(June 29, 2015 at 11:56 am)Tonus Wrote:

(June 29, 2015 at 11:51 am)SteveII Wrote: It depends on what the consequences of a total separation from God might be to one's soul.

I think it would have more meaning if there was a consensus on what hell is, and what separation from god means, and so on.  The explanations for hell have gone from a fairly straightforward idea (you burn in torment as if suffering from extreme physical pain) to something ambiguous.  Where does my soul end up if I go to hell?  Is it a literal place, like heaven?  What form does my suffering take?  What activities are possible?

I ignore any and all gods until one should happen to show up.  Am I separated from god now?  Because if my life is hell, then it's not a very unpleasant place at all.  What is it about hell that would make me turn to god in desperate terror if I ever understood what it was?

Jesus mentioned Hell more than most other topics (warning people not to go). 

While I am no theologian, it seems hell is a real place, burning, lasts forever, and there will be "weeping and gnashing of teeth".   While those that go to heaven are promised new bodies, I know of no such mention for those that do not go to heaven--so it might be just the soul that exists. I do wonder how much of the experience is a direct result of separation from God and how much is a overt attempt to make it more uncomfortable--I lean toward the former.

As far as right now, you are not separated from God. You still have the offer of redemption on the table. While that time lasts, our lives here are reasonably enjoyable (as a whole).

(June 29, 2015 at 12:05 pm)KevinM1 Wrote:

(June 29, 2015 at 11:55 am)SteveII Wrote: You are missing the point. YOU decided not to mend the relationship that YOUR sin damaged. You cannot be in the presence of God (heaven) without mending that relationship. This is the consequence of your free will--God cannot mend it for you--it MUST be your choice.

No, no, I get your point.  It's just the same drivel all Christians write.  Here, I'll make it clear for you:

Any god that would punish someone with an eternity of pain and torture for a finite crime is a tyrant.  Any god that would demand belief over everything else, especially when they provide absolutely 0 credible, verifiable evidence for its existence, and therefore considers unbelief to be among the worst sins, is a psychopath.  Neither trait engenders the desire to join its flock.

Really, the "repent now!" stuff is incredibly childish.  It's the religious version of "do you want me to tell your father when he gets home?"  I'm not six years old any more.  Your vague threats of eternal damnation or else only serve to solidify the idea that your god is something I'd much rather work against than with/for.

So, when you chant your party line about punishment, you want me to avoid the topic of...what? reasons for and avoidance of that punishment? Oh, wait, you just want to hear yourself talk and justify your position in your mind. 

I find the level of condescension here to be off the charts most of the time. You feel like you have all arrived at some enlightened mental stage. It is entertaining to watch.

(June 29, 2015 at 12:23 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(June 29, 2015 at 12:05 pm)KevinM1 Wrote: No, no, I get your point.  It's just the same drivel all Christians write.  Here, I'll make it clear for you:

Any god that would punish someone with an eternity of pain and torture for a finite crime is a tyrant.  Any god that would demand belief over everything else, especially when they provide absolutely 0 credible, verifiable evidence for its existence, and therefore considers unbelief to be among the worst sins, is a psychopath.  Neither trait engenders the desire to join its flock.

Really, the "repent now!" stuff is incredibly childish.  It's the religious version of "do you want me to tell your father when he gets home?"  I'm not six years old any more.  Your vague threats of eternal damnation or else only serve to solidify the idea that your god is something I'd much rather work against than with/for.

So, when you chant your party line about punishment, you want me to avoid the topic of...what? reasons for and avoidance of that punishment? Oh, wait, you just want to hear yourself talk and justify your position in your mind. 

I find the level of condescension here to be off the charts most of the time. You feel like you have all arrived at some enlightened mental stage. It is entertaining to watch.

Yes, please list my sins.  Pretty, pretty please.  I'm sure I'll get a hearty laugh out of it.

