PDA

View Full Version : To those that believe in Heaven and Hell



ChronaMew
23rd September 2008, 3:11 AM
This is the first successful debate I made in this place, maybe one to three years ago. Since there are a lot of new faces around here, I felt like remaking it.

A little note before I start - This point of the discussion is not whether or not Heaven and Hell exist. You can save that for another topic. Reply to this topic assuming that they do exist in some way.

Anyhow - Heaven is said to be a place of eternal happiness, where you are completely fulfilled. However, I find that a little hard to believe because of the existence of Hell. I myself could not be happy knowing that billions of people are suffering, *especially* if a few of those were my close friends or relatives.

Here's an example - A couple is happily married, but one day the wife dies. The wife was a very good person, and goes to heaven. However, the man becomes a bad person afterward through some circumstances; let's just say a murderer or something. In this case, the man would be in hell, would he not?

But then, how would the wife be completely happy if the man she loved for years was burning in agony for all eternity?

Would the woman forget about her husband? That wouldn't seem like a very happy existence, it would simply be based off ignorance. Would the man be granted a special pass for the wife's sake? Then what about people who love humanity as a whole and would like to see EVERYONE in Heaven?

I'll leave it at that. Have fun guys =)

Ethan
23rd September 2008, 5:12 AM
Well if the wife knew her husband was a murderer, I don't think she would be too sad that he's in hell, lol.

poke poke
23rd September 2008, 2:58 PM
Well if the wife knew her husband was a murderer, I don't think she would be too sad that he's in hell, lol.

Wrong. Of course she would care. If it was a successful marriage and they loved each other very much, she would care.

Or you may be joking. But I find it hard to believe that you, of all people, would be joking in a debate.

GhostAnime
23rd September 2008, 3:24 PM
i think the better question about heaven is what is it like?

since you are sinless, do you have free will? all earthly things suddenly poof dont they? if in order to love your significant other, you have to have sexual attraction. since that doesnt exist in the after life, do you love your lover anymore?

what are the things to do? do you praise god all day? do video games disappear? do sports disappear?

sounds like a boring place where you're just a mindless drone. take me to hell personally.


Well if the wife knew her husband was a murderer, I don't think she would be too sad that he's in hell, lol.
you must have never been in love much, right?

Ethan
23rd September 2008, 3:58 PM
Wrong. Of course she would care. If it was a successful marriage and they loved each other very much, she would care.

Or you may be joking. But I find it hard to believe that you, of all people, would be joking in a debate.

Oh, I'm entirely serious. Contrary to what most people think, human love isn't exactly what I would call unconditional. So they loved eachother? Maybe they were even crazy about eachother. The point is if a husband even cheats on his wife after a 20 years marraige it's not uncommon for "love" to pack its bags and move the hell on out. Let alone murder.

It also mentions if the bible that there will be no grief in heaven. Does this that when you go to heaven that God brain washes or has control over your mind? Not quite. I'm assuming that if heaven is such a wonderful place as people say it is, she's probably not going to be too concerned with her husband. This doesn't mean that her emotions are removed, or that she doesn't care about her husband anymore. Even God doesn't like it when someone goes to hell. "It is not my will for anyone to perish." It just means that she's not going to be in a state of mourning.


you must have never been in love much, right?

Haha, can't say that I have.

Blue Snover
23rd September 2008, 4:10 PM
Sinners are supposed to hell am i right?

If that's true, then everyone in the world should go to hell when they die, because there is not one person who has never sinned in their life, whether it be stealing, murder, adultery, or just lying to someone.

I know you can go to church and confess your sins, but even that doesn't change anything, because even priests are normal people who are not above sinning themselves, so they are not really in a position to forgive anyone, because some of them might be guilty of the same things they are trying to offer forgiveness for.

GhostAnime
23rd September 2008, 4:11 PM
Oh, I'm entirely serious. Contrary to what most people think, human love isn't exactly what I would call unconditional. So they loved eachother? Maybe they were even crazy about eachother. The point is if a husband even cheats on his wife after a 20 years marraige it's not uncommon for "love" to pack its bags and move the hell on out. Let alone murder.
are you talking about murder of the other spouse? well it's still possible to love them after that; it is just 'earth' after all!

i mean if you look at murder as nothing but a way to leave earth and they are still in existence, you could very well still love your spouse since murder isn't that big of a deal once you're in the afterlife, right?


It also mentions if the bible that there will be no grief in heaven. Does this that when you go to heaven that God brain washes or has control over your mind?
oh sure there's no grief but what's the fun part? being stripped of my humanity just sitting around praising god?

with everything provided to you, what is there to work or strive for? the motivation? i'd just be a mindless puppet in a boring pointless dull world... fighting, video games, hero vs. villain, sports, all gone. no excitement or individuality because everybody's the same.

no food, no laughs (i think 'insults' would count as griefs), .. what about music?

Kuji
23rd September 2008, 6:26 PM
I'm sure everyone would just be overjoyed that, "Wow, there really is a God up in this Heaven thing" and you'd probably soo ecstatic that you'll forget the "mundane" things like music, pizza, etc.
Now, I am not in favor of forgetting how Pizza is, but yeah, that would be a perspective.

I do believe in a Heaven or Hell, since, well, there have been couple of really decent people in life or really bad-*** a-holes that need to go where they deserve to go. May it be meeting Buddha, Allah, Jesus or Hades/Pluto. It's hard to believe that I will go to the same place Ted Bundy or Ed Gein or say, Hitler.
Of course, I admit not being a goody-good shoe and probably might take awhile to meet up with Pope John Paul II, etc etc.

Maybe that's the reason for the Purgatory belief, for the people that are in-between, yanno?

Ethan
23rd September 2008, 6:59 PM
are you talking about murder of the other spouse? well it's still possible to love them after that; it is just 'earth' after all!

i mean if you look at murder as nothing but a way to leave earth and they are still in existence, you could very well still love your spouse since murder isn't that big of a deal once you're in the afterlife, right?

Um, no. It's still a big deal. You're still causing someone unnecessary pain, and taking them away from enjoying their current life fully. If murder wasn't a big deal because we just spend an eterntity in heaven anyway, God wouldn't have bothered to put us here in the first place.



oh sure there's no grief but what's the fun part? being stripped of my humanity just sitting around praising god?

with everything provided to you, what is there to work or strive for? the motivation? i'd just be a mindless puppet in a boring pointless dull world... fighting, video games, hero vs. villain, sports, all gone. no excitement or individuality because everybody's the same.

Who said that praising God is all that you are going to be doing? Who said that you will be mindless? It's funny how a lot of people seem to think that heaven is this magical place where are our earthly desires are filled. Damn, too bad we can't bring KFC and strippers through those pearly gates!


no food, no laughs (i think 'insults' would count as griefs), .. what about music?

Music? I think so.

Revelation 5:9
And they sang a new song, saying: “You are worthy to take the scroll, And to open its seals; For You were slain, And have redeemed us to God by Your blood Out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation."

Food? The bible doesn't say that there isn't any. Laughs? Why not? The Bible never states that Jesus laughed. However there are things that demonstrate he had a sense of humor. Matthew 7:3-5 is pretty funny if you think about it.

Profesco
23rd September 2008, 9:17 PM
It also mentions if the bible that there will be no grief in heaven. Does this that when you go to heaven that God brain washes or has control over your mind? Not quite. I'm assuming that if heaven is such a wonderful place as people say it is, she's probably not going to be too concerned with her husband. This doesn't mean that her emotions are removed, or that she doesn't care about her husband anymore. Even God doesn't like it when someone goes to hell. "It is not my will for anyone to perish." It just means that she's not going to be in a state of mourning.

I hate to step in between you and GhostAnime yet again, but what, then, does it mean?

How does one suddenly lose an emotion like love for a lifelong spouse in Heaven, when love is one of Christianity's most proclaimed guidelines? If you love, you also grieve. There's no way to have the former without the latter. That's what all those cheesy movies talk about when they say love is dangerous or risky or something. It's one of those darn annoying foolhardy emotions that tends to stick with you.

So back to my question: what does it mean? How does a person suddenly lose this attachment without grieving for the person who suffers? How does Heaven provide comfort and peace and happiness without removing the choice or ability or necessity to feel restlessness and turmoil and sorrow? I guess I don't really expect any kind of answer here. Given the nature of Heaven, we're likely to not understand the whys and hows of it anyway. At least while alive on Earth.

Ethan
23rd September 2008, 10:26 PM
How does one suddenly lose an emotion like love for a lifelong spouse in Heaven, when love is one of Christianity's most proclaimed guidelines? If you love, you also grieve. There's no way to have the former without the latter. That's what all those cheesy movies talk about when they say love is dangerous or risky or something. It's one of those darn annoying foolhardy emotions that tends to stick with you.

I never said loved was removed, grief however, yes. Why can't you have the former without the latter? If my (hypothetical) daughter gets pregnant, does various drugs, has multiple abortions, etc, etc and gets thrown in the slammer, is it so abnormal for me not to grieve over that? I can still love my daughter, but at the same time accept that her own actions brought her in the current state she's in.


So back to my question: what does it mean? How does a person suddenly lose this attachment without grieving for the person who suffers? How does Heaven provide comfort and peace and happiness without removing the choice or ability or necessity to feel restlessness and turmoil and sorrow? I guess I don't really expect any kind of answer here. Given the nature of Heaven, we're likely to not understand the whys and hows of it anyway. At least while alive on Earth.

Did my paragraph above the answers the questions here?

GhostAnime
23rd September 2008, 11:05 PM
Um, no. It's still a big deal. You're still causing someone unnecessary pain, and taking them away from enjoying their current life fully.
pain, sure, but heaven sure sounds a hell lot better than earth... (at least to you at least).


If murder wasn't a big deal because we just spend an eterntity in heaven anyway, God wouldn't have bothered to put us here in the first place.
then why did he put us here? that is an interesting question.


Who said that praising God is all that you are going to be doing? Who said that you will be mindless? It's funny how a lot of people seem to think that heaven is this magical place where are our earthly desires are filled. Damn, too bad we can't bring KFC and strippers through those pearly gates!
so what do you do besides worship god? talk about how your da.. er, eternity was?


Revelation 5:9
And they sang a new song, saying: “You are worthy to take the scroll, And to open its seals; For You were slain, And have redeemed us to God by Your blood Out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation."i guess you'd take this over your most favorite song? oh that's right god strips you of your human desire for earth music. isn't that the 'mindless' part?


Food? The bible doesn't say that there isn't any.so how can you be hungry in heaven when hunger is a type of 'grieve'; very capable of ending your lii.. afterlife (yeah, my point gets across that way)? why should we assume we eat in the afterlife if it's not in the description of it? all the bible ever said was that we just sit with god.

honestly heaven just sounds like torture to me. sitting around with god praising him for an eternity isnt my cup of tea; of course it could be if he brainwashed me to enjoy it for an eternity but at this moment i wouldn't.

Scizito_92
23rd September 2008, 11:37 PM
The bible tells us to be accepting towards others and respectful of their beliefs, does it not? Assuming it does (and I'm pretty sure it does), why do people go to Hell? Especially if someone is of a different religion.

In Judaism, abortion is perfectly fine because the baby isn't considered living until it takes it's first breath. But in Christianity, it is a sin. So if a Jewish woman has an abortion, she would be considered commiting a sin according to the bible, and therefore have to go to hell. Am I right? How would that be accepting towards others and respectful towards their beliefs?

Ethan
23rd September 2008, 11:53 PM
The bible tells us to be accepting towards others and respectful of their beliefs, does it not? Assuming it does (and I'm pretty sure it does), why do people go to Hell? Especially if someone is of a different religion.

Regardless of respect and acceptance, right and wrong still exist, as well as justice and punishment. I respect and accept that some of my friends are gay, that doesn't mean that I don't think it's wrong.


In Judaism, abortion is perfectly fine because the baby isn't considered living until it takes it's first breath. But in Christianity, it is a sin. So if a Jewish woman has an abortion, she would be considered commiting a sin according to the bible, and therefore have to go to hell. Am I right? How would that be accepting towards others and respectful towards their beliefs?

No scripture or anything to support your argument makes a sinking ship. Second of all there's a reason there are two testaments and why one is called "old", and the other is called "new." You can't use something old testament to argue against the new testament.

woot21
24th September 2008, 12:15 AM
Regardless of respect and acceptance, right and wrong still exist, as well as justice and punishment. I respect and accept that some of my friends are gay, that doesn't mean that I don't think it's wrong. How can you respect something if you think it is wrong?

No scripture or anything to support your argument makes a sinking ship. Second of all there's a reason there are two testaments and why one is called "old", and the other is called "new." You can't use something old testament to argue against the new testament. Doesn't Christianity teach both testaments though?

Now on to the topic of Heaven and Hell, and what exactly they are. First off, there are multiple interpretations of what exactly Heaven is, whether it be from different religions, to inside one religion. There is obviously no possible way to know which interpretation is the correct one while we are alive. So we may have GhostAnime's interpretation of heaven, where everyone is brainwashed and sits around doing nothing all day. Though to me, since God is suppose to be benevolent, that doesn't seem likely. We could have Babylon's where we aren't brainwashed and there is more to do than sit around and praising God. Then we could have my interpretation where Heaven is much like Earth, minus the pain and suffering, and where each person has a personal Heaven that is their eternal paradise.

Eternal paradise that is the one thing people can agree on when talking about Heaven, that it is an eternal paradise for all that pass through its pearly gates. So wouldn't it make sense that each person does have a different Heaven? Yes, I know the Bible doesn't state that that is what Heaven is, but show me where the Bible states that to get into Heaven you must follow the religion of Christ. (I want the verse, and the scripture to go with it)

Now for Hell, pretty much everyone can agree that there is one interpretation of Hell, and that is a place of eternal suffering, sure what Hell exactly is can vary from person to person. Dante has his nine circles belief, where those on the first circle don't truly suffer, but aren't ever truly happy either. Then there is the more mainstream idea of Hell. The place where columns of fire burst forth, screams of terror and pain fill the air, and the devil controls it all. But again how can we know for certain that those interpretations are correct? For all we know Hell could vary from person to person. For one person Hell may be a place where FOB plays constantly, for another it could very well be a place where one is constantly chopped into little pieces, over and over.

