We're all going to hell.

[pragmathen]

Hell is an actual place ... in the mind

When Christians think of Hell, they envision a place that perpetually torments those that chose not to believe in Christ. It is impossible for them to think that others, despite what they chose <i>not</i> to believe in, will be enjoying an afterlife. Either follow and embrace Christ or go to Hell. Literally.

And, why do most Christian religions make it a point to focus most of their energies on the consequences of <i>not</i> following the doctrines and principles of their respective sect? Would it be surprising if the average Christian actually knew more about Hell than Heaven?

Let's say that Christians end up going to Heaven. And, for the sake of argument, let's say that they are given the opportunity to become as God, i.e. all-powerful and able to create worlds and such. Given the opportunity, would these same Christians say that they would then create a different world than the one on which they were reared? There is a point to be made by this. If they believe in free will (that they have a choice, by their actions, between Heaven and Hell) and they become as God, they still can<i>not</i> deviate from that which God has set forth on this planet. So, even if they become as God, they <i>still</i> have no choice in the matter but to do the same as God did before them.

Now, how does all of this relate to Hell being an actual place?

Hell is the great eugenics movement of Christians. They <b>live</b> for the day "when" Christ will come back and cut everyone down to stubble that does not believe in Him. They long for a return to the Old Testament days when entire cultures were wiped out because they chose to think differently and worship someone else. A Christian wouldn't be a Christian unless they had a well-developed sense and definition of Hell. If they had no consequences for <i>not</i> following, would they? Tough question. Thankfully, they don't have to answer. They just have to follow.

Oh, Hell is an actual place, all right. Just not exactly geographically- or quantum-oriented. Nowhere is Hell more defined than in one's own mind. Besides, no one can really be happy without Christ in their lives, can they?

 

[Tiassa]

Would, "Amen!" be out of the question?

How about, "Hallelujah!"

thanx much, prag,
Tiassa,

 

[FA_Q2]

Well, i seem to still be stuck with the same question, tony1. What happened? Don't have an answer?

I know its fruitless tiassa but I'm pressing on anyway.

 

[daktaklakpak]

Originally posted by tony1


The two choices are live forever or die.

Does die mean to cease to exist? If yes, then where is the suffering in hell? If no, then you should change your sentence to:

The two choices are live in heaven or hell forever.

Since it's forever, does it really matter if there is suffering? People can detect strange odor during early encounters. But if they stay long enough, they won't notice anymore. I am pretty sure that if they stay forever, they can't tell any difference anymore.

 

[tetra]

I am athiest so I am totally immune to your bible talk

Not everything is the same as your sense of smell; it's unfair to generalize everything in existance to a simple sense.

 

[tony1]

Originally posted by tiassa
You've figured out a very important key to being human!

Well then, try taking it one step farther.
You don't know anything either.
Thus, every time you question the word of God, or the existence of God, you are wrong.

Nobody ever said there wasn't knowledge in the Bible. I mean, critics of Christianity generally point out that the Bible is inconsistent with the publicly expressed Christianity; that the Bible is contradictory unto itself if taken literally; and that all Christian "knowledge" seems to ensconce itself amid the illusion that this book which orders the reader to believe it as truth claims to be true.

Of course, there is this...
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
(1 Corinthians 2:14, KJV).

If I am going to adopt the Bible as my guide to reality, I would like to know that it at least does not reject observable reality. If I am going to replace observable reality with the Bible, it would be nice to have some inward assurance that this new reality will not compel me to behave in a manner deviating from the standard my new, Biblical reality requires.

Unfortunately, you seem to be defining observable reality as the reality you expect to see prior to observing it.

If it were not for the hateful exclusivity the Jealous God of the Bible demands; were it not for the, "Worship me or burn" element of the alleged free choice of faith, much of that Bible would not be in conflict with reality. And its church would be better off today, and thus all of the peoples for whom history has had such distaste as to cause them to encounter the religion.

Now you're just channeling.

If I wish to know something as relates to a moral quandary, it is because I wish to resolve the quandary correctly. The religion of the Bible does not necessarily allow for this. If I wish to settle a moral quandary as pertains to another person, I should seek equity, instead of a Bible phrase that tells me what equity is regardless of the circumstances. The difference there is doing the best you can, or being lazy enough to look it up in a book and call it real because it feels good enough that way.

Of course, doing the best you can is pretty much worthless, given the "not knowing anything" problem that you agreed with earlier.

Actually, my most direct suggestion would be that people seek salvation somewhere where they don't have to grovel for it. Better yet, yeah, ignore the need for salvation. If you're doing something to be saved, you won't be; this much is clear to many of us who do not choose the faith; in fact, it is the reason many of us have left the faith--even saved, we were still doomed to spiritual blackmail, and the eventual condemnation of having given in. One cannot shoot for salvation; it's dishonest. It puts a false motive behind all your good works.

The real reason people leave the faith...

The sower soweth the word.
And these are they by the way side, where the word is sown; but when they have heard, Satan cometh immediately, and taketh away the word that was sown in their hearts.
And these are they likewise which are sown on stony ground; who, when they have heard the word, immediately receive it with gladness;
And have no root in themselves, and so endure but for a time: afterward, when affliction or persecution ariseth for the word's sake, immediately they are offended.
And these are they which are sown among thorns; such as hear the word,
And the cares of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the lusts of other things entering in, choke the word, and it becometh unfruitful.
And these are they which are sown on good ground; such as hear the word, and receive it, and bring forth fruit, some thirtyfold, some sixty, and some an hundred.
(Mark 4:14-20, KJV).