(June 29, 2015 at 12:28 pm)KevinM1 Wrote:

(June 29, 2015 at 12:23 pm)SteveII Wrote: So, when you chant your party line about punishment, you want me to avoid the topic of...what? reasons for and avoidance of that punishment? Oh, wait, you just want to hear yourself talk and justify your position in your mind. 

I find the level of condescension here to be off the charts most of the time. You feel like you have all arrived at some enlightened mental stage. It is entertaining to watch.

Yes, please list my sins.  Pretty, pretty please.  I'm sure I'll get a hearty laugh out of it.

Nevermind, you don't have anything original or even remotely interesting to say...

(June 29, 2015 at 12:41 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(June 29, 2015 at 12:28 pm)KevinM1 Wrote: Yes, please list my sins.  Pretty, pretty please.  I'm sure I'll get a hearty laugh out of it.

Nevermind, you don't have anything original or even remotely interesting to say...

And you do?  Please.  Some self-awareness would do you some good.  Maybe then you wouldn't be like a record skipping on the same tired, unconvincing 'arguments' and assertions we've all heard a million times.

(June 29, 2015 at 12:10 pm)SteveII Wrote: While I am no theologian, it seems hell is a real place, burning, lasts forever, and there will be "weeping and gnashing of teeth".   While those that go to heaven are promised new bodies, I know of no such mention for those that do not go to heaven--so it might be just the soul that exists. I do wonder how much of the experience is a direct result of separation from God and how much is a overt attempt to make it more uncomfortable--I lean toward the former.

The Bible itself doesn't make this clear. The OT seems to describe death as the end of existence for people, not a gateway to an afterlife. And the NT speaks of heaven and hell, but the latter is poorly-defined. It may be a metaphorical description of the cessation of existence (one of the qualities of fire is that it consumes and destroys, indicating finality). It may be a literal place of endless suffering, with a person's soul kept alive for no other reason than to torment it. For a couple of reasons, I find that unlikely, but all in all it's too vague.

(June 29, 2015 at 1:15 pm)Tonus Wrote:

(June 29, 2015 at 12:10 pm)SteveII Wrote: While I am no theologian, it seems hell is a real place, burning, lasts forever, and there will be "weeping and gnashing of teeth".   While those that go to heaven are promised new bodies, I know of no such mention for those that do not go to heaven--so it might be just the soul that exists. I do wonder how much of the experience is a direct result of separation from God and how much is a overt attempt to make it more uncomfortable--I lean toward the former.

The Bible itself doesn't make this clear.  The OT seems to describe death as the end of existence for people, not a gateway to an afterlife.  And the NT speaks of heaven and hell, but the latter is poorly-defined.  It may be a metaphorical description of the cessation of existence (one of the qualities of fire is that it consumes and destroys, indicating finality).  It may be a literal place of endless suffering, with a person's soul kept alive for no other reason than to torment it.  For a couple of reasons, I find that unlikely, but all in all it's too vague.

That is a fair point. Further study might and commentary might help, but I don't think it is 100% clear. There is sufficient description to wish to avoid it if possible.

(June 29, 2015 at 12:44 pm)KevinM1 Wrote:

(June 29, 2015 at 12:41 pm)SteveII Wrote: Nevermind, you don't have anything original or even remotely interesting to say...

And you do?  Please.  Some self-awareness would do you some good.  Maybe then you wouldn't be like a record skipping on the same tired, unconvincing 'arguments' and assertions we've all heard a million times.

If you heard a million time, I would think you would understand them better. You still seem to be struggling to see how it all works together. Christianity must be seen as a complete systematic worldview and does not stand or fall on this objection or that.

(June 29, 2015 at 2:17 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(June 29, 2015 at 12:44 pm)KevinM1 Wrote: And you do?  Please.  Some self-awareness would do you some good.  Maybe then you wouldn't be like a record skipping on the same tired, unconvincing 'arguments' and assertions we've all heard a million times.

If you heard a million time, I would think you would understand them better. You still seem to be struggling to see how it all works together. Christianity must be seen as a complete systematic worldview and does not stand or fall on this objection or that.