And what about Satanist in all of this?

GhostAnime
24th September 2008, 12:23 AM
"And the four beasts had each of them six wings about [him]; and [they were] full of eyes within: and they rest not day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come. And when those beasts give glory and honour and thanks to him that sat on the throne, who liveth for ever and ever, The four and twenty elders fall down before him that sat on the throne, and worship him that liveth for ever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne, saying, Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created." (Revelation 4:8-11)

"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)

this is pretty much how i figure hunger would disappear as would sleep or anything else us humans do to actually stay alive that we MAY enjoy.

oh that reminds me: what about pets and animals?

Ethan
24th September 2008, 12:52 AM
How can you respect something if you think it is wrong?

Looking through here

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/respect

I see nothing to suggest that I have to believe something to respect it. I can respect the followers of say hinduism, some of its teachings, and what's done for the world. It doesn't mean that I have to agree or follow the religion.


Doesn't Christianity teach both testaments though?

Sometimes they will refer to the old testament, and teach things that weren't specifically undone by the new testament. For example the new testament says that the old law of "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth." is no longer valid anymore and to love our enemies. They teach the stories and narratives from the old testament, not the laws or codes of conduct. 10 commandments are an exception because they are re-iterated in the new testament.


@GA, your scripture was referring to non-humans, and again you don't have to need something to enjoy it.

GhostAnime
24th September 2008, 2:07 AM
i don't have to need something to enjoy it?

personally i ENJOY eating pizza. taking pizza away from me is... i cant even imagine it!

seriously though, think of how many things you enjoy on earth will poof.

Scizito_92
24th September 2008, 2:39 AM
Regardless of respect and acceptance, right and wrong still exist, as well as justice and punishment. I respect and accept that some of my friends are gay, that doesn't mean that I don't think it's wrong.
If this is true... (http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-God-Word.html)(first paragraph) then why don't we study the scripture of all religions, just in case it is the word of god. There is no true right and wrong.


No scripture or anything to support your argument makes a sinking ship. Second of all there's a reason there are two testaments and why one is called "old", and the other is called "new." You can't use something old testament to argue against the new testament.

I could get you a link to a site where it says that a baby isn't considered living until it takes it's first breath, but then I would have to avoid the many other links with different opinions. Ever heard, "If you put 2 jewish people in a room you get 3 opinions"? In Judaism, there is a common belief, and then there are those that you have to make up for yourself... those that are hard or nearly impossible to justify. My Rabbi had told what he learned, and that is, that an abortion is fine because a baby isn't considered alive until it takes it's first breath.

And besides, wouldn't having no proof of heaven and hell make your whole arguement a sinking ship?

Ethan
24th September 2008, 5:12 AM
If this is true... (http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-God-Word.html)(first paragraph) then why don't we study the scripture of all religions, just in case it is the word of god. There is no true right and wrong.

This thread is assuming that heaven and hell both exist, therefore the existence of right and wrong are obviously a given. Bringing up the topic of moral objectivism/relativism here isn't going to get you too far. In Christianity, there is no "what if" There is God and his laws. An atheist or agnostic can say to a Christian, "Well there might be other Gods you know" but for a Christian we know it to be true. Dillusional? Maybe. Ignorant? Perhaps. However that's simply the way it is.



I could get you a link to a site where it says that a baby isn't considered living until it takes it's first breath, but then I would have to avoid the many other links with different opinions. Ever heard, "If you put 2 jewish people in a room you get 3 opinions"? In Judaism, there is a common belief, and then there are those that you have to make up for yourself... those that are hard or nearly impossible to justify. My Rabbi had told what he learned, and that is, that an abortion is fine because a baby isn't considered alive until it takes it's first breath.

As I said before, using judaism to argue against Christianity is a no go. Second, if you can't back up a claim don't make it. Regardless of whether there are "many different opinions" you still used your reference to Judaism as a direct argument against my statements. So when I confront you, and you backtrack by saying "Well there are lots of opinions" then your argument doesn't fly.


And besides, wouldn't having no proof of heaven and hell make your whole arguement a sinking ship?

Again, your back tracking. This whole topic is both assuming heaven and hell exist and we are both debating on that premise. So for you to argue with me based on that premise, then thow your hands in the air and say "Well you can't prove heaven and hell exist" is backing away from the debate. So no, you have the only ship thats sinking.


i don't have to need something to enjoy it?

Do you have to be hungry for pizza to taste good?

crobatman
24th September 2008, 5:30 AM
This is the first successful debate I made in this place, maybe one to three years ago. Since there are a lot of new faces around here, I felt like remaking it.

A little note before I start - This point of the discussion is not whether or not Heaven and Hell exist. You can save that for another topic. Reply to this topic assuming that they do exist in some way.

Anyhow - Heaven is said to be a place of eternal happiness, where you are completely fulfilled. However, I find that a little hard to believe because of the existence of Hell. I myself could not be happy knowing that billions of people are suffering, *especially* if a few of those were my close friends or relatives.

Here's an example - A couple is happily married, but one day the wife dies. The wife was a very good person, and goes to heaven. However, the man becomes a bad person afterward through some circumstances; let's just say a murderer or something. In this case, the man would be in hell, would he not?

But then, how would the wife be completely happy if the man she loved for years was burning in agony for all eternity?

Would the woman forget about her husband? That wouldn't seem like a very happy existence, it would simply be based off ignorance. Would the man be granted a special pass for the wife's sake? Then what about people who love humanity as a whole and would like to see EVERYONE in Heaven?

I'll leave it at that. Have fun guys =)

i quoted this just to read it while making a response. =)
How do you know that Heaven is all happiness? It is like the song "I can only imagine" by MercyMe. here are the lyrics: http://www.elyrics.net/read/m/mercyme-lyrics/i-can-only-imagine-lyrics.html
You can listen to it here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IV9jiqS-74g


I know that I will feel a reminder of my life on earth. I will be sorry for the sins I have committed, knowing of what my Saviour has done for me. I will be sorry for all the people I could have helped and shown the way to, but just ignored them in stead. I believe there will be some guilt. However, I will have confidence in the fact that my Jesus has has forgiven me of my trespasses. Heaven or hell is based on the one choice you make on earth of whether or not you accept the gift offered unto us.
However, heaven is not going to be all guiltiness. I believe it is going to be the most awesomest party of the eternity.
About the metaphor on marriage, this is why the bible says we should not be unequally yoked. A believer really should not marry an unbeliever. I think if God meant for the two to be together, then both would be believers. Plus, Jesus said to the Pharisees that there will be no marriage between people in heaven. The only true marriage will be between Jesus and his bride, the church. I think there will be people in heaven who are not part of this bride. That could be cause for some sadness, but in heaven it will be ok because all the treasures we could get are nothing above the Glory of Jesus.

oh well, that is my 2 cents worth...

woot21
24th September 2008, 5:41 AM
This whole topic is both assuming heaven and hell exist and we are both debating on that premise. So what exactly is this topic debating? Is it debating what precisely Heaven and Hell are? I gave my feelings on that earlier. Or is there something else we are debating? Debating whether or not there are or are not certain things in Heaven or Hell, is still debating what Heaven and Hell are.

Do you have to be hungry for pizza to taste good? I'm going to say yes. If I've eaten so much that eating more will make me sick, any food will taste bad to me. So GhostAnime does have a point about how there does need to be a need of some kind there.

Ethan
24th September 2008, 5:50 AM
So what exactly is this topic debating? Is it debating what precisely Heaven and Hell are? I gave my feelings on that earlier. Or is there something else we are debating? Debating whether or not there are or are not certain things in Heaven or Hell, is still debating what Heaven and Hell are.


Certian ethical situations based on the premise that heaven and hell exist. Such as ChronaMews example with the married couple.


I'm going to say yes. If I've eaten so much that eating more will make me sick, any food will taste bad to me. So GhostAnime does have a point about how there does need to be a need of some kind there.

Look at your first sentence. You've made it clear that you are already full. I don't have to be hungry to munch on some tasty potato chips, and there's a difference between eating so much that you want to throw up. I would also like to point out that the tongue and stomach are different organs. You may feel sick, but the food will always taste the same.

Profesco
24th September 2008, 5:51 AM
Wow, Babs, you're looking like a pro with the technical skills of debating! ^_^;


I never said loved was removed, grief however, yes. Why can't you have the former without the latter? If my (hypothetical) daughter gets pregnant, does various drugs, has multiple abortions, etc, etc and gets thrown in the slammer, is it so abnormal for me not to grieve over that? I can still love my daughter, but at the same time accept that her own actions brought her in the current state she's in.

Oh, I see. Well, yes, that's a very good analogy to answer my questions. And yet, it still isn't exactly satisfying...

This daughter, would you be happy to see her in the position she's in? Would you be at peace with her position, comfortable that she has done those things and ended up where she is? If it were me, though I might see the justice in this situation, I would certainly feel grief over it. I would desire that she were at peace as well. I would want to see her be forgiven and find happiness like I had. With those emotions, I would certainly not be very peaceful. Those feelings aren't supposed to happen in Heaven, are they? I know full well that I don't know as much about Christian doctrine as you do, but from what I can recall, the feelings I'm having in this paragraph seem to fit right in with the traditional rigamarole (no offense, of course).

The feelings you hypothesize having reflect an emotional disconnect with the daughter. I suppose that is what Heaven is supposed to be; a severance from Earth and earthly constraints. Is that the case? (I'm just wondering out loud at this point.) If so, how does that work? I don't want to look at negative explanations, but is there an explanation besides the removal of these emotions? Is that a type of brainwashing?


Did my paragraph above the answers the questions here?

Well, I guess I don't have to answer this, huh? :p

Ethan
24th September 2008, 6:00 AM
Wow, Babs, you're looking like a pro with the technical skills of debating! ^_^;

*blushes*


This daughter, would you be happy to see her in the position she's in? Would you be at peace with her position, comfortable that she has done those things and ended up where she is? If it were me, though I might see the justice in this situation, I would certainly feel grief over it. I would desire that she were at peace as well. I would want to see her be forgiven and find happiness like I had. With those emotions, I would certainly not be very peaceful. Those feelings aren't supposed to happen in Heaven, are they?


Not necessarily. You don't have to be happy about the situation, your just not emotionally focused on it. It's a matter of acceptance. Usually when a parent loses a child, they don't continuously grieve until their own life is over. They move on and focus on the good memories that they had and shared.


I know full well that I don't know as much about Christian doctrine as you do, but from what I can recall, the feelings I'm having in this paragraph seem to fit right in with the traditional rigamarole (no offense, of course).

I don't even know what you're saying. :P



The feelings you hypothesize having reflect an emotional disconnect with the daughter. I suppose that is what Heaven is supposed to be; a severance from Earth and earthly constraints. Is that the case? (I'm just wondering out loud at this point.) If so, how does that work? I don't want to look at negative explanations, but is there an explanation besides the removal of these emotions? Is that a type of brainwashing?

All I can say to that is

I dunno. :x

woot21
24th September 2008, 6:10 AM
Certian ethical situations based on the premise that heaven and hell exist. Such as ChronaMews example with the married couple. So we are debating partly what exactly Heaven and Hell, even if it is indirectly. Since the central issue of the example is whether or not there are emotions such as grief in Heaven.

I would also like to point out that the tongue and stomach are different organs. You may feel sick, but the food will always taste the same. There is more to taste than just the tastebuds. Taste is derived more from smell and sight, and if the sight or smell of a food makes you feel sick, then the taste will be quite similar to the feeling you get from it. Also, the tounge isn't an organ, it's a bundle of tissue.

Profesco
24th September 2008, 6:15 AM
Not necessarily. You don't have to be happy about the situation, your just not emotionally focused on it. It's a matter of acceptance. Usually when a parent loses a child, they don't continuously grieve until their own life is over. They move on and focus on the good memories that they had and shared.

I guess I can kind of see what you're saying. It's just hard to imagine that someone could completely ever move past feeling sadness over the loss of someone they love. Especially when it happens on the other side of eternity. Many people find solace from loss in the belief that they'll meet the person again in Heaven. I don't know what they would do if they were in Heaven, and discovered that they're spending an eternity without that person. And if that person isn't with them in Heaven, there's not much consolation in wondering about where that person is for all of eternity...


I don't even know what you're saying. :P

All I can say to that is

I dunno. :x

Yeah, I think I'll stop anyway. It's nice to have a knowledgeable friend to go through a search for religious answers with, but since I'm not debating as much as I am just throwing questions into the air, it doesn't belong here. ^_^;

Ethan
24th September 2008, 6:15 AM
So we are debating partly what exactly Heaven and Hell, even if it is indirectly. Since the central issue of the example is whether or not there are emotions such as grief in Heaven.

Sure.


There is more to taste than just the tastebuds. Taste is derived more from smell and sight, and if the sight or smell of a food makes you feel sick, then the taste will be quite similar to the feeling you get from it.

That's not based on any need like hunger though.


Also, the tounge isn't an organ, it's a bundle of tissue.

Rofl. oops. You knew what I meant :P


Yeah, I think I'll stop anyway. It's nice to have a knowledgeable friend to go through a search for religious answers, but since I'm not debating as much as I am just throwing questions into the air, it doesn't belong here. ^_^;

I don't mind. :p

woot21
24th September 2008, 6:28 AM
I don't know what they would do if they were in Heaven, and discovered that they're spending an eternity without that person. Could that seriously be considered Heaven then, since Heaven is suppose to be an eternal paradise for all who inhabit it. On that note I feel the need to raise these questions again.

Where exactly in the Bible does it state that one must follow the religion of Christ to get into Heaven? (I want verse and scripture if possible)
Also, where do Satanist fit into the whole Heaven and Hell discussion? Since wouldn't their definitions of Heaven and Hell reverse the two?