On the other hand, if you do something simply because it is the right thing to do ... well, you've done an honest, right thing.

And the moon is made of green cheese.

I, unlike you, am aware that the Bible takes on a different context when read as a whole as compared to when it is presented as aphorisms, witticisms, or the whole of a rhetorical argument.

Most probably not.

So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.
(Isaiah 55:11, KJV).

You really do not know what God sends his word out to do.

Furthermore, I, unlike you, recognize that the Bible applies a critical standard to itself which rarely comes up. It demands that it is perfect; it demands that it is true; and it threatens the reader who chooses not to believe it. Part of the standard of viewing the Bible involves considering these factors. ... You dare speak of how you view books when you cannot even see the nature of the book you worship?

You've identified the Bible as a book that is different from other books, and you appear to be complaining that it is different.

What you have then assumed is that your sparse and cowardly commentary makes sense, and that another individual reading your Bible quote will perceive it identically as you, and thus understand your irrelevance as something important. Stop assuming you know what people are thinking. Your best efforts to reduce people's minds to your level only demonstrates the level of your own mind.

I don't claim to know what God sends his word out to do.
What God wants his word to accomplish is his business.

At the same time, don't expect me to believe a word of what you are channeling.
If you state what you think, that is not a problem, but a lot of what you are saying is cookie-cutter style demonic "rhetoric."

As I mentioned earlier, demons are smarter than some people in a dim sort of way.
They are smarter in the sense that they can easily convince you to believe any old thing.
They are dim in the sense that it is always the same old thing.

pragmathen:
It's obvious why you "left" the faith, you were never there.

When Christians think of Hell, they envision a place that perpetually torments those that chose not to believe in Christ.

You couldn't possibly have gotten that out of any known Bible, so that means that you couldn't have been reading it, which in turn means that whatever religion you were following wasn't Christianity.

FA_Q2:

Well, i seem to still be stuck with the same question, tony1. What happened? Don't have an answer?

What question is that?

Originally posted by daktaklakpak
Does die mean to cease to exist? If yes, then where is the suffering in hell?

Nowhere. It's not in the Bible.
Even the suffering in the lake of fire only lasts until the person turns into a puff of smoke.

But the wicked shall perish, and the enemies of the LORD shall be as the fat of lambs: they shall consume; into smoke shall they consume away.
(Psalms 37:20, KJV).

Since it's forever, does it really matter if there is suffering? People can detect strange odor during early encounters. But if they stay long enough, they won't notice anymore. I am pretty sure that if they stay forever, they can't tell any difference anymore.

Good point.
But it doesn't make any difference, since no matter what kind of hell you think there is, when the smoke clears (pun intended) there is no more suffering.

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 21:4, KJV).

Presumably, "former things" includes hell.

Originally posted by tetra
I am athiest so I am totally immune to your bible talk

Riiiight.

For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.
(Romans 14:11, KJV).

Since you're going to confess that Jesus is Lord anyway, do it when it will get you eternal life.

 

[Tiassa]

Tony ... Hunk-Ra says ....

Well then, try taking it one step farther.
You don't know anything either.
Thus, every time you question the word of God, or the existence of God, you are wrong.

The detail that you're missing, Tony, is that I'm not threatening people's immortal existence by my philosophy. Certainly, it rests on its own a priori truths, but compare these two assumed truths:

* Being that we've seen no signs of impending instability in the star, I figure the sun will rise tomorrow.
* By the grace of God, the sun will rise tomorrow.

If someone objects to my a priori, that we've seen no signs of impending instability, it would be to demonstrate that I am wrong in that assumption. To object to the a priori of God's grace is, by the consistent example of history, heretical and worthy of all sorts of unpleasant extremes, death included.

Try a more relevant a priori:

* I cannot perceive the God described in this book; I can only conclude that there is no God to see.
* I cannot perceive the God described in this book; therefore, he must be greater than my perception, and deserves to be feared and worshipped.

To employ one or the other as a fundamental reality vastly affects the moral principle by which one chooses their actions. I think it is much more healthy to do the right thing because all signs indicate that this is what is best for as many people as the situation accounts for, as opposed to doing what God says because I've assumed that I need to be afraid of His wrath of I've done the wrong thing.

It reminds me of one of the dumbest slogans I've ever read, on the marquee of a church in Belltown, Seattle: Liberty is not the freedom to do what you want, but the freedom to do what God says is right.

Given what we've convinced ourselves God thinks is right, this is a scary concept. Manifest Destiny, encomienda, misogyny ....

How about, Liberty is the freedom to think for your own self, and to do what is best for your own self.

Even that liberty has its abusive pitfalls; just watch the Capitalists play. As Marx noted, they'll sell you the rope, but it doesn't change the fact that they choose to do this because they truly think that it's what is best for them. They do not sell you the rope to hang them with because God says so. In Marx's extreme, the Capitalist is an idiot. In the God-structure, the Captialist is a slave.

There's nothing wrong with being an idiot.

But nobody should be a slave. Period.

Of course, there is this...
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
(1 Corinthians 2:14, KJV).

