Just a bit of burning then. Not forever. How reassuring.
However, you are free to turn God down on His offer for eternal life.
Thanks, I'll pass.
It would be really difficult to see someone as having any common sense if theys did this though.
You wouldn't know common sense if it sat naked on your face.
But, there is no burning in hell for eternity. Sorry that you believe there is
You've no idea how grateful I am for that special insight you have into your god's mind. Thanks for sharing.
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
That's pretty arrogant, isn't it? Thinking you know better than the people who wrote the books and the people who chose the books for canon?
Let's address this argument for a moment. I have a smartphone. There is an internet connection to a world of information that the early Church Fathers did not have. We both have essentially the same book. Thus, the only way they could be wiser than I am is:
God made them that way.
They prayed and fasted more than I do.
They believed stronger than I do.
Everything else is allegedly the same. Same book. Same God. Same humanity.
This is why I present the idea that you and I both could write a book. We could include it with the 66. Faith would likely prefer that RC Sproul wrote it, but he too is dead now. Our only hurdle is in agreeing on Who we were writing about. And all we are doing is elaborating on your valued concept of what the message is.
Being in agreement seems to be a major hurdle in religion.
And could a fundie really write a book with a secular humanist and see eye to eye?
Edited by Phat, : spelling
Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo
Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity. In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.~Stile
Absolutely He will burn those who do not want to be a part of His family up.
He is not about to give people who are miserable, and full of hate for Him, eternal life.
Do you really wish to burn with incredible pain for eternity or would you rather remain dead and unconscious?
God is loving enough to give those with righteous character eternal life, and He will share the entire universe with them. Character is of the upmost importance.
If you are not intelligent enough to choose eternal life as a God being then you won't get itt. But don't be angry with God; He will give you the free will to choose.
At least I know what I believe. You,on the other hand, have no idea what you believe.
You are like a piece of paper tossed in the air that just blows about.
You do have free will. You just don't know how to use it.
Because one is not predestinated doesn't mean that they can't have a r/s with God. It just means that they have not been called to be in the first resurrection.
The second resurrection is a resurrection to judgement. It is not a resurrection to sentencing.
In the second resurrection the "books of life" are opened. Rev. 20.
Read the other two chapters of Revelations. One will clearly see that eternal life is being offered
So yes, you will have to make a choice. You will have the free will to do that.
quote:Matthew 25:40-41 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels
There is an internet connection to a world of information that the early Church Fathers did not have. We both have essentially the same book. Thus, the only way they could be wiser than I am is: ” God made them that way.
”They prayed and fasted more than I do.
” They believed stronger than I do.
You're missing the most important factor:
Most of the Internet is wrong.
The photos of sharks eating helicopters are wrong. The conspiracy theories are wrong. The creationist claims are wrong. And the apologist nonsense that you have been spoon-fed is wrong.
Phat writes:
This is why I present the idea that you and I both could write a book.... Our only hurdle is in agreeing on Who we were writing about. And all we are doing is elaborating on your valued concept of what the message is.
No. The message is universal. Virtually every religion values or pretends to value the message that I value. The hurdle we would have is that you insist on throwing that message away and keeping the envelope.
Phat writes:
Being in agreement seems to be a major hurdle in religion.
Which is why it is arrogant to think that you, of all the Internet addicts, has The Real Truth™ straight from God's lips to your shell-like ear.
Phat writes:
And could a fundie really write a book with a secular humanist and see eye to eye?
Are you suggesting that fundies aren't quite human?
At least I know what I believe. You,on the other hand, have no idea what you believe.
YOU have no idea what I believe.
candle1 writes:
Because one is not predestinated doesn't mean that they can't have a r/s with God. It just means that they have not been called to be in the first resurrection.
The second resurrection is a resurrection to judgement. It is not a resurrection to sentencing.
In the second resurrection the "books of life" are opened. Rev. 20.
Read the other two chapters of Revelations. One will clearly see that eternal life is being offered
There is nothing remotely "clear" about your one, two, three resurrections rubbish.
How do you tell the difference between the following experiences:
1. Honestly understanding something "correctly" leading to a valid belief in who God actually is.
2. Honestly, but unknowingly, understanding something "incorrectly" leading to an invalid belief in who God actually is.
How would we test it? What standards would we use?
This is exactly the problem.
So many questions, so little time.
I submit that this in the most important question. That is - if you cannot obtain a satisfactory answer for this question - how can you make any meaningful progress on any other question regarding God?
Of course, this makes one assumption - that the primary concern is about getting the truth of the situation - understanding God/reality.
If you feel/see yourself moving on and only keeping this question in the back of your mind - then this is an indication that you do not have "pursuit of the truth" as a primary priority.
You then hold something else as a priority. It could be any number of things: -You want to feel better (quell fears/gain confidence/personal reassurrance) -You want to control others (use the idea of God to manipulate other people) -You want to make money (religion is just a tool, not a truth) -Plenty of other things could be here, too
If "understanding God" is actually a priority - I would return to focusing on the original question. If not - I would suggest attempting to identify what your priority actually is. If it's one of the negative ones (controlling others, making money by using religion....) then I offer you no additional help and I wish for your failure. If it's one of the positive ones (feeling better...) then I suggest that you focus your pursuit with clarity (religion is a tool you're using to feel better... not a pursuit of truth) in order to make progress.