GhostAnime
24th September 2008, 2:59 PM
A believer really should not marry an unbeliever.
who said anything about this? we simply said the guy murdered someone.


I think if God meant for the two to be together, then both would be believers. Plus, Jesus said to the Pharisees that there will be no marriage between people in heaven. The only true marriage will be between Jesus and his bride, the church. I think there will be people in heaven who are not part of this bride. That could be cause for some sadness, but in heaven it will be ok because all the treasures we could get are nothing above the Glory of Jesus.
"sure you'll lose the love you have for your lover but jesus is easily replaced. focus on jesus mindlessly, guys."

crobatman
24th September 2008, 4:06 PM
I think the real answer to this debate is just "i don't know." about the illustration with the couple. You can not know the souls of different people. It is all between God and the person. Your actions are not getting you into heaven. There is noone righteous enough to get there. That is the whole point of why Jesus had to come to earth.

I think Babylon pointed out the differences in human love and unconditional love.


Where exactly in the Bible does it state that one must follow the religion of Christ to get into Heaven? um...What about the most quoted scripture of the new testament? John 3:16 For God so loved the world....

ResidentEcruteak
24th September 2008, 4:45 PM
Could that seriously be considered Heaven then, since Heaven is suppose to be an eternal paradise for all who inhabit it. On that note I feel the need to raise these questions again.

Where exactly in the Bible does it state that one must follow the religion of Christ to get into Heaven? (I want verse and scripture if possible)
Also, where do Satanist fit into the whole Heaven and Hell discussion? Since wouldn't their definitions of Heaven and Hell reverse the two?
To be exact, there isn't a verse stating that "one must follow the religion of Christ to get into Heaven", although it may depend on how religion and heaven are defined.

First of all, in the bible it is said that people need Jesus in order be purged from their sins. And then they need to follow Him(Jesus) and stick to Him in order to be fit with God. And if someone isn't fit with God and doesn't follow Jesus, that someone will perish/will be condemned.

Secondly, bible actually doesn't talk about the heaven as the eternal place of happiness. Instead in the book of revelation it is mentioned that God will create a new earth and a new heaven, and this new earth will be place where people are with God, eternally it seems.

Here are some quotes from the bible that talk about these things:
24 That is why I told you that you will die in your sins. For unless you believe that I am he, you will die in your sins.” (John 8:24)

1 “I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinegrower.
2 He removes every branch in me that does not produce fruit, and he cleanses every branch that does produce fruit so that it might produce more fruit.
3 You are already clean because of the word that I have spoken to you.
4 “Abide in me, and I will abide in you. Just as the branch cannot produce fruit by itself unless it abides in the vine, neither can you unless you abide in me.
5 I am the vine, you are the branches. The one who abides in me while I abide in him [Lit. and I in him] produces much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing.
6 Unless a person abides in me, he is thrown away like a branch and dries up. People gather such branches [Lit. They gather them] and throw them into the fire, and they are burned.
7 If you abide in me and my words abide in you, you can ask for anything you want, and it will be yours.
8 This is how my Father is glorified, when you produce a lot of fruit and prove to be my disciples.
9 Just as the Father has loved me, so I have loved you. So abide in my love.
10 If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in his love.
11 I have told you this so that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be complete.
12 “This is my commandment: that you love one another as I have loved you.
13 No one shows [Lit. has] greater love than when he lays down his life for his friends.
14 You are my friends if you do what I command you.(John 15:1-14)

1 Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, because the first heaven and the first earth had disappeared, and the sea was gone.
2 I also saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared like a bride adorned for her husband.
3 I heard a loud voice from the throne say, “See, the tabernacle of God is among humans! He will make his home with them, and they will be his people. God himself will be with them, and he will be their God.
4 He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There won't be death anymore. There won't be any grief, crying, or pain, because the first things have disappeared.”
5 The one sitting on the throne said, “See, I am making all things new!” He said, “Write this: ‘These words are trustworthy and true.’”
6 Then he said to me, “It has happened! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. I will freely give a drink from the spring of the water of life to the one who is thirsty.
7 The person who conquers will inherit these things. I will be his God, and he will be my son.
8 But people who are cowardly, unfaithful, detestable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars will find themselves in [Lit. will have their part in] the lake that burns with fire and sulfur. This is the second death.”(Revelation 21:1-8)

(I realise that some people may feel offended because of some of the contents of these bible quotations. However, my intent is not offend people, but give a adequate answer to given questions, so please, don't start flaming on me about the contents of these verses)

About losing someone: I don't think it would matter that much in "heaven", because one that gets to there, isn't losing the person he/she loves the most, that is Jesus. For, if someone isn't loving Jesus more than anyone else, it seems that that someone isn't getting into "heaven", from biblical perspective atleast:
37 “The one who loves his father or mother more than me isn't worthy of me, and the one who loves a son or daughter more than me isn't worthy of me.(matthew 10:37)

So, yeah; it seems to be just like GhostAnime just said, it is just without the "mindlessly-part".

Anyway, I'm not sure if I get the question about satanists; I mean, if Hell is a place of eternal torment, then how could it be any different for some certain people or for a satanist in this case?

GhostAnime
24th September 2008, 4:55 PM
To be exact, there isn't a verse stating that "one must follow the religion of Christ to get into Heaven", although it may depend on how religion and heaven are defined.
it clearly says to be saved you must accept Jesus as your savior. this is the most basic thing of christianity (his last name begins with it!); i'm surprised you don't even know this.


About losing someone: I don't think it would matter that much in "heaven", because one that gets to there, isn't losing the person he/she loves the most, that is Jesus.
oh? another person that thinks it's okay that though my grandmother is in hell, all i should worry about is praising jesus?


So, yeah; it seems to be just like GhostAnime just said, it is just without the "mindlessly-part".
if you take my love for people not in heaven away and tell me that Jesus is all i need, that's pretty much brainwashing me to love jesus enough to not care about anything else.

that's mindless thinking.

ResidentEcruteak
24th September 2008, 5:25 PM
it clearly says to be saved you must accept Jesus as your savior. this is the most basic thing of christianity (his last name begins with it!); i'm surprised you don't even know this.

oh? another person that thinks it's okay that though my grandmother is in hell, all i should worry about is praising jesus?

if you take my love for people not in heaven away and tell me that Jesus is
all i need, that's pretty much brainwashing me to love jesus enough to not care about anything else.

that's mindless thinking.
Hmm... I wonder if you even read the whole message... Besides, it is not about us accepting Jesus; it is about Jesus accepting us.

Anyway, the one who judges whether someone is going to "hell" or "heaven" is Jesus and I'm sure that like all the other judges, He too has reasons for His desicions and although I don't know or understand what those reasons exactly are I trust that His desicion is the best whether it is about your grandmother or mine grandmother or you or me.

And I don't see anything mindless in an attempt to become a better person.

GhostAnime
24th September 2008, 5:32 PM
Hmm... I wonder if you even read the whole message... Besides, it is not about us accepting Jesus; it is about Jesus accepting us.
you still swayed off people not in heaven as if they were nothing but people holding us back from getting to jesus.


And I don't see anything mindless in an attempt to become a better person.
if your idea of making a better person is forgetting anybody in your family simply because Jesus wouldn't accept them, then.. what in the..

Atoyont
24th September 2008, 5:45 PM
If I may interject...
Babylon, I find a problem with a wife failing to love her husband just because he committed adultery. Emotions are very strong things, and though you feel that they are easily swayed, this is typically not the case. A pair that has been together and has expressed true love to another will find it hard to part, as is seen when a close couple divorces over one issue or another.

Additionally, defining who goes to Heaven or Hell is not as easy as it may appear at first glance. Certainly, just as you would not be immediately condemned just for stealing a candy bar, one should not be condemned immediately for committing adultery. Granted, lechers have performed one of the most horrid of all sins, and being granted pardon for that sin is not easy, nor should it be. Suffering would be involved, spiritually and mentally. I feel that, depending on the degree of affection shown before the death of the wife, there would be more feelings of sorrow for the action, not anger towards the person. Unconditional love comes through Christ.

GhostAnime
24th September 2008, 7:41 PM
i find it pretty easy if you read the bible.

Elrade
24th September 2008, 7:47 PM
Personally, I think the only things that condemn one to hell are murder, rape, and, of course, multiple unspeakable acts. Basically, anyone but true monsters like Hitler, Osama, and Charles manson go to Heaven, while, on the flipside, many non-Christians go to Heaven simply because they follow a lifestyle God would approve, like Mahatma Gandhi, the Buddha, and the Prophet Mohammed.

woot21
24th September 2008, 8:51 PM
The one who loves his father or mother more than me isn't worthy of me, and the one who loves a son or daughter more than me isn't worthy of me. So Jesus had to love himself more than any other person to get into Heaven? Wouldn't that be committing one of the seven deadly sins though?

many non-Christians go to Heaven simply because they follow a lifestyle God would approve, like Mahatma Gandhi, the Buddha, and the Prophet Mohammed. Except they did not accept Christ as their savior, and that is considered a sin. Which raises my next question, if Jesus was Jewish how can he be in Heaven? Yes I know he is God's son, but he did not accept Christianity as the one true faith. So wouldn't that be one of the major sins, worshipping a false God? Since the Jewish god would be a false one.

Ethan
24th September 2008, 10:52 PM
If I may interject...
Babylon, I find a problem with a wife failing to love her husband just because he committed adultery. Emotions are very strong things, and though you feel that they are easily swayed, this is typically not the case. A pair that has been together and has expressed true love to another will find it hard to part, as is seen when a close couple divorces over one issue or another.

Well the problem is that in the first post it says the man is already in hell. Adultery alone or any sin can be forgiven. That's the whole reason Christ came. There is a difference between commiting adultery and being an adulterer, there is a difference between commiting murder, and being a murderer, there is a difference between telling a lie, and being a liar. Hell is for those that live in their sin and make no efforts to turn away from it. After all, before Paul, his name was Saul and he was the very first person that killed a Christian for their faith yet he became the greatest missionary in Christianity.


Additionally, defining who goes to Heaven or Hell is not as easy as it may appear at first glance. Certainly, just as you would not be immediately condemned just for stealing a candy bar, one should not be condemned immediately for committing adultery. Granted, lechers have performed one of the most horrid of all sins, and being granted pardon for that sin is not easy, nor should it be. Suffering would be involved, spiritually and mentally. I feel that, depending on the degree of affection shown before the death of the wife, there would be more feelings of sorrow for the action, not anger towards the person. Unconditional love comes through Christ.

Somewhat agreed. See above paragraph.


So Jesus had to love himself more than any other person to get into Heaven? Wouldn't that be committing one of the seven deadly sins though?

How?


Except they did not accept Christ as their savior, and that is considered a sin. Which raises my next question, if Jesus was Jewish how can he be in Heaven? Yes I know he is God's son, but he did not accept Christianity as the one true faith. So wouldn't that be one of the major sins, worshipping a false God? Since the Jewish god would be a false one.

...No. Jesus was racially a Jew. He is of the Hebrew people out of the line of Judah. In Christianity the Jewish and Christian God are the exact same.

Scizito_92
25th September 2008, 2:36 AM
This thread is assuming that heaven and hell both exist, therefore the existence of right and wrong are obviously a given. Bringing up the topic of moral objectivism/relativism here isn't going to get you too far. In Christianity, there is no "what if" There is God and his laws. An atheist or agnostic can say to a Christian, "Well there might be other Gods you know" but for a Christian we know it to be true. Dillusional? Maybe. Ignorant? Perhaps. However that's simply the way it is.
Alright. I'm willing to except that. Sorry for getting off the topic.


As I said before, using Judaism to argue against Christianity is a no go. Second, if you can't back up a claim don't make it. Regardless of whether there are "many different opinions" you still used your reference to Judaism as a direct argument against my statements. So when I confront you, and you backtrack by saying "Well there are lots of opinions" then your argument doesn't fly.
The thing is, when you debate with religion, there are lots of different opinions. You can't avoid it. I see what you're getting at though.


Do you have to be hungry for pizza to taste good?
You'd have to taste it, and usually, when you aren't hungry you don't eat. So when you don't eat, you don't taste, so you don't know if it's good or not. Past experiences could help come to the conclusion that it is good, but you still have to eat it. And when im not hungry and I eat something, it usually doesn't make me feel any better, regardless of whether it tastes good or not.

Kazekage
25th September 2008, 3:44 AM
What if a strict Hindu (aka me) lives his life free of sin, and never does anything wrong, and gets to heaven's pearly doors, and St. Peter doesn't call his name..

Was ignorance a sin??

Now I have to spend ETERNITY in damnation, I mean this is never ending no matter how much you grieve no matter how much to resent you have to stay...

What the Frick?

I mean seriously life is a learning experience and if it ends it doesn't mean you learning should be done. What is wrong with living a well behaved life but I worship Shiva instead of Yahweh I have to spend all of existence in a place thats worse than anything I can imagine.

This 'god' character doesn't sound Omniscient to me. Why isn't HE ready to forgive, if he doesn't want us to go to hell, why doesn't he just show himself on National television? If he doesn't want Muslims and Hindus to be Muslims and Hindus why doesn't he stop it here, he should know by know he could interrupt ever computer and ever television and every radio and even project his face into the freaking moon why doesn't he????

Is he testing us?

Why the hell would he do that?? I mean come on it should come down to if your a good person or not after all thats what counts right?

I believe god created all religions for a reason, he had to, all these religions are here, and even people that are converting people are there for a reason everything happens for a reason, thats why I believe there is no hell, because god know whats going to happen and makes it happen

Ethan
25th September 2008, 4:57 AM
What if a strict Hindu (aka me) lives his life free of sin, and never does anything wrong, and gets to heaven's pearly doors, and St. Peter doesn't call his name..

Was ignorance a sin??

How are you ignorant if you

1) Already of know the religion and its teachings
2) Have an entire lifetime to to study it and see what's truth and what's not?