Which is exactly why I wonder how Christians come to put so much stock in the Bible.

Unfortunately, you seem to be defining observable reality as the reality you expect to see prior to observing it.

Without the handbook to reality, one has the opportunity to discover what is real. With the handbook, one is required to believe in reality as it is dictated.

Now you're just channeling.

Yes, I speak for Hunk-Ra.

Of course, doing the best you can is pretty much worthless, given the "not knowing anything" problem that you agreed with earlier.

It's people who think like you do who constitute enough of the population to make that exactly the problem. Would you rather just bitch about how stupid you are, or go out and find some answers? Get over your poor, embittered self, man!

The real reason people leave the faith...

The sower soweth the word.
And these are they by the way side, where the word is sown; but when they have heard, Satan cometh immediately, and taketh away the word that was sown in their hearts.
And these are they likewise which are sown on stony ground; who, when they have heard the word, immediately receive it with gladness;
And have no root in themselves, and so endure but for a time: afterward, when affliction or persecution ariseth for the word's sake, immediately they are offended.
And these are they which are sown among thorns; such as hear the word,
And the cares of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the lusts of other things entering in, choke the word, and it becometh unfruitful.
And these are they which are sown on good ground; such as hear the word, and receive it, and bring forth fruit, some thirtyfold, some sixty, and some an hundred.
(Mark 4:14-20, KJV).

You're right. The real reason people have faith is because it is easier to believe whatever their psyches can make of that kind of religion as opposed to going out and learning what exactly those things mean. I mean, if I could just sit back and cast out a Bible phrase as the solution without ever giving it much thought, I would. However, such intellectual sloth leaves me feeling somewhat irresponsible in my regard for my fellow humans. It's tougher to find a right path than just take one and call it right, but I think it's more beneficial for myself and my community.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the other hand, if you do something simply because it is the right thing to do ... well, you've done an honest, right thing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

And the moon is made of green cheese.

You're going to have to expand on that.

I'll even give you a place to start, if you like:

* If I have given a homeless man money for food because God reminds me to charity, then I have given a homeless man money in duty to God.

* If I have given a homeless man money for food because I don't want him to starve, then I have given him money because it is what I think is the right thing to do, regardless of what God wants.

Most probably not.

So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.
(Isaiah 55:11, KJV).

You really do not know what God sends his word out to do.

I'm speaking of context in that which you're objecting to. You have not grasped the concept to which you are objecting.

You've identified the Bible as a book that is different from other books, and you appear to be complaining that it is different.

Which is my evidence of the above assertion I've made that you have not grasped the concept to which you object.

The Bible is a different book than others. It belongs in a fairly narrow class of books which do not lie within the grasp of the reader's liberty: they challenge the reader by demanding acceptance and infallibility. The Bible does not accomplish what it sets out to via religious practice; it has failed to meet the standards of veracity that it demands. Certainly Emma Goldman writes with a certain sense of authority, but she does not claim to be the end-all of credible existence. The Bible and its religion have wished such credibility issues upon themselves. They have failed to answer the challenges they have placed upon themselves.

I don't claim to know what God sends his word out to do.
What God wants his word to accomplish is his business.

So it troubles God none, then, that He is being misrepresented?

And I think you do claim to know what God sends his word out to do. After all, you've decided a few things about the Catholics that it seems that God would disagree with. You seem to know who is and isn't Christian.

--Tiassa

 

[daktaklakpak]

Originally posted by tony1
... the wicked shall perish ...

Heh heh! I heard the same thing said by specie 8472. Guess what happened at the end?

 

[tony1]

Re: Tony ... Hunk-Ra says ....

Originally posted by tiassa
The detail that you're missing, Tony, is that I'm not threatening people's immortal existence by my philosophy.

What immortal existence?

* Being that we've seen no signs of impending instability in the star, I figure the sun will rise tomorrow.
* By the grace of God, the sun will rise tomorrow.

If someone objects to my a priori, that we've seen no signs of impending instability, it would be to demonstrate that I am wrong in that assumption. To object to the a priori of God's grace is, by the consistent example of history, heretical and worthy of all sorts of unpleasant extremes, death included.

The Catholics were an irritable bunch at times.

* I cannot perceive the God described in this book; I can only conclude that there is no God to see.

Oddly, you'd be right, since God is invisible.

* I cannot perceive the God described in this book; therefore, he must be greater than my perception, and deserves to be feared and worshipped.

Oddly, you'd be wrong, since he isn't to be feared and worshipped because he is invisible.

I think it is much more healthy to do the right thing because all signs indicate that this is what is best for as many people as the situation accounts for, as opposed to doing what God says because I've assumed that I need to be afraid of His wrath of I've done the wrong thing.

Here you'd be wrong simply because you have no idea what would be best.

Which is exactly why I wonder how Christians come to put so much stock in the Bible.

Since you don't understand it, I'm not surprised.

Without the handbook to reality, one has the opportunity to discover what is real. With the handbook, one is required to believe in reality as it is dictated.

You can also disregard the information in your car owner's manual, too.
I wonder why more people believe in their car's manual without question, than believe in their own owner's manual?
There is much more reason to disregard a car manufactuirer's recommendations than to disregard your manufacturer's recommendations.

It's people who think like you do who constitute enough of the population to make that exactly the problem. Would you rather just bitch about how stupid you are, or go out and find some answers? Get over your poor, embittered self, man!