You're right.  It falls under the weight of its own self-contradictions, illogical nonsense, and weak assertions with no credible evidence to back them up.

Merely saying, "No, you obviously don't understand" isn't much of a rebuttal, even with its veiled insult.  And so far, that's all you have.  "No, you," and "Wait until daddy comes home!  Then you'll be sorry!" posts for as far as the eye can see.  Even Drich attempts, in his failed floundering, to bring more to the table.  At least he sometimes tries to dive deeper than finger waggling and special pleading.

Also, keep in mind, like many here, I was raised in a Christian household.  Catholic, to be precise.  I'm not completely unaware to what the foundation of the religion is.  It's just that I wised up and saw it for the tangled mess of borrowed myths, utter nonsense, and repackaged common sense it actually is.

But, yes, I love how just about every Christian, when faced with someone who doesn't simply swallow their BS, goes for weak jabs like you did.  "Pshaw pshaw, for someone who claims they're so smart, you obviously have no clue.  Hahaha."  As though that actually refutes anything I or anyone else actually said.  Maybe that kind of misplaced smug condescension works among the people you surround yourself with, but it doesn't work on me.  All it does is reinforce how much of a textbook case of Dunning-Kruger you actually are.  GC pulls the same crap and it works just as poorly.  It's a tactic that relies on public shaming and peer pressure, and in the face of religion, I feel neither.  Try again.

If you have some deep, meaningful knowledge or wisdom you think will change my mind, by all means, share it.  I'm open to any possibility.  But it needs to stand up to scrutiny.

(June 29, 2015 at 3:02 pm)KevinM1 Wrote: You're right.  It falls under the weight of its own self-contradictions, illogical nonsense, and weak assertions with no credible evidence to back them up.

Merely saying, "No, you obviously don't understand" isn't much of a rebuttal, even with its veiled insult.  And so far, that's all you have.  "No, you," and "Wait until daddy comes home!  Then you'll be sorry!" posts for as far as the eye can see.  Even Drich attempts, in his failed floundering, to bring more to the table.  At least he sometimes tries to dive deeper than finger waggling and special pleading.

Also, keep in mind, like many here, I was raised in a Christian household.  Catholic, to be precise.  I'm not completely unaware to what the foundation of the religion is.  It's just that I wised up and saw it for the tangled mess of borrowed myths, utter nonsense, and repackaged common sense it actually is.

But, yes, I love how just about every Christian, when faced with someone who doesn't simply swallow their BS, goes for weak jabs like you did.  "Pshaw pshaw, for someone who claims they're so smart, you obviously have no clue.  Hahaha."  As though that actually refutes anything I or anyone else actually said.  Maybe that kind of misplaced smug condescension works among the people you surround yourself with, but it doesn't work on me.  All it does is reinforce how much of a textbook case of Dunning-Kruger you actually are.  GC pulls the same crap and it works just as poorly.  It's a tactic that relies on public shaming and peer pressure, and in the face of religion, I feel neither.  Try again.

If you have some deep, meaningful knowledge or wisdom you think will change my mind, by all means, share it.  I'm open to any possibility.  But it needs to stand up to scrutiny.

Your perception is that Christianity is a house of cards and all you have to do is poke at a few of them and it all comes crashing down. You are wrong. If God exists, it is not a house of cards. Rather a well-defined system of doctrines that do not contradict each other--doctrines that have been hashed out for 2 millennium now. I don't know if your understanding of this system is so poor that you think it is weak or you are so sure God does not exist that it is all for naught. 

I was trying to address one of these doctrines regarding hell and punishment and that God does not send people to hell. That is lost on you because you don't want to make such doctrinal distinctions when you are clearly comfortable with your one-liners. Because if you and many of your buddies here stick to mocking one-line arguments, it makes you feel superior to the poor stupid Christians.  

A point of clarification, I will always be arguing from a Protestant point of view. I am not well-versed in the intricacies of Catholic doctrine.