Now I have to spend ETERNITY in damnation, I mean this is never ending no matter how much you grieve no matter how much to resent you have to stay...

Hell is ultimatley seperation from God. In the eyes of a Christian, not accepting the religion when you've had a chance to clearly study it's teachings, doctrine, etc is tantamount to rejecting it. It's either you agree, or you don't. Sure, you can accept some teaching that Jesus taught, but those are moral acceptances, which isn't the main thing. The main thing is acceptance of God. So you can't take a few lessons, and say that your on God's team. There is no straddling the fence in Christianity unfortunatley.


I mean seriously life is a learning experience and if it ends it doesn't mean you learning should be done. What is wrong with living a well behaved life but I worship Shiva instead of Yahweh I have to spend all of existence in a place thats worse than anything I can imagine.

Good works and being a good person have nothing to do with it. According to the God of the bible, everyone is marked as falling short from God's standards from the get go. No one is sinless, and the bible makes a point to call anyone who says they are sinless an outright liar and that the truth is not in them. I'm sure even mother Theresa lied in her old age. The fact is we still sin which alone is enough to condemn us. Christianity is not Buddhism, we have no Karma. A good act does not override or cancel out a bad act. It's only by the grace and mercy of God that we make it into heaven, we don't earn our way there.


This 'god' character doesn't sound Omniscient to me. Why isn't HE ready to forgive, if he doesn't want us to go to hell, why doesn't he just show himself on National television? If he doesn't want Muslims and Hindus to be Muslims and Hindus why doesn't he stop it here, he should know by know he could interrupt ever computer and ever television and every radio and even project his face into the freaking moon why doesn't he????

Topic is about heaven and hell, not about the characteristics of God.

Sadarac
25th September 2008, 7:53 AM
according to my religon (The chuch of jesus christ of latter day saints AKA Mormon or LDS)
ignorince is NOT a sin. instead before your judgment you have the oppertunity to be taught the true gospel.

also "HELL" as its called is not what people think of when somebody says hell. We refer to hell as outer darkness. all the people there are those who never belived in gods plan for the attonement. they are satans original followers. because we are on earth we cannot go to "hell". instead we will just be in a lower degree of the glory of heaven. think of it as there are "restricted" areas of heaven where only those who are compltly clean of any sins they may have ever made. if you do something bad and dont repent then you get blocked from going to the highest glorys. but others in the higher glorys like family and friends can visit you in you lower glorys.

Kazekage
25th September 2008, 11:01 PM
Topic is about heaven and hell, not about the characteristics of God.

You could have PM'ed me, I really wanna know

Ontopic: Like GhostAnime asked where do pets go? I haven't read the New testament completely so I really wouldn't know.

EDIT- So if a christian lives a life of sin, and repents on f his death bed (I mean seriously repent) where will he go? Oh and Babylon, just asking what if one is truly ignorant, what is he's..... lets a poor man living in a very rural part of China/India wherever it doesnt matter what if he didn't know any religion except his own. What about him. Sorry if I'm asking to much.

ResidentEcruteak
26th September 2008, 7:34 PM
you still swayed off people not in heaven as if they were nothing but people holding us back from getting to jesus.
...I don't quite get it, what you are trying to say here.


if your idea of making a better person is forgetting anybody in your family simply because Jesus wouldn't accept them, then.. what in the.. No, that is not the idea, you got it all wrong. The idea was, that by following Jesus, one could get all the information and knowledge necessary to understand the circumstances related to the decisions made by God which makes a better person and helps to get over the loss.


Ontopic: Like GhostAnime asked where do pets go? I haven't read the New testament completely so I really wouldn't know.According the bible God takes care of animals and nature, but first He takes care of humans though. Bible doesn't, however, seem to specify where the individual animals go when they die.
Here are few verses regarding the subject:
21 that the creation itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the liberty of the glory of the children of God.(Romans 8:21)
24 Consider the ravens, that they sow not, neither reap; which have no store-chamber nor barn; and God feedeth them: of how much more value are ye than the birds!(Luke 12:24)
21 Who knoweth the spirit of man, whether it goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast, whether it goeth downward to the earth?(Ecclesiastes 3:21)

GhostAnime
26th September 2008, 7:40 PM
No, that is not the idea, you got it all wrong. The idea was, that by following Jesus, one could get all the information and knowledge necessary to understand the circumstances related to the decisions made by God which makes a better person and helps to get over the loss.
hey god what do i do about not seeing my family anymore for eternity.

God: get over it.

oh k


According the bible God takes care of animals and nature, but first He takes care of humans though. Bible doesn't, however, seem to specify where the individual animals go when they die.
Here are few verses regarding the subject:
21 that the creation itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the liberty of the glory of the children of God.(Romans 8:21)
24 Consider the ravens, that they sow not, neither reap; which have no store-chamber nor barn; and God feedeth them: of how much more value are ye than the birds!(Luke 12:24)
21 Who knoweth the spirit of man, whether it goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast, whether it goeth downward to the earth?(Ecclesiastes 3:21)
this doesnt say much about where they actually go.

ResidentEcruteak
26th September 2008, 7:47 PM
hey god what do i do about not seeing my family anymore for eternity.

God: get over it.

oh k
And the revelance of this is... ?


this doesnt say much about where they actually go.
Well, didn't I just stated: "Bible doesn't, however, seem to specify where the individual animals go when they die"?

GhostAnime
26th September 2008, 9:08 PM
And the revelance of this is... ?
you either agree with separation of bonds or agree with mindless brainwashing.


Well, didn't I just stated: "Bible doesn't, however, seem to specify where the individual animals go when they die"?
then they go nowhere?

randomspot555
26th September 2008, 11:29 PM
The bible tells us to be accepting towards others and respectful of their beliefs, does it not? Assuming it does (and I'm pretty sure it does), why do people go to Hell? Especially if someone is of a different religion.

In Judaism, abortion is perfectly fine because the baby isn't considered living until it takes it's first breath. But in Christianity, it is a sin. So if a Jewish woman has an abortion, she would be considered commiting a sin according to the bible, and therefore have to go to hell. Am I right? How would that be accepting towards others and respectful towards their beliefs?

For the most part, sects of Judaism don't believe in a Hell. So I don't know how much contribution the Torah , or a Rabbi's theological writings will contribute to the discussion.



And what about Satanist in all of this?

As in the religion? Satanism (for the most part) doesn't believe, nor worship, the Christian Satan. I'm sure there's some long explanation as to why that is so, but I don't feel like looking it up.

As to the OP: It really depends on which type of Christianity is followed (assuming that same logic is applied to the decision on getting into Heaven or Hell). Generally, two types of thought:

Salvation via faith alone.

Salvation via faith and acts.

Faith alone is like all those death bed conversions to Christianity. They had faith, they'll go to heaven. Faith and acts mean you can't just have the faith, but live it too. You can sin, but if you keep doing the same sin over and over again, then obviously the faith is weak.

But in practice, and in various Christian theological texts, it usually isn't that simple. Some Christian sects think they're the only correct one, and everyone else can't get in. Others believe they're the correct one, but any religion can get in as long as the acts of the person are good, and then everything in between.

As to how the wife can be happy if her husband was in hell. Just because you love someone doesn't mean objectivity is tossed out the window. Being loved doesn't make someone a good person, and a good person doesn't murder. I believe the wife, being someone who was able to get into heaven, would be able to identify that. And recognize that somehow, her husband, though (presumably) kind to her, was not a good person.



What if a strict Hindu (aka me) lives his life free of sin, and never does anything wrong, and gets to heaven's pearly doors, and St. Peter doesn't call his name..

This varies from sect to sect. And even then, the conditions on the situation vary. Never hearing about Christianity, hearing about it but not converting, turning down the offer to convert, and so on.



Catholics say basically that salvation through Jesus Christ, in His Church, is the normal, regular, ordinary plan of God for the Salvation of human beings.
But as you correctly observe, there are people in the world that have never known these things, and have not even had a chance to reject it consciously, either. They will be judged in terms of the "loving" use they made of the knowlege they did possess, and the kind of relationship they fostered with God Who created them, and how they loved their neighbor in some way.
In the ultimate analysis, it is really only GOD Who knows the state of relationship of souls with Him - even though your brother and his Christian sect would almost seem to give the impression that they know it all, and have the secret of salvation ALL FIGURED OUT, once and for all.
...
All the Catholic Church can say is that those who willfully and consciously REJECT God suffer the fate of Hell; but from the perspective of individual human beings, there always remains the question: Do WE really know with certitude who has positively, willfully and consciously rejected God?

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Catholics-955/2008/1/Views-Heaven-other-religions.htm

There is also some stuff from Religious Tolerance (http://www.religioustolerance.org/rcc_salv.htm), but I won't go into it.

Scizito_92
27th September 2008, 5:24 AM
For the most part, sects of Judaism don't believe in a Hell. So I don't know how much contribution the Torah , or a Rabbi's theological writings will contribute to the discussion.

If hell does infact excist, it doesn't matter if you believe in it or not. I was asking that if someone of another religion (I used Judaism because I know more about it) commits a sin according to the bible but not according to what ever they believe, would they still go to hell?

If using Judaism in this debate is wrong, than howcome using Hinduism isn't?

randomspot555
27th September 2008, 5:42 AM
If hell does infact excist, it doesn't matter if you believe in it or not. I was asking that if someone of another religion (I used Judaism because I know more about it) commits a sin according to the bible but not according to what ever they believe, would they still go to hell?

If using Judaism in this debate is wrong, than howcome using Hinduism isn't?

There's really no way to answer that, since no one here is God.

I didn't know Hinduism was being used in the debate. However, if we're talking about Hell and Heaven, what to do to get into each, etc...it's much easier to assume we're talking about Christians.

But it's unlikely that two religions don't largely consider the same action or thought a sin, especially since Christianity and Judaism derive those concepts from the same basis, The Ten Commandments.

While religions don't necessarily have the "hierarchy" of sins that Christianity has (venial and mortal), mortal sins such as murder, denouncing [whatever god of your religion here], and so on are pretty much across the board bad. Venial will differ from religion to religion, and even sect to sect. There are some sects of Christianity where masturbation is considered a venial sin, and others where it isn't even thought of has one.

Some sins are equal, and those big sins, such as murder, you can probably expect to be looked negatively upon regardless of religion.

The Edge
27th September 2008, 7:03 AM
Sinners are supposed to hell am i right?

If that's true, then everyone in the world should go to hell when they die, because there is not one person who has never sinned in their life, whether it be stealing, murder, adultery, or just lying to someone.

I know you can go to church and confess your sins, but even that doesn't change anything, because even priests are normal people who are not above sinning themselves, so they are not really in a position to forgive anyone, because some of them might be guilty of the same things they are trying to offer forgiveness for.

I know there are a couple of pages after this, but it caught my eye on the first and I had to reply. This is a gross misconception of what Christianity is, and really deserves to be straightened out... The sad thing is that I'm afraid many, if not most, non-Christians have this view.

You seem to think that "sinners" are some kind of seperate class of people- that Christians are somehow miraculously free from all earthly wrongdoing. Nobody claims this.

Your assertion that "everyone in the world should go to hell when they die" is absolutely right. Without exception, every human being born on Earth has done wrong not only once or twice or a few times, but continually. Every thought and emotion, even the highest and purest, are tainted with selfishness and sin. So yes, everyone does deserve to go to Hell.

So what do we do? If we're all cursed from the moment we breathe oxygen then why live at all? You seem to think (an even worse tragedy of misinformation) that if Christians "go to church and confess [their] sins" then they hold themselves to be forgiven. You then (and rightly) point out that the priests who do the forgiving have no right to do so, as they are themselves just as sinful as the ones doing the confessing.

The crux of the matter is this (no pun intended): God is just, and sin must be punished. Without justice his laws and himself have no meaning. But would he simply condemn an entire planet to eternal damnation? It'd be an awful waste of space.

So He Himself became one of us, fully man but fully God, subjected himself to the very same desires and temptations every human faces for thirty-odd years- and resisted. He was found spotless, and if anyone on Earth ever earned an actual right to heaven, it was Jesus Christ.

But even though blameless- or perhaps because- he subjected himself to God's justice and wrath against the collective sin of every human ever born. The magnitude of that justice cannot be comprehended- the physical pain of flogging and crucifixion, the emotional pain of being abandoned by virtually every friend and family member he had save a select few, were both nothing to the real divine wrath Jesus suffered for three days.

He took upon himself the weight of the justice for the sin of the people of the world.

It is because of that that I am forgiven, and by God, not any priest behind a curtain.

I would add a little more on topic, but now I've quite covered what I intended initially so I'll save it for a later post.

ResidentEcruteak
27th September 2008, 12:21 PM
then they go nowhere?
Not necessarily, surely they might go somewhere, but bible just doesn't state where.

Mini Minun
27th September 2008, 1:48 PM
So every person before Jesus Christ went to hell, did they?

And I would point out that if, The Edge, you are a mainstream Christian, "The Holy Father, the Holy Son, and the Holy Spirit" are supposed to be one, in other words, God made it so he (as Jesus) would be tortured, and then he (as God) forgave himself (as Jesus).

And I'd hate for you to end up with a wrong vision of Christianity, but unless you are a Jew, you aren't forgiven. Two verses in the Book of Revelation (supposedly written by a certain St. John) show that the number of people saved are strictly limited to 144,000 men. Additionally, Moses Maimonides (12C rabbi) explains "Thou shalt not kill" means "If one slays a single Israelite (=Jew), he transgresses a negative commandment...Needless to say, one is not put to death if he kills a heathen."

GhostAnime
27th September 2008, 6:05 PM
more like anybody that hasnt heard of jesus centuries ago go to hell.

ResidentEcruteak
27th September 2008, 8:26 PM
So every person before Jesus Christ went to hell, did they?
Not necessarily. God could had forgiven to someone before Jesus was crucified. Now you are probably wondering: "what about their sins?", but guess what, Jesus carried their sins too.