I've had my fill of "scientific" answers.
What it boils down to is that, according to you, I should pay attention to some idiot who has three or four random letters after his given name.
The fact that he might not know how to think his way in out of the rain shouldn't, apparently, matter at all.

You're right. The real reason people have faith is because it is easier to believe whatever their psyches can make of that kind of religion as opposed to going out and learning what exactly those things mean.

That's easier said than done. You talk about going out and learning something, but I suspect the marijuana smoke around your head is just thick enough to prevent actual movement in the direction of this "learning" you speak of.

It's tougher to find a right path than just take one and call it right, but I think it's more beneficial for myself and my community.

It's impossible, because you have to be on the right path in order to find out which path is right.

You're going to have to expand on that.
I'll even give you a place to start, if you like:
* If I have given a homeless man money for food because God reminds me to charity, then I have given a homeless man money in duty to God.
* If I have given a homeless man money for food because I don't want him to starve, then I have given him money because it is what I think is the right thing to do, regardless of what God wants.

Ypu are just dreaming if you think you can be the only truly altruistic human on the face of the earth.

And I think you do claim to know what God sends his word out to do.

I've seen some of what he sends his word out to do.

After all, you've decided a few things about the Catholics that it seems that God would disagree with.

Such as?

daktaklakpak:
You're suggesting that the wicked will live forever?

 

[Tiassa]

Senator Tony1...

What immortal existence?

Yeah, I doubt you have a clue.

In as few words as possible so you have a chance of understanding it: You know, the one your Bible threatens?

The Catholics were an irritable bunch at times.

I thought that was the point of the Reformation. To fix that kind of crap. In this country, we put a man on trial for the crime of teaching something that wasn't in the Bible. Actually, many times. Hell, in California, of all places, you could get jailed for tarot cards into the 1970s.

Oddly, you'd be right, since God is invisible.

Do you actually have anything of value to say?

Oddly, you'd be wrong, since he isn't to be feared and worshipped because he is invisible.

Apparently not.

Something about superstition ....

.... And something about a lake of fire. But God must be there, and the evidence is this book says that I can't see him. I can't, so God must be there.

It didn't work for Anselm, it won't work for you.

Here you'd be wrong simply because you have no idea what would be best.

I don't know where to begin on what's wrong with that. Save to say that you're starting to sound like a child about to have a tantrum.

You can also disregard the information in your car owner's manual, too.

The information in my car owner's manual has a practical application that is explicit and simple: to operate the car. If I follow the instructions in that manual, the car runs better than if I disregard all maintenance standards. The Bible does not read that way. The Bible claims to be definitive, and threatens to deliberately punish you if you fail to obey it. The difference 'twixt that and my car breaking down is that my car breaking down is the natural result of something. By the Bible's standards, an angel of God would have to come down and yank my spark plugs; real natural.

I wonder why more people believe in their car's manual without question, than believe in their own owner's manual?

Because the former is demonstrably reliable. The latter is not.

There is much more reason to disregard a car manufactuirer's recommendations than to disregard your manufacturer's recommendations.

But why tune my car with a lawn mower manual? Why tune myself with a book unsuitable for that purpose?

What it boils down to is that, according to you, I should pay attention to some idiot who has three or four random letters after his given name.

No, the letters designate words which have conventional definitions. But, since you're part of the fellowship of Christ, you might want to wake up and realize that fellowship implies other people. You write as if you're the only Christian with the right take on it. You dismiss anything that you have no answer for instead of giving it any thought. At least, I hope lines that short don't take a whole lot of thought. Otherwise, I think I see the problem.

That's easier said than done. You talk about going out and learning something, but I suspect the marijuana smoke around your head is just thick enough to prevent actual movement in the direction of this "learning" you speak of.

First off, marijuana does not claim to be my moral judge. Secondly, you write as if you don't actually know much about marijuana at all. Best not to start relying on your superstitions about the sweet leaf.

It's impossible, because you have to be on the right path in order to find out which path is right.

And therein lies the stupid trap of Christianity. I was out the door before I even figured out that small device. But it's a terrible argument. It reminds me of friends who own guns who tell me I'd actually enjoy hunting. I see no reason to go out and kill something just to prove that I don't like killing anything. In Christianity, before you have the proper faith, you have to cease asking the questions that weaken faith. That accomplishes the sole effect of not having to care about the answers.

Ypu are just dreaming if you think you can be the only truly altruistic human on the face of the earth.

No, sir. I, uh ... have a good deal of faith that I'm not the only one. And I've never achieved altruism completely.

I've seen some of what he sends his word out to do.

Whatever, Senator.

After all, you've decided a few things about the Catholics that it seems that God would disagree with.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Such as?

You're the one who expresses that they're not Christian. Otherwise, those argumentative points are merely smoke blown to cover for not having an answer; that is, they have no relevant value otherwise.

--Tiassa

 

[Bobby Lee]

Going to hell

Welcome To Heaven and Hell? Where you dwell inside is the ultimate decider of which it will be " heaven or hell"? Where the Mind is the heart soon follows!

Just my Opinion

Bob

 

[tony1]

Re: Senator Tony1... Yes?

Originally posted by tiassa
In as few words as possible so you have a chance of understanding it: You know, the one your Bible threatens?

