A spiritual mind without God means squat. I would hope that we are not trying to play 'god' by judging the nature of those we encounter in which case may we remind ourselves of this scripture;Matthew 7:1-5 - in short it is about you having the black hole in your eye and criticizing the sand particle in another person's. And I carefully note that this is also for my consideration.
Truth Seeker
What exactly did you mean by this? That hell is non-existence?
MarcAC,
Hell is abscence of God. Abscence of God is non-existance.
Hell is abscence of God. Abscence of God is non-existance.
Independent would mean evidence that isn't dependant on proving the subject in question right. And to make such outside evidence valid, you have to have multiple agreement in the subject matter. You're correct, to find one outside source, and assume that it's correct would be foolish, but finding many sources not tied to the subject that verify it would be reliable. Ironically, many outside "independant" evidence for scripture truths are single ones, often second hand...and yet they are valid in the eyes of those who want to believe.
But that's how science works...there is no "truth" in any science, but the stronger the evidence matches the predictions of the theory, the more valid the theory is. Religion cannot work that way, so you rely on faith that what you believe is true. In the end, science becomes more believable and closer to the "truth".
Marcac,
I’m sure you can see the massive difference between independent verification of a claim than not having any. Here it is a clear distinction between knowing the truth and not knowing.
Contrast that with the alleged perfect love that your alleged god would show – “bad choice kiddo, I’m gonna torture you for eternity”. Some perfect love huh?
If person A shoots B and claims someone else shot B and there are no witnesses how do you determine if A is a killer and a liar, or whether there really was someone else? Now take the same scenario but now with unseen independent witnesses present.
I’m sure you can see the massive difference between independent verification of a claim than not having any. Here it is a clear distinction between knowing the truth and not knowing.
Bingo. Now you understand why atheists don’t believe in gods since there is no independent verifiable evidence.
There is NO situation where you MUST believe any claim based on blind faith. If evidence is present then you will KNOW, if it is not present then you CANNOT know.
So by your reasoning if a couple decides to bring a new human into the world then that child owes its existence to its parents, and they are free to judge that child according to their rules. But even if the child disobeys its parents and does bad things do the parents have the right to kill and torture the child? Truly loving parents will continue to love their child no matter what the child does.
Contrast that with the alleged perfect love that your alleged god would show – “bad choice kiddo, I’m gonna torture you for eternity”. Some perfect love huh?
??? These assumptions have no bearing or relevance to my statement. The issue was the human Free Will to Love and Truthseeker’s assertion that God is Love.
I was quoting Truthseeker; please inform him of your alternate interpretation.
But it does limit the free will to love if God is the source of love, i.e. GOD IS LOVE as quoted by Truthseeker.
It is? I thought that was the most sensible conclusion to draw from Truthseeker’s rantings.
So go explain that to truthseeker since it was his twisted imaginings that led to this point. It looks like you have also tried to take my responses out of context, so no wonder you sound confused.
You aren’t wrong, but that is what comes from trying to interpret the distorted reasoning of delusional Christians like Truthseeker, the result is gibberish.
Wes,
Perhaps, but I think blind faith is born more out of laziness of people who do not want to take the trouble to find out for themselves. They would much prefer to follow someone else. It is a sheep like mentality that has been adopted by the vast majority of the human race.
Perhaps, but I think blind faith is born more out of laziness of people who do not want to take the trouble to find out for themselves. They would much prefer to follow someone else. It is a sheep like mentality that has been adopted by the vast majority of the human race.
I agree, blind faith is (in my opinion) a very stupid thing to have, however many christians do not have BLIND faith.......most have seen things that they believe provide evidence to prove the claims of christianity to them, just as some people have seen things that they believe proves darwins theory of evolution. Neither are following something just b/c its whats right there, they are following because they see some truth in it and evidence for it.
Hey trust me its number 3! the only problem is everyone dies and goes to hell... the only people who don't go to hell are the athiest: they go to the place they thought they were going: nowhere...
You love me Cris, don't you...?
Cris,
I believe it is as has always likely been (at least during the time of man). I think your conclusion is correct, but the reasons are a little off. While your suggestion of laziness is accurate, it is not inclusive nor do I think it the bulk of the reason that people stop pursuing the question. I would assert that the major reason is that people don't have the tools or motivation (lack of motivation toward this argument doesn't really mean you're lazy) to reasonably address an unanswerable question and do not find such a pursuit appealing. They do not realize the implications thereof.
I'll be happy to finish the essay if you wish.. you may see what I mean without my having to bother...
My Hell
Truth Seeker
Truth Seeker
Well if you define the absence of God as non-existence - well yeah, but, Hell exists or will exist, so how can it be non-existence? I would prefer to say existence without God's love and intervention - where nothing will restrain the potential for evil. And concerning Cris's last post addressed to me, did he misread or did I? Or was he just lying?
Agreed to an extent...
Jaxom
. What makes science believable is the 'tangible' evidence - all of which is not tangible because in essence no-one has ever seen an electron or a proton or a neutron or a neutrino or the bevy of other subatomic particles. Physicists use computer modeling to 'image tracks of these 'particles'. - in essence science supports itself. Why do we accept science? Faith. You have to accept something right? Yet many on this forum piously accept science or logic as the ultimate conveyor of truth - shows you what they know huh? - And yet say they don't have faith.