Another alternative is, that gospel was preached to people, who died before Jesus' crucification, by Jesus when He was dead. Bible talks about this too:
18 Because Christ also suffered for sins once, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God; being put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit;
19 in which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison,
20 that aforetime were disobedient, when the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water:


And I would point out that if, The Edge, you are a mainstream Christian, "The Holy Father, the Holy Son, and the Holy Spirit" are supposed to be one, in other words, God made it so he (as Jesus) would be tortured, and then he (as God) forgave himself (as Jesus).
Not, quite; although Father and Son (and Spirit) are one, they still may be different persons. Secondly, Jesus didn't need to be forgiven.


And I'd hate for you to end up with a wrong vision of Christianity, but unless you are a Jew, you aren't forgiven. Two verses in the Book of Revelation (supposedly written by a certain St. John) show that the number of people saved are strictly limited to 144,000 men.
Somebody haven't read the whole chapter it seems...

Sure verses 3 and 4 of chapter 7 are as follows:
3 saying, Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we shall have sealed the servants of our God on their foreheads.
4 And I heard the number of them that were sealed, a hundred and forty and four thousand, sealed out of every tribe of the children of Israel: (Revelation 7:3,4)

So, yeah; if you stop reading here you may get a little bit distorted view about this, but let's look at verses 9 and 10 too, shall we:
9 After these things I saw, and behold, a great multitude, which no man could number, out of every nation and of all tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, arrayed in white robes, and palms in their hands;
10 and they cry with a great voice, saying, Salvation unto our God who sitteth on the throne, and unto the Lamb.

Also, I don't see nothing that implies that "the 144 000 men from the tribes of Israel" are the only ones that are going be saved, even if the verses 9 and 10 wouldn't be there.

randomspot555
27th September 2008, 8:53 PM
Some people really interpret the Bible literally because they believe it is the Word of God, not Word of God (but written by man, passed down by word of mouth, then translated dozens of time and written from various, unique perspectives that sometimes even contradict each other). There isn't any convincing them otherwise.

The Edge
28th September 2008, 12:28 AM
So every person before Jesus Christ went to hell, did they?
No. Exactly who was saved is debatable, but at the very least it was the Old Testament Jews who knew of and understood the sacrifice of the lamb, the importance of the law, and the future coming of a Redeemer.


And I would point out that if, The Edge, you are a mainstream Christian, "The Holy Father, the Holy Son, and the Holy Spirit" are supposed to be one, in other words, God made it so he (as Jesus) would be tortured, and then he (as God) forgave himself (as Jesus).
If by mainstream you mean conforming to the popular dilutions of Christianity, than I'm not a mainstream Christian, although I would consider myself to be a traditional Christian in the sense you're probably thinking of. But the doctrine of the Trinity is much more complicated than one God simply putting on different hats to be Father, Son, or Holy Spirit as the situation requires. The three are distinct persons, but manifestations of the same power... or so I try to explain it... I don't understand it myself, and neither does anybody alive, but it's largely irrelevant to the point at hand.
Additionally, as ResidentEcruteak said, Jesus didn't need to be forgiven... he was perfect. Not only that, he took the guilt of our sin and wasn't forgiven, but suffered the appropriate punishment for it.


And I'd hate for you to end up with a wrong vision of Christianity, but unless you are a Jew, you aren't forgiven.
Thank you for your concern, but it's you who've got the wrong version, in addition to the unfortunately misinformed person whom I quoted in my original post... though in his case, the mistake seems to be more a mistake and less an accusation as yours.


Two verses in the Book of Revelation (supposedly written by a certain St. John) show that the number of people saved are strictly limited to 144,000 men.
The Book of Revelation is almost entirely allegorical, so there's no "strictly" about it. The number is symbolic; 144 is the square of twelve, a number found often in the Bible, including the tribes and the apostles. ResidentEcruteak also points out that even if the verse is taken literally, the context makes it very clear that these 144,000 are not the only ones to be saved.


Additionally, Moses Maimonides (12C rabbi) explains "Thou shalt not kill" means "If one slays a single Israelite (=Jew), he transgresses a negative commandment...Needless to say, one is not put to death if he kills a heathen."
This is irrelevant in two ways... What do radical interpretations of one of the commandments have to do with only Jews being saved? and what authority is in the writings or "explanations" of a Jewish rabbi who lived thousands of years after the law in question was written?

ImJessieTR
28th September 2008, 12:43 AM
Does the Christian church still care what popes and other early church fathers thought? They really have nothing to say that anyone else couldn't either, but even Protestants care what the early church fathers had to say. Pity poor Jesus, who was upstaged by His own followers.

randomspot555
28th September 2008, 12:45 AM
The Book of Revelation is almost entirely allegorical, so there's no "strictly" about it. The number is symbolic; 144 is the square of twelve, a number found often in the Bible, including the tribes and the apostles. ResidentEcruteak also points out that even if the verse is taken literally, the context makes it very clear that these 144,000 are not the only ones to be saved.

The other thing to keep in mind is that 144,000, back when this verse was written, was A LOT of people! Now, that's like the size of a mid tier city.

Dragon Warrior
28th September 2008, 12:49 AM
how is it possible to suffer for eternity anyway you would eventually adapt to the burning or at least it would think you would

randomspot555
28th September 2008, 1:13 AM
how is it possible to suffer for eternity anyway you would eventually adapt to the burning or at least it would think you would

Just because you're used to something that sucks doesn't make it suck less.

Ethan
28th September 2008, 3:44 AM
Lol, I feel like The Panda now. Read whichever portions are of current interest to you.


Since we're on the topic of heaven and hell, I believe that it is imperative that we lay out logical arguments as to what heaven or hell should be interpreted as, in order to make further grounds into this debate.

The question is about whether we should take the bible at surface value in places which discuss hell. Especially Rev 20:10 (“lake of fire”). Revelation speaks more about hell than any other book, yet the language of this very book is rather symbolic. Sometimes an interpretation is given by an angel: when this happens, we should seek no other interpretation. This is not the case here. When interpreting the symbolism of Revelation and of the Bible as a whole we must keep in mind one key factor: the figure symbolizes something. Thus, for example, one cannot simply take the 1000-year kingdom and the seven-year tribulation and say they both refer to a long time. Further nuancing is needed.

On the one hand, I cannot stress enough that the fundamental nature of hell is separation from God and his goodness. Second Thessalonians 1:9 refers to it as “exclusion from the face of God.” It is as if God turned his back on non-believers. Just as we only know about God on earth by what he reveals, hell makes a theological statement: only the justice of God is revealed there. That is its fundamental nature.

Unfortunatley this does not answer the question of how that nature is displayed. We have one very real and tangible display of hell (though only partially perceived) recorded in Scripture. When Jesus was hanging on the cross he was, for the three hours of darkness, in hell. He was separated from God, receiving only God’s justice. When he cried out, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me,” it was the only time he ever referred to God merely as God. His normal term was “Father.” It is evident in this quotation from Psalm 22:1 that Jesus was viewing God as his judge. What do we see in this concrete portrayal of hell? We certainly see physical suffering. That is only the tip of the iceberg. The deeper suffering came spiritually. The Trinity was ripped apart while Christ lay hanging in our place. We can only imagine what suffering he endured! Hence, although the torment was very much on a physical level, that was only a window into the soul of Christ. To argue, then, that hell is only spiritual separation from God misses the point about the nature of hell. It is certainly spiritual separation from God however, as in the case of the Son of God, this not only does not deny physical suffering, it is also more severe than physical suffering.

Let’s say that Christ’s experience is not a model, or archetypal for for non-believers. In some ways this is true—for example, his was a temporary suffering. We should turn to other passages that specifically deal with hell for humans. The key text is Rev 20:10, where the lake of fire is described. What do we see about the lake of fire? Revelation 20:10 says: “the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulphur where the beast and the false prophet also were, and they will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.”

Several key points can be made here:
(1) the lake of fire is obviously a place that envelops the individual (“into the lake”); (2) it is a place from which he cannot escape; (3) the imagery of fire and sulphur is intended to show extreme pain and suffering that extends to all the senses (even smell); (3) the punishment is evidently eternal, continual, and conscious (“tormented day and night for ever and ever”); (4) human beings will be there (“the beast and false prophet” are humans). This is confirmed by vv 13-14: “Death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them . . . Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire.” John does not need to describe the nature of suffering for humans at this point, since he had already described the lake of fire in v 10. There is no reason to believe that their suffering will be too different from that of the beast and false prophet mentioned in v 10.

Now, is this necessarily physical? If we had this verse alone, I do not think we could determine that. We could say, however, that it is sensual. Modern science knows that pain centers are in the brain; hence, it is theoretically possible that one’s body could be annihilated and yet he could feel pain. So whether the torment is physical or not is...irrelevant; it will feel that way. :S

The Scriptures are clear on other fronts. The Jewish-Christian view of humanity is consistently that we all have an eternal soul and an eternal body. The notion of the immortality of the soul (without an accompanying body) is of gentile origin, not Jewish. Daniel 12:1-2 speaks to the issue: (1) .” . . but at that time your people shall be delivered, every one whose name shall be found written in the book. (2) And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.” The point here is that both the wicked and the righteous will be reunited with their bodies in resurrection and ( as whole persons, body and soul) will either go to heaven or hell.

Matthew 10:28 is also important along these lines: “Fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.” What is important here is that the place of the destruction of the body is hell. If the body were dead before the soul goes to hell, Jesus could not have said this.

Matt 25:46: “The [wicked] will go into eternal punishment, but the righteous will go into eternal life.” The parallel (as well as the discourse up until this point) leads us to only one conclusion: the place of torment parallels the place of blessing in its eternal nature. Further, there is no hint of distinction between the righteous and the wicked in terms of body-soul combination. If the righteous go to heaven in body and soul (what else could the resurrection mean?), then the wicked go to hell in body and soul.

2 Cor 5:1-10: Paul discusses the prospects of dying and being in the presence of the Lord, awaiting the reunification with his body (that will be raised at the rapture--cf. 1 Thess 4:13-18).

The consistent message of the Bible is that the resurrection is a crucial part of salvation because our bodies cannot be permanently separated from our souls. This does not mean, of course, that our new bodies are identical, molecule for molecule, with our old bodies. :p The whole thing is a mystery, but we do know that the resurrected body is not a phantom (cf. John 21). Further, there is no shred of evidence (that I am aware of) to suggest that the resurrection of the unbeliever is radically different. That is to say, the body of unbelievers must be reunited with their souls as well. The notion either that disembodied spirits will permanently occupy heaven or hell is not founded on Scripture at all, but has its roots in Greek philosophy.

In sum, although it is interesting to think that hell is a place merely of spiritual separation from God, we must reckon with the biblical teaching that this is the fundamental nature of hell, but that such a description does not account for all the particulars. Further, one has to answer the question: Why, then, are non-believers resurrected if hell is only spiritual? The whole point of the resurrection is to reunite body and soul. God could easily send souls directly to hell. But he does not. He raises all people from the dead and then sends that person to hell.

A few sources, screw putting it in work cited form. :)

- http://www.new-testament-christian.com/hell.html

(Five main articles listed)

- The Great Divorce written by C.S. Lewis. I'm half way through, and several main ideas presented came from this book.

- Special thanks to my schools awesome English teacher for helping me proof read this.

The Edge
28th September 2008, 4:19 AM
Lol, I feel like The Panda now. Read whichever portions are of current interest to you.


Since we're on the topic of heaven and hell, I believe that it is imperative that we lay out logical arguments as to what heaven or hell should be interpreted as, in order to make further grounds into this debate.

The question is about whether we should take the bible at surface value in places which discuss hell. Especially Rev 20:10 (“lake of fire”). Revelation speaks more about hell than any other book, yet the language of this very book is rather symbolic. Sometimes an interpretation is given by an angel: when this happens, we should seek no other interpretation. This is not the case here. When interpreting the symbolism of Revelation and of the Bible as a whole we must keep in mind one key factor: the figure symbolizes something. Thus, for example, one cannot simply take the 1000-year kingdom and the seven-year tribulation and say they both refer to a long time. Further nuancing is needed.

On the one hand, I cannot stress enough that the fundamental nature of hell is separation from God and his goodness. Second Thessalonians 1:9 refers to it as “exclusion from the face of God.” It is as if God turned his back on non-believers. Just as we only know about God on earth by what he reveals, hell makes a theological statement: only the justice of God is revealed there. That is its fundamental nature.

Unfortunatley this does not answer the question of how that nature is displayed. We have one very real and tangible display of hell (though only partially perceived) recorded in Scripture. When Jesus was hanging on the cross he was, for the three hours of darkness, in hell. He was separated from God, receiving only God’s justice. When he cried out, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me,” it was the only time he ever referred to God merely as God. His normal term was “Father.” It is evident in this quotation from Psalm 22:1 that Jesus was viewing God as his judge. What do we see in this concrete portrayal of hell? We certainly see physical suffering. That is only the tip of the iceberg. The deeper suffering came spiritually. The Trinity was ripped apart while Christ lay hanging in our place. We can only imagine what suffering he endured! Hence, although the torment was very much on a physical level, that was only a window into the soul of Christ. To argue, then, that hell is only spiritual separation from God misses the point about the nature of hell. It is certainly spiritual separation from God however, as in the case of the Son of God, this not only does not deny physical suffering, it is also more severe than physical suffering.

Let’s say that Christ’s experience is not a model, or archetypal for for non-believers. In some ways this is true—for example, his was a temporary suffering. We should turn to other passages that specifically deal with hell for humans. The key text is Rev 20:10, where the lake of fire is described. What do we see about the lake of fire? Revelation 20:10 says: “the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulphur where the beast and the false prophet also were, and they will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.”