So, now you think you're going to live forever?

The Bible promises eternal life.
And this is the promise that he hath promised us, even eternal life.
(1 John 2:25, KJV).

I can't tell from here what book(s) you've been reading, that threatens eternal life.

The information in my car owner's manual has a practical application that is explicit and simple: to operate the car. If I follow the instructions in that manual, the car runs better than if I disregard all maintenance standards. The Bible does not read that way. The Bible claims to be definitive, and threatens to deliberately punish you if you fail to obey it. The difference 'twixt that and my car breaking down is that my car breaking down is the natural result of something. By the Bible's standards, an angel of God would have to come down and yank my spark plugs; real natural.

How is your car breaking down natural?
Don't the manufacturers actually design cars to run rather than break down?

But, since you're part of the fellowship of Christ, you might want to wake up and realize that fellowship implies other people. You write as if you're the only Christian with the right take on it.

There are plenty of others.

First off, marijuana does not claim to be my moral judge. Secondly, you write as if you don't actually know much about marijuana at all. Best not to start relying on your superstitions about the sweet leaf.

That's quite all right. I know more about it pro and con than you do.

And therein lies the stupid trap of Christianity. I was out the door before I even figured out that small device. But it's a terrible argument. It reminds me of friends who own guns who tell me I'd actually enjoy hunting. I see no reason to go out and kill something just to prove that I don't like killing anything. In Christianity, before you have the proper faith, you have to cease asking the questions that weaken faith. That accomplishes the sole effect of not having to care about the answers.

Of course, you've got it exactly backwards.
I see no reason to burn in the lake of fire just to prove that I wouldn't like it.

No, sir. I, uh ... have a good deal of faith that I'm not the only one. And I've never achieved altruism completely.

So which is it? You aren't the only one, or you aren't there yet?

You're the one who expresses that they're not Christian. Otherwise, those argumentative points are merely smoke blown to cover for not having an answer; that is, they have no relevant value otherwise.

How would you know that God thinks they're Christian?

Originally posted by Bobby Lee
Welcome To Heaven and Hell? Where you dwell inside is the ultimate decider of which it will be " heaven or hell"? Where the Mind is the heart soon follows!

Of course, the Bible says something slightly different...
For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.
(Luke 12:34, KJV).

 

[Tiassa]

Try a substantive argument, Tony

So, now you think you're going to live forever?

The Bible promises eternal life.
And this is the promise that he hath promised us, even eternal life.
(1 John 2:25, KJV).

I can't tell from here what book(s) you've been reading, that threatens eternal life.

Without various religions to assert the idea of life after our mortal death, there would be no afterlife to threaten. To the other, yes, the Bible does threaten that eternal life. You've quoted bits about the grave before, and we all know that God will severely affect the condition of your afterlife based on seemingly subjective and worthless criteria.

I can't tell what books you've been reading, either. But it ain't the same one you're preaching.

How is your car breaking down natural?
Don't the manufacturers actually design cars to run rather than break down?

Um ... well, it's symptomatic of its use, the same way death is symptomatic of life. Things wear out, Tony. They break. Sometimes they can't be repaired, and you're only left with a wish for some E.T. glowing finger to heal it all and make it better. To debate whether manufacturers design products to work is another issue entirely, though not entirely removed from the sentiments that inspire the people who make those decisions, and those sentiments might find some of their justifications in faith. In fact, history demonstrates that many such justifications of expedience over quality are warranted by religious faith.

But, since you're part of the fellowship of Christ, you might want to wake up and realize that fellowship implies other people. You write as if you're the only Christian with the right take on it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


There are plenty of others.

Does that include you, or exclude you? You will be asked, if you choose to include yourself, to detail that "right" or proper take on the issue.

First off, marijuana does not claim to be my moral judge. Secondly, you write as if you don't actually know much about marijuana at all. Best not to start relying on your superstitions about the sweet leaf.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


That's quite all right. I know more about it pro and con than you do.

Any day you care to continue with your narrowminded assertions about a plant that your God put here, go for it.

Anyway, the issue you're dodging with that:

That's easier said than done. You talk about going out and learning something, but I suspect the marijuana smoke around your head is just thick enough to prevent actual movement in the direction of this "learning" you speak of.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


First off, marijuana does not claim to be my moral judge. Secondly, you write as if you don't actually know much about marijuana at all. Best not to start relying on your superstitions about the sweet leaf.

* Marijuana as a moral judge: You seem to resent the idea that marijuana smokers can learn new ideas. This is your own problem. But relative to the issue, why bring marijuana up? Are you looking to undermine the credibility of an argument because the proponent smokes pot? It's kind of non-sequiter. But if you want to compare marijuana to the issues of salvation relative to the topic, then I will stand simply on the notion that marijuana claims no moral supremacy. In order to use marijuana correctly, you have no obligation to declare your moral supremacy. Under the influence of Christianity, one is obliged by their Bible.

* As we've already discussed, in part, the italic portion of the citation, I stand by it. You seem to treat marijuana as a weapon, as something you can throw out into an argument and slip away unnoticed in the haze. Do you have anything useful to say regarding marijuana and salvation? Get over yourself.

Of course, you've got it exactly backwards.
I see no reason to burn in the lake of fire just to prove that I wouldn't like it.

