you have too much faith in humanity if you think it can survive wihtout a penal system. rehab is an inconvenience for criminals. the stuff that makes criminals means that most would not take in a word of wahts told to them. ther are always exceptions of course. when did you become a christian, peppy? or were you brought up a christian?
baught up a christian but i would say i became a christian when i was about 13 'cause my faith is very different to that of which my parents brought me up into, alot of mysticsism and rastafari which they do not seem to aprove of. but you're right i do have too much faith in humanity but i don't think that is ever going to change really, it keeps trying to show me that it is always going to fuck up but for some reason i still trust it.
What "contradiction" are you talking about? I was refuting the concept of annihilationism. Except the Bible nowhere equates God's kingdom with mere existence. There are many ways the Bible could have conveyed the concept of obliteration. Instead, it places the unsaved "outside the city of God" and speaks of their "eternal torment."
what i'm saying and i think bill agrees is that non existance is an eternal tourment. if you try and understand what non existance would really mean.
"Tormented night and day forever" is a very bizarre way to describe nonexistence. Then again, there's Jesus' depiction of "the worm that does not die and the fire that is not quenched." Using your previous bonfire analogy, a fire goes out when its fuel is consumed; an eternal fire requires eternal fuel.
can i have the chapter and verse of this worm bit so i can read it all in context. cuase like the stuff in revilation alot of it many people would say is "metaphorical" and although i am quite fundamental there are many times such as jesus parables and stuff where he says things to mean something else. i'm not knocking what you are saying, i simply want to read it all together.
well peppy i dont mean it to be eternal torment i mean ti to be the infinite punishment, which is only a punishment becuase of the fact that it continues eternally. otherwise it would be sleep lol. its that the greatest punishment or the worst reward is to have your existance taken.
Lots of stuff to reply to: Good luck proving that. We have over 13,000 ancient manuscripts of the new testament, the earliest reaches to less than 100 years after the autograph was written. You can read more here: http://www.carm.org/questions/trustbible.htm There is tons of information out there regarding the reliability of the scriptures as a historical document. You can believe that the New Testament was changed, but archaeology, hermeneutics, and history simply do not agree with you. Either you are wrong, or the scholars (both religious and secular) are. Jesus said, "And if your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out, and throw it from you; for it is better for you that one of the parts of your body perish, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30"And if your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off, and throw it from you; for it is better for you that one of the parts of your body perish, than for your whole body to go into hell," (Matt. 5:29-30). Just do a search for Jesus teaching about Hell. He talked about Hell more than He did about heaven. In the dark ages, the above would be true. I do not know of anything in the Roman culture that would have prevented it. So long as it was not against Caesar, you could worship whatever you wanted. I don't know if the churches kept a lid on information. At this point, though, I do not know if the Library at Alexandria existed, but it had NOT been burned yet. Edit: It did exist. The library had been in existence for roughly 200 to 300 years and wasn't destroyed until after (maybe during) Constantine. As such, you have a remarkable collection of information available. One site I visited called it the Internet of the Ancient World. Information was more readily available (for those who could read... and don't forget, every Jewish male could read AT LEAST Hebrew). The lid on scientific progress was an issue in the dark ages, but not at this time. Why do you believe that the information would be known by only 1% of the populace? Sure. http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi1457.htm There are more links, but that was jsut the first one I found. Thats all I can post for now. More replies will be coming.
and huck, the person u quoted reffered to teh bible,but your bible references state things other than waht he has said, thats why i was point out that there was an inconsistancy.
Okay, I have time to respond now: They were inventions of man to try and answer the longing in our hearts for God. I would also point out two things. 1) God is just, therefore no one will be kept out of heaven simply because they never heard of Jesus Christ. Abraham believed in God's plan of salvation and recognized his complete inability to save himself, and it was counted to him as righteousness. Melchizidek (sp?) was a priest-king who was as close to God (if not closer) than Abraham yet there were no Hebrews, no Old Testament, no Judaism, yet Christ Himself is a priest-king in the Order of Melchizidech. This is evidence that other people have, at least, had the opportunity to go to Heaven even without ever hearing about Jesus. 2) The Bible talks about the inhabitants of heaven as being people from all tounges and nations. What it is saying is that at least one person from every cultural group that has ever existed will be in heaven. As I said, God is just. He will not disacard a person simply on the fact that they never heard. He can weigh their hearts. He will do what is right, and just, and good. What historical evidence do you have to back up that statement? The concept is not hard. Existence is not that difficult to concieve. Not-existing is simply the reverse of existing. What irrational preferences do I have? First, the focus of Christianity isn't about getting to heaven (though that is definitely a part of it). The focus of Christianity is loving and emulating Jesus Christ. We emulate and obey Christ because we love Him and we have a relationship with Him. Christ is the centerpiece and cornerstone of our faith, not getting to heaven. Now, how do you say that the worst punishment is not existing? There is no pain, no sorrow, no joy, no peace, no ANYTHING. The scales are not balanced, you have not atoned or paid for your crimes in any meaningful sense. Keep in mind that the punishment must be in line with the offense. So, if the offense is infinite in scope, so must be the punishment. For punishment to BE punishment, it must be experienced. One cannot experience non-existence. Your non-existence is NOT infinite in scope because you are not nothingness for eternity, there is only nothingness; you no longer exist and are therefore no longer being punished. There is no "you" that can be punished. I appreciate life, but I do not think you understand what Hell is. Eternal separation from God. I personally believe that one will know God as He knows him. And then will be separated from Him and all other people for all eternity. That person will be tormented forever (possibly physically) in darkness, alone... longing for non-existence, longing for God, and lamenting all their bad decisions and poor choices for all eternally. Imagine how intense pain makes people long for death, non-existence, ANYTHING to make the pain stop. Now, why do people long to not-exist when they are in pain (both physical and emotional)? Because they realize that nothingness is better than where they are. How do you justify that? How do you know that you are right and they are wrong?
