What The Bible Really Teaches About Hell

[Edwardo Piet]

The common definition of sin is - the twenty first letter in the Hebrew alphabet, which is sort of interesting in an ironic? way; an offense against God, religion or morals; and an offense against any law, code etc.

So once again, the common use of a 'religious' word, though somewhat distorted into being thought of as exclusively 'religious' by both Xian and not then surprisingly, Atheists, are in fact the same as the Bible's meaning.

In other words, because I think I screwed that up, sin isn't just religious bullshit anywhere outside of the minds of those who are religious. Xian and Atheist!

If you're not religious. You just believe in God and the bible. Then why bother with the word sin? Its SO OFTEN used religiously. And labeled to mean the religious sins in the bible. Why bother with it if you don't mean it religiously? It can create a lot of misunderstandings in that case. Why bother? Why use the word sin? If you don't actually believe in the "sins" of the bible. How most people understand them. Why call them sins at all? Why not refer to them as immoral, bad or wrong actions?
If by "sin" you just mean "immoral actions" then atheists do sin. But if by sin you mean THAT. Then why call it sin? That's not what most people generally think as sin Sins are normally thought of as a religious thing. It can cause misunderstandings. Its a bad word to use. It has a bad reputation.

Uh . . . well, what you have to understand is that the sin that we all inherit is about Adam. Adam was put in charge of earth, it was his responsibility, sort of like the owner of a property may hire a landlord. He messed it up by doing the one thing he shouldn't have (sinned, missed the mark, decided to judge for himself what was right or wrong) and so all of mankind after him were born into or sort of lived in the rundown place of the landlord.

The Atheist and sometimes Xian belief that God is this arrogant tyrant is sort of like the rebellious teenage son of the landlord who has to live in the mess his father created and blames the owner rather than the landlord because he don't see the whole picture.

So having said that, to answer your question - maybe. If you have had the opportunity to look into what is going on with the landlord and owner of the property and yet you chose not to (Belief in God) or you have looked into it and have sided with the landlord instead of the owner, when it comes time to clean house you can hardly blame the owner if you find yourself on your ass in the street.

Why? Because if the owner doesn't put you out you would make the same mistake and screw it up again.

Well, not only is there no evidence of God's existence. And not only is the chance that he exists pretty much the same as the FSM...not only that...
You say that some atheists think of God as a tyrant. But guess what? You just described as one.
So ok Adam and Eve are given what they want. The break a rule and get punished right?
So God lets them do what they want...but they are still PRISONERS. If God doesn't like what they do, they get punished. Right?
Sounds like sick twisted moral policing to me. Whats the point of putting people in a paradise if as soon as they do something apparently wrong to God he punishes them for it.
How can they ever learn under such ridiculous conditions and restrictions?
And how does it hurt GOD anyway? They can't exactly kick God in the balls. How can they hurt God? Is he so stuck up that if he doesn't like something they are doing he punishes them? Because it hurts his feelings that he is incapable of both making more perfect beings AND punishing them properly? Or actually leaving them alone? Actually letting them learn and progress rather than intervening as soon as they eat from the fruit of a tree or whatever.
I have no idea what you believe. But if you believe in creation, that the first man on earth was called Adam. Then you believe in a total BULLSHIT story.
Finally you come out with your beliefs after repeatedly announcing that you are here to teach about the bible. And not to teach or preach the bible or God itself. Finally! Well its the first time I've noticed anyway. All I've got is you're not here to talk about your beliefs. Just to teac the bible.
Now you've mentioned Adam!
Ruddy hell! So you're either not here to teach "about" the bible you actually are willing to talk about your beliefs. Or you've accidentally made a bit of a cock-up (this means mistake in Britain in case you don't know).

It isn't about what you think is right or wrong or how you interpret the evidence - even if you interpret it by saying it isn't there or valid according to the way you are accustomed to looking at evidence. It isn't even about a God who demands belief. Many who don't or haven't had the opportunity to form an opinion or belief will be resurrected.

The point is God created man to live forever and man will live forever. You in or are you out? If you make your decision now - even if it is based upon your own stubborn principles then you are out. No problem.

Once again. NOW you tell me. Now you finally talk about it. Well good.
Ok, so you say the question is, am I in or am I out? Well why on earth would I be in? Why would I be in just one random belief that there is no support of over any other of the very very many conceivable things to commit to? And even if there was only one CONCEIVABLE "God". And it would be yours. Why would I pick him? There's no GOOD reason to believe in him. There is neither any reason to believe he EXISTS. Or that believing in him will effect me postiively if I DID believe it. AND belief is NOT a matter of policy. So I can't choose what I believe anyway. If I for some deluded reason wanted to believe in God. And thought it was right, but still didn't. Thinking "I believe, I believe I believe" over and over again. Will NOT make me believe. I need to be convinced. I need a compelling answer. I am not convinced. There isn't any compelling answer that I know of.
Belief is not a matter of policy. Which is one of the reasons Pascal's Wager falls completely on its face right away anyway. And Pascals Wager is of course just based on fear and wishful thinking. NOT very profound.
I'm out.

mark 10:18 - Jesus said to him: "Why do you call me good? Nobody is good, except one, God."

Says who? Jesus? So what? Jesus wants to believe in a delusion then fine. And I'm not sure Jesus even existed anyway. And he's certainly not going to "come back". The second coming is bullshit.
When pigs fly, frogs sing christmas songs in japanese and dolphins take over the world. Then maybe such a thing is more possible. But even then there still would be no reason whatsoever to believe that that thing in particular would happen. That because really weird illogical stuff happens this means that the very particular illogical miracle of Jesus returning will happen.
It would actually have to happen. But until then, everything points to that it won't. That the supernatural, God and miracles are all bullshit. Faith is bullshit. Superstition is bullshit. Pseudoscience is bullshit.
In the battle of what makes logical sense between evidence vs faith. Evidence wins every time. By definition in fact.