Several key points can be made here:
(1) the lake of fire is obviously a place that envelops the individual (“into the lake”); (2) it is a place from which he cannot escape; (3) the imagery of fire and sulphur is intended to show extreme pain and suffering that extends to all the senses (even smell); (3) the punishment is evidently eternal, continual, and conscious (“tormented day and night for ever and ever”); (4) human beings will be there (“the beast and false prophet” are humans). This is confirmed by vv 13-14: “Death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them . . . Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire.” John does not need to describe the nature of suffering for humans at this point, since he had already described the lake of fire in v 10. There is no reason to believe that their suffering will be too different from that of the beast and false prophet mentioned in v 10.

Now, is this necessarily physical? If we had this verse alone, I do not think we could determine that. We could say, however, that it is sensual. Modern science knows that pain centers are in the brain; hence, it is theoretically possible that one’s body could be annihilated and yet he could feel pain. So whether the torment is physical or not is...irrelevant; it will feel that way. :S

The Scriptures are clear on other fronts. The Jewish-Christian view of humanity is consistently that we all have an eternal soul and an eternal body. The notion of the immortality of the soul (without an accompanying body) is of gentile origin, not Jewish. Daniel 12:1-2 speaks to the issue: (1) .” . . but at that time your people shall be delivered, every one whose name shall be found written in the book. (2) And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.” The point here is that both the wicked and the righteous will be reunited with their bodies in resurrection and ( as whole persons, body and soul) will either go to heaven or hell.

Matthew 10:28 is also important along these lines: “Fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.” What is important here is that the place of the destruction of the body is hell. If the body were dead before the soul goes to hell, Jesus could not have said this.

Matt 25:46: “The [wicked] will go into eternal punishment, but the righteous will go into eternal life.” The parallel (as well as the discourse up until this point) leads us to only one conclusion: the place of torment parallels the place of blessing in its eternal nature. Further, there is no hint of distinction between the righteous and the wicked in terms of body-soul combination. If the righteous go to heaven in body and soul (what else could the resurrection mean?), then the wicked go to hell in body and soul.

2 Cor 5:1-10: Paul discusses the prospects of dying and being in the presence of the Lord, awaiting the reunification with his body (that will be raised at the rapture--cf. 1 Thess 4:13-18).

The consistent message of the Bible is that the resurrection is a crucial part of salvation because our bodies cannot be permanently separated from our souls. This does not mean, of course, that our new bodies are identical, molecule for molecule, with our old bodies. :p The whole thing is a mystery, but we do know that the resurrected body is not a phantom (cf. John 21). Further, there is no shred of evidence (that I am aware of) to suggest that the resurrection of the unbeliever is radically different. That is to say, the body of unbelievers must be reunited with their souls as well. The notion either that disembodied spirits will permanently occupy heaven or hell is not founded on Scripture at all, but has its roots in Greek philosophy.

In sum, although it is interesting to think that hell is a place merely of spiritual separation from God, we must reckon with the biblical teaching that this is the fundamental nature of hell, but that such a description does not account for all the particulars. Further, one has to answer the question: Why, then, are non-believers resurrected if hell is only spiritual? The whole point of the resurrection is to reunite body and soul. God could easily send souls directly to hell. But he does not. He raises all people from the dead and then sends that person to hell.

A few sources, screw putting it in work cited form. :)

- http://www.new-testament-christian.com/hell.html

(Five main articles listed)

- The Great Divorce written by C.S. Lewis. I'm half way through, and several main ideas presented came from this book.

- Special thanks to my schools awesome English teacher for helping me proof read this.

An excellent post, I can't find a thing to argue with.


I would point out one major problem many see with the notion of an eternal Hell: Since people live only a limited time (obviously), then sooner or later all their misdeeds should be avenged and they should be able to enter Heaven. In fact, some fringe Christian or pseudo-Christian sects take this view. However, the Bible makes it clear that Hell is eternal. How can this be explained?

The most likely answer is a verse found in Revelation, also quoted in the Johnny Cash song When the Man Comes Around. It says something to the effect of "Let him who is unjust, let him be unjust still; and to him who is filthy, let him be filthy still." It suggests that even while unsaved souls are being punished in Hell, they continue to sin; rather the opposite of Heaven, in which sin is eradicated. It's easy to imagine feeling hatred, self-pity, and guilt while being burned alive.

squirrel boy
30th September 2008, 10:48 PM
God says that all man are born into sin... so that means all of us should go to hell but because of God's son Jesus nobody has to. although something that blows my mind is the thought of eternity and an everlasting life after this

Mini Minun
1st October 2008, 4:16 PM
In argument against every argument against me,

Here are four translations of Leviticus 19:18:


• Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. — First Jewish Publication Society translation (JPS '17) and the King James Version (KJV).

• You shall not take vengeance or bear any grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself. — Revised Standard Version (RSV).

• You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against your countrymen. Love your fellow as yourself. — TANAKH (JPS '85).


In context, neighbor meant "the children of thy people," "the sons of your own people," "your countrymen" — in other words, fellow in-group members.

The Book of Judges (Maimonides (Maimonides, whose summarizations and condensations of the Torah and the Talmud are generally accepted as authoritative), 5:9:4) confirms this:


A Noahide [non-Jew] who kills a person, even if he kills an embryo in the mother's womb, is put to death. So too, if he kills one suffering from a fatal disease ... he is put to death. In none of these cases is an Israelite put to death.

According to the distinction made in the Talmud between adam and other terms for humans, the original conceptualization appears to have been that the god of the Israelites created them in his own image. This explains how it could be the case that their god created man (adam) in his own image while other people (non-adam) were simultaneously alive east of Eden in the land of Nod - where Cain went after killing Abel, found a wife, and founded a city (Genesis 4:16-24). The word adam is not used for man when referring to persons in Nod (Genesis 4:23).

In fact, the most frequently used biblical Hebrew words for man/men are 'iysh and 'enowsh, occurring 428 times in the Torah. All occurrences of man being created in the image of god occur as adam, but people who were conquered by the Israelites are not referred to as adam, with the exception of two passages which also involve cattle. These exceptions are rhetorically questioned in the Talmud, where the Sages explain that "This is used in opposition to cattle," by which they meant, "In contrast to cattle, idolaters also may be described as adam (men)" (parentheses in original, Kerithoth 6b, Yebamoth 61a).
According to scripture, after a moderately heavy day of killing 12,000 people, Joshua carved the Ten Commandments in stone, including "Thou shalt not kill," while his troops were gathered around a campfire (Joshua 8:24-25, 30-32; RSV):

(Matthew 15:21-28; RSV):


And Jesus went away from there and withdrew to the district of Tyre and Sidon. And behold, a Canaanite woman from that region came out and cried, "Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David; my daughter is severely possessed by a demon." But he did not answer her a word. And his disciples came and begged him, saying, "Send her away, for she is crying after us." He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of
Israel." But she came and knelt before him, saying, "Lord, help me." And he answered, "It is not fair to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs." She said, "Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table." Then Jesus answered her, "O woman, great is your faith! Be it done for you as you desire." And her daughter was healed instantly.


The assumptions that lie behind the miracle are revealing. They suggest that native inhabitants were tolerated if they perceived themselves as dogs compared to in-group members.

(RSV, see also Matthew 5:47; 6:7; 6:32; 10:16-21):


If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.


I hope this answers any arguments against me.

And ChronaMew's point is valid. Example: Say a Christian married me (an atheist). She loves me very much, and I love her. We both die, she goes to heaven, I go to hell, will she be happy, knowing that I suffer forever? I doubt it.

Atoyont
1st October 2008, 5:18 PM
Well, something to remember is that you don't spend time with people that do things that offend you, right? If you are a smoker, you wouldn't want to hang out with one who is an advocate against smoking, no?
This is rather relevant, IMO, because if one is upright, why would she marry a criminal? Admittedly, the situation at hand is a bit different, as the man goes bad after she dies. However, knowledge can make all of the difference. You may have eaten something that tasted quite delicious, but you later found out that it was made of something disgusting. Would you eat it again? Similarly, how sad would the wife be if she knew that the man had done bad things, even though she was good? Certainly, the lady would be sad, but God, in Heaven, is not always happy, either. Would she want to be with him if he didn't want to preserve himself for her?

randomspot555
1st October 2008, 5:26 PM
I have trouble believing that the death of his wife would lead this widowed man to go crazy and kill someone.

Death is a part of life, and people should be able to accept that. Especially because, by the time marriage comes around, most have already been to a few funerals.

Also, people don't really change after that whole development period of adolescence and early college, as far as I'm concerned. If the hypothetical man in the OP killed someone, I'm not convinced he was some good person before his dead wife.



And ChronaMew's point is valid. Example: Say a Christian married me (an atheist). She loves me very much, and I love her. We both die, she goes to heaven, I go to hell, will she be happy, knowing that I suffer forever? I doubt it.

I'd be questioning the premise of if she'd go to heaven.

Strants
3rd October 2008, 4:45 AM
I would like to question how you are sent to hell. Is it, for example, by a list, where if you don't fulfill one criteria you go to hell, or is it more an average, sort of like the karma system? Now, I know that Babylon has disagreed with karma, but think about it; if you had killed someone in anger, then repented and done more good then anyone else in the world, would God give you some leeway? I think he would; after all, he accepts deathbed conversions, why not repentance?

Also, does he consider circumstances in all this? For example, if all your problems could be traced to, say, a rough childhood, would God give you a second chance? I can't answer this, because I'm really not sure.

Finally, does purgatory exist? Purgatory is a place where you 'work off' your sins. (Or, that's how I interpreted it. I don't claim to be an expert of this sort of thing, so if someone wants to correct me, feel free.) For the same reason that he accept deathbed conversions, I think it does, maybe as an alternative to hell.

randomspot555
3rd October 2008, 7:22 AM
I would like to question how you are sent to hell. Is it, for example, by a list, where if you don't fulfill one criteria you go to hell, or is it more an average, sort of like the karma system? Now, I know that Babylon has disagreed with karma, but think about it; if you had killed someone in anger, then repented and done more good then anyone else in the world, would God give you some leeway? I think he would; after all, he accepts deathbed conversions, why not repentance?

Again, it depends on which sect of Christianity you're talking about. Some believe that faith alone will get you in, whereas others say faith AND good works (ala money where your mouth is) are required.


Finally, does purgatory exist? Purgatory is a place where you 'work off' your sins. (Or, that's how I interpreted it. I don't claim to be an expert of this sort of thing, so if someone wants to correct me, feel free.) For the same reason that he accept deathbed conversions, I think it does, maybe as an alternative to hell.

Most sects of Christianity don't believe in Purgatory, and I (think) that the Vatican recently said that Catholic doctrine no longer reflects it.

Mini Minun
3rd October 2008, 8:36 AM
What? How can you say she would not go to heaven? Atheism is a private way of thinking that offends no one. Just because she marries me (Hypothetical situation, remember), doesn't mean she accepts every, single itty bitty part of my views.

ResidentEcruteak
3rd October 2008, 7:02 PM
In argument against every argument against me,

Here are four translations of Leviticus 19:18:


• Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. — First Jewish Publication Society translation (JPS '17) and the King James Version (KJV).

• You shall not take vengeance or bear any grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself. — Revised Standard Version (RSV).

• You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against your countrymen. Love your fellow as yourself. — TANAKH (JPS '85).


In context, neighbor meant "the children of thy people," "the sons of your own people," "your countrymen" — in other words, fellow in-group members.

The Book of Judges (Maimonides (Maimonides, whose summarizations and condensations of the Torah and the Talmud are generally accepted as authoritative), 5:9:4) confirms this:


A Noahide [non-Jew] who kills a person, even if he kills an embryo in the mother's womb, is put to death. So too, if he kills one suffering from a fatal disease ... he is put to death. In none of these cases is an Israelite put to death.

According to the distinction made in the Talmud between adam and other terms for humans, the original conceptualization appears to have been that the god of the Israelites created them in his own image. This explains how it could be the case that their god created man (adam) in his own image while other people (non-adam) were simultaneously alive east of Eden in the land of Nod - where Cain went after killing Abel, found a wife, and founded a city (Genesis 4:16-24). The word adam is not used for man when referring to persons in Nod (Genesis 4:23).

In fact, the most frequently used biblical Hebrew words for man/men are 'iysh and 'enowsh, occurring 428 times in the Torah. All occurrences of man being created in the image of god occur as adam, but people who were conquered by the Israelites are not referred to as adam, with the exception of two passages which also involve cattle. These exceptions are rhetorically questioned in the Talmud, where the Sages explain that "This is used in opposition to cattle," by which they meant, "In contrast to cattle, idolaters also may be described as adam (men)" (parentheses in original, Kerithoth 6b, Yebamoth 61a).
According to scripture, after a moderately heavy day of killing 12,000 people, Joshua carved the Ten Commandments in stone, including "Thou shalt not kill," while his troops were gathered around a campfire (Joshua 8:24-25, 30-32; RSV):

(Matthew 15:21-28; RSV):


And Jesus went away from there and withdrew to the district of Tyre and Sidon. And behold, a Canaanite woman from that region came out and cried, "Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David; my daughter is severely possessed by a demon." But he did not answer her a word. And his disciples came and begged him, saying, "Send her away, for she is crying after us." He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of
Israel." But she came and knelt before him, saying, "Lord, help me." And he answered, "It is not fair to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs." She said, "Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table." Then Jesus answered her, "O woman, great is your faith! Be it done for you as you desire." And her daughter was healed instantly.


The assumptions that lie behind the miracle are revealing. They suggest that native inhabitants were tolerated if they perceived themselves as dogs compared to in-group members.

(RSV, see also Matthew 5:47; 6:7; 6:32; 10:16-21):


If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
I hope this answers any arguments against me.

I don't really see how this is supposed to defend your arguments; it doesn't give too many (if any) reasons to assume, that only Jews are going to be saved (if that's the argument you are going to defend here, that is). The whole text seems rather irrelevant.


I would like to question how you are sent to hell. Is it, for example, by a list, where if you don't fulfill one criteria you go to hell, or is it more an average, sort of like the karma system? Now, I know that Babylon has disagreed with karma, but think about it; if you had killed someone in anger, then repented and done more good then anyone else in the world, would God give you some leeway? I think he would; after all, he accepts deathbed conversions, why not repentance?