Jaxom
Care to provide some examples and can you define 'second hand'? It would be better to be more specific as many scriptures in the Bible have archeological, geological, and secular historical evidence. Archeologists have unearthed Capernaum - the town where Jesus lived - and it fits perfectly with biblical descriptions - biblical descriptions of Jerusalem and the temple also fit firmly into archeological findings. Archeological evidence of the book of Exodus has been found as well as geological events which coincide - approximately with many phenomena in the book of Exodus - the pillar of smoke which guided the Israelites, the fire in the night and even the crossing of the sea of reeds - as with many scientific findings though, these are debated by some. Even the supernatural events have modern parallels. 'Faith' healings be they placebo or not - no one knows for sure, and speaking in 'tongues' people speaking in some wierd language and others understanding them without any previous venture into the language arts. So, from a neutral perspective, the Bible does have a basis in truth.
What 'truth'? On the basis of your thinking agnosticism is the only valid corollary - we would have no idea of knowing. When you speak to a Christian, however, he will tell you that some weird stuff has happened to him - you won't necessarily believe him - but that wouldn't mean it didn't happen - it is just your choice to believe or not - to investigate or not. You use faith in science when irregularities crop up and instead of abandoning your theories you choose to find a solution to 'fill the gap'. Maybe if you abandoned your theory you would get closer to the 'truth' - then again maybe not
. What makes science believable is the 'tangible' evidence - all of which is not tangible because in essence no-one has ever seen an electron or a proton or a neutron or a neutrino or the bevy of other subatomic particles. Physicists use computer modeling to 'image tracks of these 'particles'. - in essence science supports itself. Why do we accept science? Faith. You have to accept something right? Yet many on this forum piously accept science or logic as the ultimate conveyor of truth - shows you what they know huh? - And yet say they don't have faith.Cris
Get my drift?
And with the parent child thing again we won't even go into the possibilities of what the child can do. What if the child wants to kill you and tries to and the situation arises where one if you will live - what would you do Cris? It has happened before
No it isn't. The only distinction there is that you had no witness then you had many 'witnesses'; how do we know none are lying? How do we determine if those 'unseen independent witnesses' are truly 'independent'? Maybe they are all banded together to promote a lie? How far away were they? Could there have been somebody else with a gun? Are they... myopic? Do you know about crop circles Cris? What is the truth behind them - hundreds if not thousands if not millions of witnesses? What about U.F.O.s? So many witnesses - yet it is still unsure - even video-tapes! Not that I believe anything about U.F.O.s.
Get my drift?No... no Bingo. No, I don't understand, because most of them 'believe in' logic and science and will make futile attempts to use these to debunk religious beliefs... (o.k. o.k... Christian beliefs) when there is no 'independent verifiable evidence' of logic. What do you use to verify the truth of logical reasoning Cris? Logical reasoning? Obviously, Cris, you don't believe anything, no logic no science nothing, you are agnostic right, or are you partial in that sense?[/color]
Are you sure Cris? 'Blind' faith is hidden so deeply within the structure of our human society you might miss it. I think humans have to take everything on faith - implicit or explicit - we couldn't function without it - we'd go crazy. True agnostics will not be sure of one crap about their whole existence. If they express agnosticism towards God alone that displays some bias.
Not by my reasoning Cris, by your reasoning. You really have some personal vendetta against God don't you Cris? Pure Catharsis. Firstly - the child owes it's existence to God - parents are secondary - they didn't create anything - they were the medium through which it was created. You're situation is not an analogue, it is the same thing but you just removed God from it. Parent's didn't create atoms that make up their genes, God did!
And with the parent child thing again we won't even go into the possibilities of what the child can do. What if the child wants to kill you and tries to and the situation arises where one if you will live - what would you do Cris? It has happened before??? These assumptions have no bearing or relevance to my statement. The issue was the human Free Will to Love and Truthseeker’s assertion that God is Love.Oh. So what if we need God to love? We have free-will otherwise. What was the point of the whole statement? From the new view it is even more abstruse.
Well, you define your interpretations as quotes. O.k.
What exactly is 'it'. We have the choice to accept God and experience true love or don't accept Him and don't experience it. Our choice, right?
Guess you thought wrong huh?
Your point right? Not really, your points were either ambivalent or you were confused yourself - I'll elect to take the former.
Well... it's good when we can admit the scrappiness of our arguments. Applauds to you Cris.
Uhm... sorry to hog the space guys...
Marcarc,
You seem to question reason and logic. Okay, that's valid I suppose.. but you say that faith in "god" or "jesus" or "the bible" should present more "weight" regarding any argument than reason?
How do you arrive at that conclusion if indeed that's an accurate assessment of your position? If not.. how can you reach the conclusion that christianity has any bearing on anything? Are we not indeed lost without reason (though it may not be accurate in the long run, how is it not the best route to attempt to understand)?
Sure, you're right.. even reason requires faith that reason is an appropriate tool by which to examine reality.. but okay... that's where I place my faith. Now what?
How can I be compelled to think that christianity (or any of its major competetors) has anything to do with anything? I'd hypothosize a bunch of things christianity is about, via reason.. but you probably wouldn't like my conclusions. What say you?
You seem to question reason and logic. Okay, that's valid I suppose.. but you say that faith in "god" or "jesus" or "the bible" should present more "weight" regarding any argument than reason?
How do you arrive at that conclusion if indeed that's an accurate assessment of your position? If not.. how can you reach the conclusion that christianity has any bearing on anything? Are we not indeed lost without reason (though it may not be accurate in the long run, how is it not the best route to attempt to understand)?
Sure, you're right.. even reason requires faith that reason is an appropriate tool by which to examine reality.. but okay... that's where I place my faith. Now what?
How can I be compelled to think that christianity (or any of its major competetors) has anything to do with anything? I'd hypothosize a bunch of things christianity is about, via reason.. but you probably wouldn't like my conclusions. What say you?