(September 26, 2017 at 2:30 am)beepete Wrote:

Moderator Notice
Link removed for violation of 30/30 rule

1. This violates our 30/30 rule
2. Howabout giving a description of the link, or, better yet, giving a response in your own words?  I mean, we gave you that courtesy, right?

(September 26, 2017 at 9:58 am)KevinM1 Wrote:

(September 26, 2017 at 2:30 am)beepete Wrote:

Moderator Notice
Link removed for violation of 30/30 rule

1. This violates our 30/30 rule
2. Howabout giving a description of the link, or, better yet, giving a response in your own words?  I mean, we gave you that courtesy, right?

I had thought about mentioning that too, but I wasn't sure how long he'd been on here before I saw any of his posts and didn't really care to put in the effort to find out.

(September 25, 2017 at 4:48 pm)emjay Wrote: And also beepete, welcome to the wonderful world of smug and condescending Christians, of which Steve is the greatest example. Neo is proud of and thinks he holds the title, but he's a mere amateur in comparison.

I'll have to up my game.

(September 26, 2017 at 10:00 am)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(September 25, 2017 at 4:48 pm)emjay Wrote: And also beepete, welcome to the wonderful world of smug and condescending Christians, of which Steve is the greatest example. Neo is proud of and thinks he holds the title, but he's a mere amateur in comparison.

I'll have to up my game.

You need more William Lane Craig channeling Alvin Plantinga.

(September 25, 2017 at 6:26 pm)KevinM1 Wrote:

(September 25, 2017 at 6:03 pm)beepete Wrote: Hi Steveall

It seems like a forum where people are keen to win arguments rather than have an open discussion, but that is true of most forums. It was a culmination of points made by both Hitchens and Harris that started me thinking and probably the biggest stumbling block for me is the concept of the biblical hell. I know most if not all the Christian apologetics for the fairness of hell and as a former evangelist openly used them in defense of the gospel. But after stepping back and attempting to be objective and as honest as I am able I can't marry the concept of a loving a God and eternal torture.
My grandmother recently died, and though she was probably one of the most moral, upright and loving people I have ever known, she never came to accept the gospel. So according to the scriptures, she will spend eternity being perpetually tortured. If she were alive today and anyone attempted to harm her I would spring to her defense with my very life. Anyone that incarcerated and tortured her for whatever perceived wrongs she may have committed would be worthy of only contempt and death (especially if I managed to get my hands on them).So, would it be possible for me to enjoy the biblical heaven, knowing that my grandmother and a multitude of other people were being tortured day and night without reprieve for all eternity? The answer is no. I may well be wrong and end up in hell for all eternity (and according to the Bible it will be worse for me as I have known the truth and walked away). But heaven would be just as much of a hell for me, knowing that people I love are suffering while I enjoy the benefits of redemption. Does this prove that the Bible is wrong and that God does not exist? No, it proves nothing, but it is where I am at and I will face the consequences.

The thing about hell I find most interesting is that it paints the Christian god as being incredibly petty and vindictive.  Now, it differs by which of the Baskin-Robbins flavors of Christianity you believe in, but generally speaking, good works won't save a person if the reject the divinity of Christ.

That never made much sense to me.  I mean, what is rejection, really?  It's just an emotional slight, right?  We tell our youth that, hey, not everyone is going to like you, but that's okay.  Just be the best person you can be, and someone will come along who will like you.  People get rejected for things all the time.  Promotions, job offers, dates, marriage, trips out, insurance coverage, etc.  But, generally, we don't torture those who reject us.  Yet, here's this supposedly omnipotent, omniscient being, who by definition should be above such petty human emotions, and what does he do?  Sets up a place to torture people who rejected his son/himself.  Not only that, but this torture is eternal.  An eternal punishment for a microscopic slight from an insignificant monkey-thing made of dust and blood.

I mean, I never asked Jesus to sacrifice himself for me (not that I actually think it happened, but let's roll with it).  I find such sacrifice by proxy meaningless.  "This guy you never met died for you, specifically to atone for your sins... shouldn't you feel bad/guilty and do what he wants?"  No, not really.  Because the notion of sin is ridiculous (once again, a perfect being getting all huffy because his blood/dust monkey men didn't behave just so), and, well, what have I done that requires someone dying to make up for it?  Not believe in an illogical being that has no evidence of actually existing?  My imaginary great-great-great-great-great-...-great-grandmother eating a magic fruit, causing god to curse humanity because he was really embarrassed that, despite his omniscience, he didn't baby-proof Eden well enough, nor did he take his creation's innate curiosity into account?

Laughable.

So, it should make you feel better that there's no hell.  No heaven, too.  Just oblivion.  And that's why it's important to live this life to the fullest.  It's the only one we know we have.

No doctrine exists in isolation. The doctrine of hell is no exception. The doctrine starts with the justice/holiness of God. God created us with free will. It is an ability that God created us with because it seems thinking, rational beings capable of choice, morality, and a real relationship between creator and creature seems to be the pinnacle of anything anyone could ever create--including God. 

This is a two-edged sword. Because of God's justice/holiness, he cannot have a relationship with something not holy. This doctrine is not a choice that God made for things to be this way--it is a necessary (as in couldn't have been any other way) condition of being perfectly just and perfectly holy. Free will, with all of the benefits I listed above will always result in us choosing to sin and results in a separation that must be repaired. (NOTE: God did not "curse" humanity because of Adam and Eve's sin).

The repair necessary could only come from the God side of the equation. God could always forgive sins. They were not paid for (slate wiped clean as if they never existed) until the Cross. Just like you can forgive someone that wrongs you--but forgiving does not remove the consequences of the action. The Cross removed the consequences (at least the eternal ones--i.e. the gulf between us and God's justice and holiness) of sin to those who freely accept it.

So, what is hell? It is my view that the immaterial soul is the thing going to hell--which would be an immaterial place/existence/experience. I believe that while it is a place of torment, one is not eternally tortured by some overlord doing things to you. We are talking about souls and NOT bodies. Flames and teeth are material and would have no effect on the immaterial so all the lake of fire/weeping and gnashing of teeth references seem to be metaphors. The pain is spiritual and stems from the complete separation from God--a condition that obviously has a profound effect on the immaterial soul.

So, God does not sentence you to hell. It is an automatic consequence for not freely choosing the option provided.

(September 26, 2017 at 10:00 am)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(September 25, 2017 at 4:48 pm)emjay Wrote: And also beepete, welcome to the wonderful world of smug and condescending Christians, of which Steve is the greatest example. Neo is proud of and thinks he holds the title, but he's a mere amateur in comparison.

I'll have to up my game.

I might be laughed out of the building for saying this, but if so, so be it... but personally I don't see it in you at all... or hardly at least... I actually see you as pretty humble most of the time... that's part of why I respect you. But I know it's important to your self image ... so I'm willing to call you an honourary smug git if it'll make you happy but I don't really see it. If you really want to up your game, I suggest learning from the masters; Steve or Arnold J Rimmer from Red Dwarf spring to mind

I honestly don't understand the hate that Steve is getting. You may not agree with his beliefs, but he doesn't strike me as someone who has been nasty to others here.

(September 26, 2017 at 12:46 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I honestly don't understand the hate that Steve is getting. You may not agree with his beliefs, but he doesn't strike me as someone who has been nasty to others here.

He hasn't. He's been nothing short of gracious, focusing on the topic rather than using it as a platform to insult those with whom he disagrees. Some atheists can stay on topic, but not many. ;-)

deleted.