Also, does he consider circumstances in all this? For example, if all your problems could be traced to, say, a rough childhood, would God give you a second chance? I can't answer this, because I'm really not sure.

Bible does say that some criteria are required to be fulfilled. But simply doing good doesn't cancel out the evil things that someone has done in the past. The evil nature of humans, which causes us to sin, is why people are separated from God. Repenting, in certain sense, is about submitting to God's plans. If people repent, and stay in repentance, God will "fix" them and that makes them worthy to be with God. It is pretty clear from the bible that people need help from God to be saved, because by themselves people simply can't fullfill all the criterias required.

26 Cursed be he that confirmeth not the words of this law to do them. And all the people shall say, Amen.(Deutornomium 27:26)
48 So be perfect, [Or mature] as your heavenly Father is perfect.(Matthew 5:48)
12 For all who have sinned apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law.(Romans 2:12)

It doesn't seem to give any leeway... that's why some help is needed.
6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.(John 14:6)


Finally, does purgatory exist? Purgatory is a place where you 'work off' your sins. (Or, that's how I interpreted it. I don't claim to be an expert of this sort of thing, so if someone wants to correct me, feel free.) For the same reason that he accept deathbed conversions, I think it does, maybe as an alternative to hell.
The bible doesn't even mention purgatory. Besides, as explained before, 'working off the sins' isn't working.

GhostAnime
3rd October 2008, 7:33 PM
so can anybody answer what happens to people who arent exposed to christianity?

Misfit_PM
3rd October 2008, 8:17 PM
It is said in the Bible that some one from evey nation and language will be in heaven. I think that if we look around, we know inside that there has to be a God. If someone who is not exposed to christianity can see that, they will be saved. Also, if someone who live in a place like America were not exposed to Christianity directly, they might 1: find out eventually, 2: figure it out themselves(I've met people who have) or 3: Have an amazing experience that tells them "there must be a God!"

I believe that God wants all to be saved. He will not send some one to hell if they want to be with Him, but He will not drag some one kicking and screaming into heaven. Hell is the only place they can be truely separated from God.

GhostAnime
3rd October 2008, 9:06 PM
i'm pretty sure the native americans had nothing of the sort to know 'jesus is their savior'.

Misfit_PM
4th October 2008, 12:36 AM
Well, they knew there was a God. Do you think the people in the old testament who knew God but didn't know Jesus(Because he hadn't come yet) are not going to heaven?

Cain Nightroad
4th October 2008, 1:23 AM
Well, they knew there was a God. Do you think the people in the old testament who knew God but didn't know Jesus(Because he hadn't come yet) are not going to heaven?

As I remember, you were only supposed to worship the one God. The Native Americans worshiped a creator figure, but also gave acknowledgement to ancestors, who held power of utmost importance in their version of Heaven. And that is to say nothing of the spirits and animals that some tribes acknowledged as lesser gods.

This was not the one God, so from what I know, they go to Hell for not worshiping the one God.

I'm agnostic and leaning more towards atheism, just so you know.

Misfit_PM
4th October 2008, 1:33 AM
As I remember, you were only supposed to worship the one God. The Native Americans worshiped a creator figure, but also gave acknowledgement to ancestors, who held power of utmost importance in their version of Heaven. And that is to say nothing of the spirits and animals that some tribes acknowledged as lesser gods.

This was not the one God, so from what I know, they go to Hell for not worshiping the one God.


Well, yes, but, according to the bible, we all came from Adam. Back then, EVERYONE knew who God was. The ancestors of the native americans knew the one true God. So, somewhere along the line, they must have changed their belifs or they just gradually changed till no one knew any more. My point is, they once knew who he was, but it was their own mental choice to turn away.

GhostAnime
4th October 2008, 7:56 AM
Well, they knew there was a God. Do you think the people in the old testament who knew God but didn't know Jesus(Because he hadn't come yet) are not going to heaven?
yeah native americans worshiped a god.

a god that wasnt the christian one; so that's hell automatically right? worshiping another god?

Cain Nightroad
4th October 2008, 8:04 AM
Well, yes, but, according to the bible, we all came from Adam. Back then, EVERYONE knew who God was. The ancestors of the native americans knew the one true God. So, somewhere along the line, they must have changed their belifs or they just gradually changed till no one knew any more. My point is, they once knew who he was, but it was their own mental choice to turn away.

The final sentence leaves the impression of it being a crime to "turn away." So, however, are you also saying figures like the Buddha and Allah are "false?" I wouldn't be so quick to shoot down other beliefs, and can you not at least see how unfair it is that if you don't believe in the Christian God, you go to Hell?

Really. Wouldn't there be a specific Hell for each religion, and wouldn't that seem more reasonable (though not more likely) than just agreeing to shoot down all other religions? So yeah, whether its Naraka, Hell, Tartarus, Yomi, Sheol, Duat, or Nifleheim, it is the same concept. Take a look at the similarities.

ResidentEcruteak
4th October 2008, 10:56 AM
The final sentence leaves the impression of it being a crime to "turn away." So, however, are you also saying figures like the Buddha and Allah are "false?" I wouldn't be so quick to shoot down other beliefs, and can you not at least see how unfair it is that if you don't believe in the Christian God, you go to Hell?

What exactly makes it so unfair; care to elaborate? If you think that it is unfair, because "these people couldn't have know about real god", then consider this: bible makes it clear that it is always possible to get to know something about the God. How people receive this tiny bit of knowledge about God may be just as significant as getting to know all about the God:

18 For God's wrath is being revealed from heaven against all the ungodliness and wickedness of those who in their wickedness suppress the truth.
19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God himself has made it plain to them.
20 For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes "his eternal power and divine nature "have been understood and observed by what he made, so that people [Lit. they] are without excuse.
21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him. Instead, their thoughts turned to worthless things, [Lit. they became worthless in their thoughts] and their ignorant hearts were darkened.
22 Though claiming to be wise, they became fools
23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images that looked like mortal human beings, birds, four-footed animals, and reptiles.
24 For this reason, God gave them over to impurity to follow the lusts [Lit. to impurity in the lusts] of their hearts and to dishonor their bodies with one another.
25 They exchanged God's truth for a lie and worshipped and served the creation rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.(Romans 1:18-25)


Really. Wouldn't there be a specific Hell for each religion, and wouldn't that seem more reasonable (though not more likely) than just agreeing to shoot down all other religions? So yeah, whether its Naraka, Hell, Tartarus, Yomi, Sheol, Duat, or Nifleheim, it is the same concept. Take a look at the similarities.

They are not the same thing as Hell; bible also talks about "the place for dead" which was sometimes called "Sheol" in the OT and "hades" in NT, but they aren't same thing as Hell. So, when people die, they simply are in some where else and only later there will be this "eternal place of happiness" that most people call Heaven (but which in the bible is know as new Earth and new Heaven) and Hell (also known as lake of fire, second dead, place of eternal torture etc.):

13 And the sea gave up the dead that were in it; and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
14 And death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death, even the lake of fire.(Revelation 20:13,14)
1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth are passed away; and the sea is no more.
3 And I heard a great voice out of the throne saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he shall dwell with them, and they shall be his peoples, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God:
4 and he shall wipe away every tear from their eyes; and death shall be no more; neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain, any more: the first things are passed away.(Revelation 21:1,3-4)

And why not "shoot down other religions"? Most of them contradict each other, so obviously not all of them can be true at once.

Mini Minun
4th October 2008, 12:58 PM
I don't really see how this is supposed to defend your arguments; it doesn't give too many (if any) reasons to assume, that only Jews are going to be saved (if that's the argument you are going to defend here, that is). The whole text seems rather irrelevant.

(...omitted for prudence) Besides, as explained before, 'working off the sins' isn't working.

The point I'm making in the quote is that it proves the exclusivity of the Bible towards Non-Jews, which gives a strong base for making the argument for Jews not being saved.

And the last part of your post proves that Jesus is not without sin either (original sin, remember?).


bible makes it clear that it is always possible to get to know something about the God.

I don't see how you can quite claim the bible as a source for your argument. That's a highly biased and unreliable source you're claiming.


And why not "shoot down other religions"? Most of them contradict each other, so obviously not all of them can be true at once.

So what basis do you have for claiming that only Christianity is true?

ResidentEcruteak
5th October 2008, 12:58 AM
The point I'm making in the quote is that it proves the exclusivity of the Bible towards Non-Jews, which gives a strong base for making the argument for Jews not being saved.
I see. The quote you gave and your reasoning has one big weakness; it is making a theory by interpreting just a small part of the bible. If the most Jewish part of the bible, Old Testament that is, has verses, which claim opposite of this theory, then it is safe to assume that the interpretations behind the theory are incorrect. So, let's see what Old Testament says:

Firstly:
15 The angel of Yahweh called to Abraham a second time out of the sky,
16 and said, "I have sworn by myself, says Yahweh, because you have done this thing, and have not withheld your son, your only son,
17 that in blessing I will bless you, and in multiplying I will multiply your seed as the stars of the heavens, and as the sand which is on the seashore. Your seed will possess the gate of his enemies.
18 In your seed will all the nations of the earth be blessed, because you have obeyed my voice." (Genesis 22:15-18)

So, when God gave the promise to Abraham, to the progenitor of jews, to make His chosen people, nation of Israel, He said it is meant to be blessing for all nations. So, bible most certainly gives a special role for the Jewish people, but it doesn't necessarily mean that the jews are the only ones who are saved. Instead, bible says that God is going to use them to bless all nations.

Secondly:
14 And if a stranger shall sojourn among you, and will keep the passover unto Jehovah; according to the statute of the passover, and according to the ordinance thereof, so shall he do: ye shall have one statute, both for the sojourner, and for him that is born in the land.(Numbers 9:14)
15 For the assembly, there shall be one statute for you, and for the stranger that sojourneth with you , a statute for ever throughout your generations: as ye are, so shall the sojourner be before Jehovah.
16 One law and one ordinance shall be for you, and for the stranger that sojourneth with you.(Numbers 15:15,16)

So, outsiders were treated equally, if they wanted to follow God.

And finally:
1 Behold, my servant, whom I uphold; my chosen, in whom my soul delighteth: I have put my Spirit upon him; he will bring forth justice to the Gentiles.
2 He will not cry, nor lift up his voice, nor cause it to be heard in the street.
3 A bruised reed will he not break, and a dimly burning wick will he not quench: he will bring forth justice in truth.
4 He will not fail nor be discouraged, till he have set justice in the earth; and the isles shall wait for his law.
5 Thus saith God Jehovah, he that created the heavens, and stretched them forth; he that spread abroad the earth and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:
6 I, Jehovah, have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thy hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles;
7 to open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the dungeon, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison-house.(Isaiah 42:1-7)

5 And now saith Jehovah that formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob again to him, and that Israel be gathered unto him (for I am honorable in the eyes of Jehovah, and my God is become my strength);
6 yea, he saith, It is too light a thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth.(Ieasiah 49:5,6)

Well, what we have here: a prophecy saying that the salvation is for the gentiles(non-jews) too.

Conclusion: your theory is pretty much decimated it seems.


And the last part of your post proves that Jesus is not without sin either (original sin, remember?).
What original sin? Are you perhaps referring to the idea that people somehow inherit sin from their parents? For starters, you could show me, if bible is even claiming such a thing.

Anyway, Jesus was conceived of the Holy Spirit, therefore He could not inherit this "original sin". According the bible, Jesus Himself didn't sinned. Though, He did carried the sins of other people, which means He suffered the punishment so other people wouldn't have to.


I don't see how you can quite claim the bible as a source for your argument. That's a highly biased and unreliable source you're claiming.
Cain Nightroad seemed to imply that bible is unfair about something. I am pretty sure that, when arguing about such a things, using the bible as source is rather necessary.


So what basis do you have for claiming that only Christianity is true?
God has managed to convince me about His existance and about where the truth can be found. Of course, that isn't an adequate argument for you. But then again, I haven't made a claim about it on this thread. So, save yourself from making a straw man here.

Cain Nightroad
5th October 2008, 4:30 AM
Cain Nightroad seemed to imply that bible is unfair about something. I am pretty sure that, when arguing about such a things, using the bible as source is rather necessary.

I was speaking to Misfit_PM, who gave a statement that made it seem like it was a crime to leave one religion for another. This isn't the case, otherwise it seems like everyone is being controlled, and being told what to do, with failure to comply meaning eternal damnation.


I'll go back to the original topic, though:


Though, He did carried the sins of other people, which means He suffered the punishment so other people wouldn't have to.

This explains His descent for the three days. However, I want to clarify that Hell/Yomi/Duat/etcetera was not nullified or destroyed with His descent, which many of my Christian friends believe. This would mean there is no order, and all reverts to bedlam.

squirrel boy
5th October 2008, 4:59 AM
the Bible says anyone that hasnt called out to My (meaning Jesus) will never be saved, that is stated in the New Testament, which would make sense that Jews dont believe that, Jesus is the Messiah because the Torah is only the first 5 books in the Bible.

Firemonkey1
5th October 2008, 5:21 AM
I have a theory: Ghosts know more about Heaven and #### than we do.

Cain Nightroad
5th October 2008, 5:44 AM
I have a theory: Ghosts know more about Heaven and #### than we do.

Neither have ever been proven. Thus, your theory stands with thin air as a foundation; there is nothing backing it up. Besides, ghosts are supposedly souls trapped to the mortal world, and thus would not be in Heaven or Hell.

Mr. Mudkip
5th October 2008, 7:13 AM
yeah native americans worshiped a god.

a god that wasnt the christian one; so that's hell automatically right? worshiping another god?

I personally believe if someone with no Christian exposure said "Hmm... something must have made this." And believed that 'something' was real, they would be saved.

There's something called the Age of Accountability that is a belief among most/all Christians, that is the point at which you are responsible wether you go to heaven/hell, and it differs per person. It is when one has had the opportunity to have accepted/realized the real God/Christ. That ruins the whole "exclusivitey" argument, and the "It's not fair" one too.