And I see no reason to believe I'm going to burn in a lake of fire just to prove I'm a second-rate idiot. Something comes to mind about threats against the afterlife.

No, sir. I, uh ... have a good deal of faith that I'm not the only one. And I've never achieved altruism completely.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


So which is it? You aren't the only one, or you aren't there yet?

Something about reading comprehension, as well. Try it again.

How would you know that God thinks they're Christian?

I think the stewardship of the Word of the Lord Jesus Christ qualifies the Catholics as Christians in God's opinion. You'll notice that he did not entrust the Gospels to the Buddhists.

Of course, the Bible says something slightly different...
For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.
(Luke 12:34, KJV).

The Bible says many things that are slightly different, even from other parts of the Bible. Did you have a point, or are you just wasting Mr Lee's time?

--Tiassa

 

[tony1]

Originally posted by tiassa
Without various religions to assert the idea of life after our mortal death, there would be no afterlife to threaten. To the other, yes, the Bible does threaten that eternal life. You've quoted bits about the grave before, and we all know that God will severely affect the condition of your afterlife based on seemingly subjective and worthless criteria.

Do you believe what you just wrote or don't you?
Either there is an afterlife or there isn't.
This mumbo-jumbo about religions "creating" afterlives makes no sense at all.

I can't tell what books you've been reading, either. But it ain't the same one you're preaching.

It could be that THC-laden haze, but is it possible that you have the Catholic Catechism confused with the Bible to the extent that you don't have any idea what the Bible says at all?

Um ... well, it's symptomatic of its use, the same way death is symptomatic of life. Things wear out, Tony. They break. Sometimes they can't be repaired, and you're only left with a wish for some E.T. glowing finger to heal it all and make it better.

In your view then, this is natural?

To debate whether manufacturers design products to work is another issue entirely, though not entirely removed from the sentiments that inspire the people who make those decisions, and those sentiments might find some of their justifications in faith. In fact, history demonstrates that many such justifications of expedience over quality are warranted by religious faith.

Yours, anyway.

Does that include you, or exclude you? You will be asked, if you choose to include yourself, to detail that "right" or proper take on the issue.

Include.
The right take would be that offered in the Bible, as compared to other books, such as the CCC which purports to be Christian but contradicts the Bible or such as the Koran which purports to improve on the Bible, while contradicting it, or such as the Book of Mormon which purports to add to the Bible in direct contradiction to it.

Any day you care to continue with your narrowminded assertions about a plant that your God put here, go for it.

Well, let me see. One of my assertions is that I know more about it than you do. If that is narrow-minded, then your mind must be quite narrow indeed.

Marijuana as a moral judge: You seem to resent the idea that marijuana smokers can learn new ideas. This is your own problem.

Watch the movie "Reefer Madness." Aside from the somewhat exaggerated end result of smoking pot, you will notice some of the "new" ideas are actually quite stale given that the movie dates back to 1933 or so.

But relative to the issue, why bring marijuana up? Are you looking to undermine the credibility of an argument because the proponent smokes pot?

Well, you smoke it because it affects your mind.
In your world, all of pot's effects are good ones, somewhat like tobacco ads from the 50's.

You believe that pot is good.
You vastly overestimate the "good" effects of pot and vastly underestimate the bad.
You have no clue, but you think you have them all.

This the case with every addiction, even that of "non-addictive" pot.
Since your mind is this inaccurate in evaluating the effect of pot in your life, I propose that it is equally inaccurate in other areas.

But if you want to compare marijuana to the issues of salvation relative to the topic, then I will stand simply on the notion that marijuana claims no moral supremacy.

Of course it doesn't.

In order to use marijuana correctly, you have no obligation to declare your moral supremacy.

You must be new.
The standard moral supremacy declaration in marijuana use is: there's nothing wrong with using pot.

And I see no reason to believe I'm going to burn in a lake of fire just to prove I'm a second-rate idiot.

So, unless you change your mind, you'll do it proving you're a complete idiot.

Something comes to mind about threats against the afterlife.

Man, if religions "create" afterlives as you say, then what possible threat could you perceive in all this?

I think the stewardship of the Word of the Lord Jesus Christ qualifies the Catholics as Christians in God's opinion.

Since you don't believe any of this, what could that possibly mean?
OTOH, SINCE the Bible specifically pronounces the addition of all the plagues, including a trip thru the lake of fire, to those who add to the Word of God, how does the existence of the CCC, which is almost as big as the Bible and contradicts it, affect the Catholics?

Did you have a point, or are you just wasting Mr Lee's time?

The point is in the verse.
Perhaps you didn't read it.
Anyway, your heart is where your treasure is, not where your mind is.
Remind yourself of the spasmodic effect on your heart of realizing that you've misplaced your stash.

That is what that verse is talking about.

 

[Tiassa]

Tony, you lose. What do you have to offer?

Do you believe what you just wrote or don't you?
Either there is an afterlife or there isn't.
This mumbo-jumbo about religions "creating" afterlives makes no sense at all.

Sorry, Tony, I'm just assessing the slipshod state of the afterlife as described by you and your Bible.

If the Bible wasn't there to tell people they must believe it, and to promise them eternal life with God or in fire, there would be no concept of a threatened afterlife. Without any of the factors involved, there is no product. Hello? It's pretty simple to figure out.