You can still believe and use religion as a tool to feel better - it will only make your state-of-mind stronger to be able to identify when your religious ideas should be influencing your pursuit of truth about reality and when they shouldn't.
By the way - anyone who tells you religion should "always" affect your state of mind is wrong. It makes for a nice saying to a crowd... but it only causes negative side effects if actually used in practice.
Just ask if they consult The Bible when attempting to navigate traffic regulations? They probably don't - point proven. Or maybe they do - and if so, then they are terrible drivers and the point is proven again.
"Jesus take the wheel" is a metaphor - not something to actually be done with a vehicle.
I submit that this in the most important question. That is - if you cannot obtain a satisfactory answer for this question - how can you make any meaningful progress on any other question regarding God?
Upon re-examining your two choices, I would go with #2, It is important for me personally that God exists and is interactive with me. If I am honestly wrong about His abilities or intentions, it is not due to a lack of effort on my part.
Apart from a twinge of conscience over not laying it *all* on the line and giving all of my time and spare change in helping others, I generally live each day trying to say prayers, do what good I can, and otherwise take care of myself and those I love as best as I can. Small doses of guilt can be mildly therapeutic, but in large doses, guilt can be fatal.
Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo
Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity. In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.~Stile
Upon re-examining your two choices, I would go with #2
The question isn't "which of those better describes your situation." The question is "how do you tell the difference between 1 and 2?"
It is important for me personally that God exists and is interactive with me.
Right. Now - is it more important for you to feel that God exists and is interactive with you more so than if God is actually interacting with you? -if so, then your feelings are a higher priority than the truth of God/reality -in which case, most of my previous reply will hopefully be helpful
Or - is it more important for you to know that God exists and is interactive with you more than the feelings you receive thinking about such an idea? -if so, then the truth of God/reality is a higher priority than your feelings on the matter -in which case - you really, really need an answer for the question of "how do you tell the difference between 1 and 2?" in order to make any progress
If I am honestly wrong about His abilities or intentions, it is not due to a lack of effort on my part.
Perhaps I am misinterpreting your intentions. Perhaps, by saying "I would go with #2" you mean to inform me that you acknowledge that your feelings are a higher priority than the truth of God/reality?
If so - there's nothing wrong with that. And anyone who tries to make you feel bad about it is, in fact, wrong themselves.
Also - it has no bearing on God's actual existence. In fact, it could quite possible mean that you want God to exist more than someone who's primary concern is the truth of God/reality. (That is, if your primary concern is the truth - you wouldn't be so focused on "Godly things" as you would be focused on "how to identify reality.")
Can you see here how reflection on your priorities can lead you to strengthening your beliefs as opposed to weakening your faith (as some others may attempt to imply it is doing?)
The message is universal. Virtually every religion values or pretends to value the message that I value. The hurdle we would have is that you insist on throwing that message away and keeping the envelope.
Ahhh yes. Our old argument. Thus, the major hurdle preventing cooperation between you and I is that you value *doing* the message and I value *knowing and counting on* the messenger. Did it ever occur to you that an older man with health issues needs a messenger/rescuer/reassurer more than being told that he himself needs to build his own boat and focus on the needs of others? If I were 20, strapping and strong than sure...send me to the army! It is the duty of the strong to help the weak.
As for my arrogance, I confess. To me, it is more confidence and hope in a rescuer. I need no guilt over the fact that I can't give as much as I should. I need a promise that I will receive what I need. And if Im selfish as well as arrogant, I bow at the altar.
Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo
Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity. In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.~Stile
Did it ever occur to you that an older man with health issues needs a messenger/rescuer/reassurer more than being told that he himself needs to build his own boat and focus on the needs of others?
Well, I'm older than you... and I don't recall Jesus putting an expiry date on the message.
Phat writes:
It is the duty of the strong to help the weak.
Consider the widow who helped Elijah. We don't get to decide whether we are the strong or the weak. Contribute what you can and have faith that you'll get what you need.
Phat writes:
As for my arrogance, I confess. To me, it is more confidence and hope in a rescuer.
The arrogance that I am talking about is the insistance that you know exactly Who the rescuer is. You'll send away the policeman and the boat and the helicopter because you want to dictate how you will be rescued.
In fact, it could quite possible mean that you want God to exist more than someone whose primary concern is the truth of God/reality.
I suspect this is true. ringo wants the message to be true more than he wants to know or identify if there is an actual messenger or not. I want the help.
To be frank, Stile---I see my opponents argument. It is reality and evidence-based. My argument is more fantasy and wishful. I would not want a God to exist who expected humans to have to do everything.
Edited by Phat, : No reason given.
Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo
Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity. In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.~Stile
ringo wants the message to be true more than he wants to know or identify if there is an actual messenger or not.
It has nothing to do with what I want. The message IS true. It works, in a social species. I'm just not that impressed that the messenger you obsess about managed to grasp the message that millions of other humans understand.
™ Version 4.2