Hell also is not a flaming prison as stereotypically protrayed, it is absolute seperation from God, which is also seperation from all good things.

GhostAnime
5th October 2008, 8:12 AM
I personally believe if someone with no Christian exposure said "Hmm... something must have made this." And believed that 'something' was real, they would be saved.
too bad the bible disagrees with you.


Hell also is not a flaming prison
sigh. another christian that doesnt read his book.

Mini Minun
5th October 2008, 8:20 AM
Anyway, Jesus was conceived of the Holy Spirit, therefore He could not inherit this "original sin". According the bible, Jesus Himself didn't sinned. Though, He did carried the sins of other people, which means He suffered the punishment so other people wouldn't have to.

Then he's not the Messiah (Saviour, whatever...), because he's not of the line of David. Therefore he does not fulfill the prophecy made by Isaiah.


God has managed to convince me about His existance and about where the truth can be found. Of course, that isn't an adequate argument for you. But then again, I haven't made a claim about it on this thread. So, save yourself from making a straw man here.


Haven't made a straw man. Before you make any claims, you need to put evidence behind it. Which you haven't, in this case.


Conclusion: your theory is pretty much decimated it seems.

Decimated it is not. Read the following quote.


According to the Gospels, Jesus' declared mission was to reform Judaism, to bring back the spirit of in-group morality that seemed to have given way to sanctimony, observance of rituals, and rigid class distinctions in the face of Roman domination. He stated this repeatedly, even instructing his disciples to avoid out-group members when taking his message to in-group members (e.g., Matthew 10:5-6; RSV): "Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

Jesus often used the words neighbor and brother without explicitly indicating that he meant fellow Jews whom he sought to unify. (For a sympathetic and particularly well-informed perspective on Jesus and his mission within the context of 1st century Israel, see Vermes, 1973). Ironically, gentile Christians generally infer themselves to be included by these terms, even though many passages make it clear that they were not. For example, consider Matthew 18:15-18, in which Jesus explained to his disciples that Jews who sin against fellow Jews and cannot be made to see the error of their ways should be considered as gentiles because, like gentiles and tax collectors (Jews who collected taxes for the gentile government), they were going to be rejected from heaven (RSV, see also Matthew 5:47; 6:7; 6:32; 10:16-21):


If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Conclusion: it seems that God (as Jesus) said that gentiles will not go to Heaven.

Mr. Mudkip
5th October 2008, 8:24 AM
sigh. another christian that doesnt read his book.

sigh. another atheist that doesnt understand metaphors.

Raed mah thing abt, AoA plz :P
really... some people never learn. I think I've told you this like 5 times.

GhostAnime
5th October 2008, 8:30 AM
http://plazabaptistchurch.org/node/334

this is too strong to call it a 'metaphor'. the bottom line is clear: hell is a horrible place not because you're from god, but because it's just that damn horrible.

Mr. Mudkip
5th October 2008, 8:42 AM
http://plazabaptistchurch.org/node/334

this is too strong to call it a 'metaphor'. the bottom line is clear: hell is a horrible place not because you're from god, but because it's just that damn horrible.. One church's views do not represent us as a whole. Some churches don't practice the beliefs of those they take their name from.

GhostAnime
5th October 2008, 5:29 PM
that isnt a 'church view'; that post was more about the bible quotes. if hell isnt so bad, why do they depict so much negativity of it? they dont point out being away from god, they point out the torture!

bigpop618
5th October 2008, 5:39 PM
sigh. another atheist that doesnt understand metaphors.

Raed mah thing abt, AoA plz :P
really... some people never learn. I think I've told you this like 5 times.

Okay I saw this and had to ask. Since you say hell isn't a fiery prison where you are doomed to be tortured. Mind you GhostAnime has said that from the bible. What is it a metaphor of then?

Mr. Mudkip
5th October 2008, 10:00 PM
Okay I saw this and had to ask. Since you say hell isn't a fiery prison where you are doomed to be tortured. Mind you GhostAnime has said that from the bible. What is it a metaphor of then?
Hmm... think back.
It's pretty hard to imagine what life would be like without God, whether you believe in him or not, so to the people of the time would have problems visualizing what it would be like. So, to make it more personal and more tangible they used something that hurt, and was known for causing destruction and pain. Fire. Fire is often associated with pain, suffering, and war, so what better way to get the message of what hell is like across to the people in a way they could understand it, and possibly relate to or feel what hell would be like based on common experience, I mean, who hasn't ever gotten burned before?


that isnt a 'church view'; that post was more about the bible quotes. if hell isnt so bad, why do they depict so much negativity of it? they dont point out being away from god, they point out the torture!
God made all things good, so to be apart from God is to be apart from every good thing. Sounds like suffering to me.

ResidentEcruteak
5th October 2008, 10:08 PM
Then he's not the Messiah (Saviour, whatever...), because he's not of the line of David. Therefore he does not fulfill the prophecy made by Isaiah.
If you think that Messiah must be of the line of David, then you probably could answer to this question made by Jesus:

41 Then he said to them, “How can people [Lit. they] say that the Christ is David's son?
42 For David himself in the book of Psalms says, ‘The Lord said to my Lord,“Sit at my right hand,
43 until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.”’
44 So David calls him 'Lord.' Then how can he be his son?”(Luke 20:41-44)


Haven't made a straw man. Before you make any claims, you need to put evidence behind it. Which you haven't, in this case.
Okay, which of my claims (on this thread) you are talking about?



Decimated it is not. Read the following quote.

According to the Gospels, Jesus' declared mission was to reform Judaism, to bring back the spirit of in-group morality that seemed to have given way to sanctimony, observance of rituals, and rigid class distinctions in the face of Roman domination. He stated this repeatedly, even instructing his disciples to avoid out-group members when taking his message to in-group members (e.g., Matthew 10:5-6; RSV): "Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

Jesus often used the words neighbor and brother without explicitly indicating that he meant fellow Jews whom he sought to unify. (For a sympathetic and particularly well-informed perspective on Jesus and his mission within the context of 1st century Israel, see Vermes, 1973). Ironically, gentile Christians generally infer themselves to be included by these terms, even though many passages make it clear that they were not. For example, consider Matthew 18:15-18, in which Jesus explained to his disciples that Jews who sin against fellow Jews and cannot be made to see the error of their ways should be considered as gentiles because, like gentiles and tax collectors (Jews who collected taxes for the gentile government), they were going to be rejected from heaven (RSV, see also Matthew 5:47; 6:7; 6:32; 10:16-21):


If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Conclusion: it seems that God (as Jesus) said that gentiles will not go to Heaven.

In Matthew chapter 10, Jesus was talking to his twelve disciples before his crucifixion. Note that He was using word "rather". After His crucifixion, He told them to "preach the gospel to all nations". So, He was simply placing Israelites first in priority and gentiles after them.

Your source claims: [I]"like gentiles and tax collectors (Jews who collected taxes for the gentile government), they were going to be rejected from heaven", yet it doesn't back up this claim at all. Also, the latter claim is also contradicting OT, which can be seen from the verses I quoted in my last post.

Also, about interpreting words "neighbor" and "brother"; your source seems to be making an asumption that these words always referred to Israelites. I would say that this is half-true, because in most cases Jesus (and the prophets of the OT) were talking to israelites and naturally brother or neighbor for an israelite was (in most cases) another israelite. However, this is not the case with other people; brother or neighbor for a japanese is (in most cases) another japanese and
brother or neighbor for a european is (in most cases) another european and so on. So, who is the neighbor or brother depends on who are we talking to. If verses like that would only be about israelites, then surely the prophets and Jesus could use word "israelite" instead of "neighbor" or "brother", but as we can see, it isn't doing so. Therefore, we cannot assume that everytime, when bible is talking about neighbor or brother, it is only concerning israelites.


Here are some verses from gospels regarding gentiles and salvation:

19 Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit: (Matthew 28:19)

All nations, not just Israel.

31 Which of the two did the will of his father? They say, The first. Jesus saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, that the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you.(Matthew 21:31)

Publican means tax collector, you know "Jews who collected taxes for the gentile government"; if I remember correctly, these were the ones that "were going to be rejected from heaven" according to your source.

33 Hear another parable: There was a man that was a householder, who planted a vineyard, and set a hedge about it, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into another country.
34 And when the season of the fruits drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen, to receive his fruits.
35 And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another.
36 Again, he sent other servants more than the first: and they did unto them in like manner.
37 But afterward he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son.
38 But the husbandmen, when they saw the son, said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and take his inheritance.
39 And they took him, and cast him forth out of the vineyard, and killed him.
40 When therefore the lord of the vineyard shall come, what will he do unto those husbandmen?
41 They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those miserable men, and will let out the vineyard unto other husbandmen, who shall render him the fruits in their seasons.
42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, The same was made the head of the corner; This was from the Lord, And it is marvelous in our eyes?
43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken away from you, and shall be given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.
44 And he that falleth on this stone shall be broken to pieces: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will scatter him as dust.(Matthew 21:33-44)

So, in certain cases "kingdom of God" can be given to another "nation".

24 And he said, Verily I say unto you, No prophet is acceptable in his own country.
25 But of a truth I say unto you, There were many widows in Israel in the days of Elijah, when the heaven was shut up three years and six months, when there came a great famine over all the land;
26 and unto none of them was Elijah sent, but only to Zarephath, in the land of Sidon, unto a woman that was a widow.
27 And there were many lepers in Israel in the time of Elisha the prophet; and none of them was cleansed, but only Naaman the Syrian.(Luke 4:24-27)

25 And behold, a certain lawyer stood up and made trial of him, saying, Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
26 And he said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?
27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbor as thyself.
28 And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.
29 But he, desiring to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbor?
30 Jesus made answer and said, A certain man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho; and he fell among robbers, who both stripped him and beat him, and departed, leaving him half dead.
31 And by chance a certain priest was going down that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side.
32 And in like manner a Levite also, when he came to the place, and saw him, passed by on the other side.
33 But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he was moved with compassion,
34 and came to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring on them oil and wine; and he set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him.
35 And on the morrow he took out two shillings, and gave them to the host, and said, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, I, when I come back again, will repay thee.
36 Which of these three, thinkest thou, proved neighbor unto him that fell among the robbers?
37 And he said, He that showed mercy on him. And Jesus said unto him, Go, and do thou likewise. (Luke 10:25-37)

In this case neighbor=samaritan it seems.

45 Then opened he their mind, that they might understand the scriptures;
46 and he said unto them, Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer, and rise again from the dead the third day;
47 and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name unto all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.(Luke 47:45-47)

And again, "repentance and remission of sins" is to be preached "unto all nations, beginning from Jerusalem", not "only to Jerusalem".


So, your conclusion here seem to be incorrect; not only the reasoning of your source is flawed, but you also claimed that "God (as Jesus) said that gentiles will not go to Heaven" and didn't show a verse, where He is saying so.

GhostAnime
5th October 2008, 10:39 PM
God made all things good, so to be apart from God is to be apart from every good thing. Sounds like suffering to me.
no, you're just scratching the passages off as metaphors based on absolutely NOTHING.

if those are metaphors, then what ISN'T a metaphor?

burgaz62
8th October 2008, 3:13 PM
isn't there another one where you go to repent your sins, for the crimes you've commited. If there is, which i'm pretty sure there is, then the murderer, could spend say, 500 years, depending on the circumstances, then go to hevean with his wife. i know you'll say something about the 500 years, so it could be however many years. i don't know because i'm not God. Or the devil

Mini Minun
9th October 2008, 9:56 AM
another place? You mean purgatory? I believe someone said that purgatory doesn't exist anymore (or so the Pope says).

-> a thought on this...Everyone who was in purgatory suddenly disappeared?

And I believe the Bible does say that you suffer forever. Correct me if I'm wrong.


If you think that Messiah must be of the line of David(omitted)

I never said that. Isaiah said it, or some prophecy or other, I can't remember which, and I'm quoting it. And if you stand by what you said, you're destroying one of the fundamentals of Christianity: viz. Jesus is the Messiah.


Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, (omitted)and
Note that He was using word "rather".

That depends on the definition of "rather" we're using here. Rather can be used before verbs to express one's thoughts or feelings, and it just so happens that "rather" goes before "go." What authority do you have to claim that it is the particular definition which backs up your claim?


Your source claims: "like gentiles and tax collectors (Jews who collected taxes for the gentile government), they were going to be rejected from heaven", yet it doesn't back up this claim at all. Also, the latter claim is also contradicting OT, which can be seen from the verses I quoted in my last post.

But:


If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

specifically, regarding this part:
Also, the latter claim is also contradicting OT, which can be seen from the verses I quoted in my last post.

Is Matthew right in claiming that Joseph is from the line of David by 28 intermediate generations? Or is Luke right in claiming 41? Which of the names they give for the intermediate generations is correct?


According to the distinction made in the Talmud between adam and other terms for humans, the original conceptualization appears to have been that the god of the Israelites created them in his own image. This explains how it could be the case that their god created man (adam) in his own image while other people (non-adam) were simultaneously alive east of Eden in the land of Nod - where Cain went after killing Abel, found a wife, and founded a city (Genesis 4:16-24). The word adam is not used for man when referring to persons in Nod (Genesis 4:23).

In fact, the most frequently used biblical Hebrew words for man/men are 'iysh and 'enowsh, occurring 428 times in the Torah. All occurrences of man being created in the image of god occur as adam, but people who were conquered by the Israelites are not referred to as adam, with the exception of two passages which also involve cattle. These exceptions are rhetorically questioned in the Talmud, where the Sages explain that "This is used in opposition to cattle," by which they meant, "In contrast to cattle, idolaters also may be described as adam (men)" (parentheses in original, Kerithoth 6b, Yebamoth 61a).

You've also completely ignored this part.

Ethan
10th October 2008, 4:09 PM
I'm afraid that I'm going to have to close this. There are two other religious topics that I gave direct permission for, and in my humble opinion two is enough. This topic doesn't seem to active anyway.