It could be that THC-laden haze, but is it possible that you have the Catholic Catechism confused with the Bible to the extent that you don't have any idea what the Bible says at all?

Tony, you're the one who lies about what's in the Bible. Like in the other thread where you said Of course, such punishment is not to be found in the Bible, and I demonstrated that it is. You're off on another anti-Catholic bender because you can't justify the fact that you just asserted there is no eternal punishment prescribed in the Bible and I just showed you to be lying. So give up your desperate flailing. You're even inventing inner serpents from somewhere.

I'm not really into the psychobabble aspects of the "inner serpent" thing you're presenting. (Tony1, Judgement of God, 4/1/2001)

What are you even talking about anymore? Have you really run out of arguments that you cannot do anything but hammer home on my use of marijuana and deny the Bible you have chosen for yourself?

In your view then, this is natural?

Even the composite stuff of ourselves must recycle itself from its most fundamental form. The water in our bodies is constantly in transition; elements and compounds are made anew within our bodies because the nature of their existence is that they cannot last. Some elements have ridiculous half-lives, but even in that fundamental sense they eventually must change. So the corpse decays, breaks down into more and more fundamental parts, until the gases have gone away to be consumed or recycled by nature; electrochemcial change of you occurs inside the organisms that consume your mortal coil. There is a finite amount of time that this stuff of you can last before it has been reconstituted in some form in the Universe. The Universe itself cannot stop this consumption and rebirth, else time would stop and all would cease to exist. Our human role in this comes about by chance and necessity; I have said that I believe the Universe must, necessarily, get around to creating life at some point. But in the vast scale of the Universe, that event is merely a flicker of an electron passing between two particles stirred by the moving of a stream. To call us sediment, at that scale, would be overstating our presence. But life is compelled to continue itself at the stake of the living. Salmon die for future generations; no two ways about it--you get laid, and then you die. Life is a variable factor to the finite conception; it seems that we may be able to extend ourselves to the end of time as a living, evolving species. But something tells me that when humanity got near the end, they would realize that the absurdity of billions of generations of history could only have taken place exactly that way. Why do people want to live forever? It makes this process a hell of a lot easier. But the way of the Universe is that everything dies. And, yes, everything is reborn, but not necessarily in a way that matters to those seeking to live forever.

One needs no drugs to figure this out, but I'm told it doesn't hurt in this case. Oh, well, I'm told that caffeine addiction and a glass of beer or wine are what generally make at last paragraph more palatable. Nicotine helps if you go through it over caffeine after alcohol late at night in a diner with fried starch and tomato-vinegar sauce.

Well, let me see. One of my assertions is that I know more about it than you do. If that is narrow-minded, then your mind must be quite narrow indeed.

That's why you have to lie about the Bible.

Watch the movie "Reefer Madness." Aside from the somewhat exaggerated end result of smoking pot, you will notice some of the "new" ideas are actually quite stale given that the movie dates back to 1933 or so.

Hands down: music, fashion, theatre, cinema. The best people working in those fields are high. Simpsons, or 90210? Floater, or Poppa Roach? The strange thing is that I think drugs are responsible for horrible movies like the nightmare Look Who's Talking sequels. But, strangely, the best writers in Hollywood are stoned. In that sense, Hollywood's a great microcosm of what's good and bad about drugs. Watch who's doing what, wrecking which, or dying, and you can pretty much figure out what's good and what's bad about drugs. But Reefer Madness has absolutely nothing to do with your willingness to lie about the Bible in order to avoid an argumentative point.

Well, you smoke it because it affects your mind.
In your world, all of pot's effects are good ones, somewhat like tobacco ads from the 50's.

You believe that pot is good.
You vastly overestimate the "good" effects of pot and vastly underestimate the bad.
You have no clue, but you think you have them all.

This the case with every addiction, even that of "non-addictive" pot.
Since your mind is this inaccurate in evaluating the effect of pot in your life, I propose that it is equally inaccurate in other areas.

Your entire argument is ill-advised and based in assumption. Yes, I believe that marijuana is generally a positive thing in my life and the lives of many around me. I do not overestimate the good effects of marijuana but describe what I experience and what I observe in those around me. As to the bad, if it was really so bad, what's with the sixty-four years and counting of lying in an attempt to suppress the plant? What I'm after there is that the people who point out the bad effects of marijuana usually do it according to superstition. Your cheap retreat to cliche insults further demonstrates that you have no basis for your declarations. You have no proof that the inaccuracy of my evaluations are any greater than your own. Furthermore, your reliance on moralist superstition when denouncing marijuana gives me cause to wonder about your motives. I think you're just trying to escape the corner you've backed yourself into.

You shouldn't let your pride get the best of you like that.

--Tiassa

 

[tony1]

What do you have to offer?I win

Originally posted by tiassa
I'm just assessing the slipshod state of the afterlife as described by you and your Bible.

And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.
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 21:3,4, KJV).
Looks pretty shipshape to me.

If the Bible wasn't there to tell people they must believe it, and to promise them eternal life with God or in fire, there would be no concept of a threatened afterlife. Without any of the factors involved, there is no product. Hello? It's pretty simple to figure out.

Apparently, it isn't.
For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
(Romans 6:23, KJV).
You're so Catholic-bound that you can't see that there is no eternal life in fire.
You're arguing against the wrong product.
The product you say isn't there, actually isn't there.
But you're putting a lot of effort into it.

Tony, you're the one who lies about what's in the Bible. Like in the other thread where you said Of course, such punishment is not to be found in the Bible, and I demonstrated that it is.

You didn't demonstrate it.
You quoted the verse Catholics quote, but you didn't read it.
It doesn't say what either you or the Catholics say it says.

You're off on another anti-Catholic bender because you can't justify the fact that you just asserted there is no eternal punishment prescribed in the Bible and I just showed you to be lying.

I didn't assert "no eternal punishment." I asserted the wages of sin is death, not eternal torment.

Even the composite stuff of ourselves must recycle itself from its most fundamental form. The water in our bodies is constantly in transition; elements and compounds are made anew within our bodies because the nature of their existence is that they cannot last. Some elements have ridiculous half-lives, but even in that fundamental sense they eventually must change. So the corpse decays, breaks down into more and more fundamental parts, until the gases have gone away to be consumed or recycled by nature; electrochemcial change of you occurs inside the organisms that consume your mortal coil. There is a finite amount of time that this stuff of you can last before it has been reconstituted in some form in the Universe. The Universe itself cannot stop this consumption and rebirth, else time would stop and all would cease to exist. Our human role in this comes about by chance and necessity; I have said that I believe the Universe must, necessarily, get around to creating life at some point. But in the vast scale of the Universe, that event is merely a flicker of an electron passing between two particles stirred by the moving of a stream. To call us sediment, at that scale, would be overstating our presence. But life is compelled to continue itself at the stake of the living. Salmon die for future generations; no two ways about it--you get laid, and then you die. Life is a variable factor to the finite conception; it seems that we may be able to extend ourselves to the end of time as a living, evolving species. But something tells me that when humanity got near the end, they would realize that the absurdity of billions of generations of history could only have taken place exactly that way. Why do people want to live forever? It makes this process a hell of a lot easier. But the way of the Universe is that everything dies. And, yes, everything is reborn, but not necessarily in a way that matters to those seeking to live forever.

I'll take that as a "yes."

Your entire argument is ill-advised and based in assumption. Yes, I believe that marijuana is generally a positive thing in my life and the lives of many around me. I do not overestimate the good effects of marijuana but describe what I experience and what I observe in those around me. As to the bad, if it was really so bad, what's with the sixty-four years and counting of lying in an attempt to suppress the plant? What I'm after there is that the people who point out the bad effects of marijuana usually do it according to superstition. Your cheap retreat to cliche insults further demonstrates that you have no basis for your declarations. You have no proof that the inaccuracy of my evaluations are any greater than your own. Furthermore, your reliance on moralist superstition when denouncing marijuana gives me cause to wonder about your motives. I think you're just trying to escape the corner you've backed yourself into.
You shouldn't let your pride get the best of you like that.

OTOH, maybe my assertions are based on first-hand experience and half a cemetery full of ex-friends.

 

[Emerald]

Tony,

You seem to be picking and choosing bible verses that describe hell as you would prefer it to be. From what I can tell, it's intended to be a place of eternal torment, "where their worm dieth not" - accomodations thoughtfully provided by <i>your</i> loving god.

Check out "<a href="http://www.reformed.com/pub/hell.htm">The Biblical Doctrine of Hell Examined</a>".

So Tony, how badly do you want to live forever?

Emerald

 

[Tiassa]

OTOH, maybe my assertions are based on first-hand experience and half a cemetery full of ex-friends.

Please feel free to post a topic on the lethal nature of marijuana. Killer pot has been a sticking point for our nation's drug warriors for a few years, at least since Herer demonstrated by actuarial statistics, coroners' reports, and other data that marijuana has not been the official cause of anyone's death. Understandably, the revocation of that notion would be a significant consideration for me.

--tiassa

 

[tony1]

Originally posted by tiassa
Please feel free to post a topic on the lethal nature of marijuana. Killer pot has been a sticking point for our nation's drug warriors for a few years, at least since Herer demonstrated by actuarial statistics, coroners' reports, and other data that marijuana has not been the official cause of anyone's death. Understandably, the revocation of that notion would be a significant consideration for me.

Killer pot wasn't what I was suggesting.
Killer lifestyle was more like it.
No dead friend, as I recall, was killed directly by pot.
It was more the bullets and whatnot.

Originally posted by Emerald
You seem to be picking and choosing bible verses that describe hell as you would prefer it to be. From what I can tell, it's intended to be a place of eternal torment, "where their worm dieth not" - accomodations thoughtfully provided by <i>your</i> loving god.

"seem" would be the operative word.
Of course, I have no problem with the fact that the fire is indeed everlasting.
It seems to be a bit of a stretch claiming that this fire would be unable to burn ordinary flesh.

A hotdog falling into a campfire only lasts seconds or minutes before it is gone.

So, you're either wanting me to believe that this fire is unusually cold, or that the sinners in it have been converted into asbestos.

I have to admit the eternal worm concept is a question-provoking item.

So Tony, how badly do you want to live forever?

You're good with the questions.
I don't want to live forever "badly," I want to live forever "well."

 

[Tiassa]

What do bullets have to do ...

It was more the bullets and whatnot.

... with marijuana? Or do you mean the cops shot your friends down?

I don't see how the deaths of your friends undermines anything I say.

--Tiassa