I have not come up with this idea, it is ancient. I would say that it comes from God Himself, but, at the very least, even the atheists must agree that it is scriptural. And I am not upset at the idea on annihilationism, the Scripture simply doesn't support it. I don't want to torture anyone. I want everyone to go to Heaven (as does God), but He isn't going to drag everyone there whether they want to go or not. And what in my attitude has been hateful? Turning the other cheek is how we should live our personal lives, but it by no means implies that we should abandon justice. If a man strikes you, let God deal with it. If a man steals from you, let the courts deal with it. Should we progress beyond eye for an eye? Is it somehow unjust? Remember, just because an idea is old doesn't mean it is wrong. If it does, then let's just get rid of the idea of atoms... the atmos was postulated over 2000 years ago. We shouldn't be kept to such an archaic idea. And who says that I have a grudge against a dead man? I didn't mean to imply that. My apologies. I do not believe that a non-Christian life is necessarily a horrible life. Both Christians and non-Christians have led horrible lives as well as good ones. The nature of an offense (and its magnitude) depends almost entirely on the offended party. Stealing fifty cents from a cash register is not nearly as bad as robbing a bank for $1000 which, in turn is not nearly as bad as embezzling millions and millions from the government. Stealing fifty cents might get you a lecture, $1000 would get you jail for a while, millions from the government would get you prison for a LONG time. In each case, the criminal stole, but the punishments got increasingly more severe as the crimes increased in scope. Now, in the case of God, what we offend is His infinite goodness and holiness. The offended party (i.e. the victim of our crime) in this case, is infinite by nature. Given the examples above, imagine someone stealing all goods from all people who have and will ever exist for all time. Even then, the scope is not limitless because the value of the goods can be calculated (eventually). But that is the beginning of the magnitude of each sin against God. We have offended something *eternal.* How can we, as finite beings, atone for these crimes? Short answer, we cannot. Ever. But the closest we can get is never-ending punishment. This is why, yes, even the smallest sin is enough to send us to Hell. We are imperfect beings who all have fallen short of the glory of God. It is why Christ being Theanthropos is logically necessary. God's sacrifice would be infinite in scope and would meet the standards for atonement. God then turned around and said, because I love you I have paid the price for your sin. Anyone who wishes may claim my sacrifice as their own. If we chose to claim Christ's sacrifice, we simply have to ask for it, if not, then we have told God that we are willing to try and meet the standard ourselves. God knows that we are destined to failure, but He, in His love and justness, allows us to try. When we fail, it is our fault and we go where our hearts and actions have led us... Does that clear it up a little?
"First of all, you sound like you're just upset at the idea that a bad person can die and escape torture or punishment for their bad deeds. Since you can't handle that, you come up with this idea of a cosmic judge, inflicting eternal torture on the person since you cant. " come up with a cosmic judge? surely it is that judge that conceived of us... anyway i think the prospect of hell is a silly reason to convert people. not all christians use those terror tactics and most christians do not use it as their drive. christians live by the words of god and the teqachings f jesus. primarily be a good person and love thy neighbour. to try and be a good person. to live life showing love for thy neighbour, this is the thing that seperates heaven from hell for us as humans. and if in the grand scheme of thiings it is all a lie and god is just a fabrication of fear, then what have we lost by trying to be a good person? nothing. id personally like to believe hell isn't fire and brimstone to be honest. non-existance would be better for me. if we dont exist at all then there is nothing of our thoughts left. we do not see or feel or know anything. to many this is actually what happens after death. it's not so terrifying a possibility.
When asked "What is the greatest commandment?" Christ said "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and strength" and secondarily "love your neighbor as yourself." And even then, Christ didn't say that would save you. Christ's message (as well as all the NT's message) is than mankind is fallen and only by believing that Christ is one's savior and accepting His sacrifice will one pass into Heaven.
all i can say is, you definitely do not apreciate your life if youd rather be absolutely dead than have an eternity of pain. its simple. you jsut dont apreciate it. tehres no arguement. the whole point is this: if you really do comprehend non-existance enough, you will not prefer it. it is not preferable to anyone who apreciates being alive period. of course if your like alsharad and take life for granted then youd prefer to cease existance than to life an eternal life in pain. how about this: dont see non existance as the lack of pain. see it as lack of happiness.
Bill, your statement is not making sense. Non-existence is not a lack of anything (either pain or happiness). If you do not exist, you do not lack anything at all because there is no "you" to be lacking anything. No thing is ever in the state of non-existence. If A exists, then A exists. If A does not exist, then the idea of A exists, but A, in actuality, does not. Nothingness is a null set. Nothingness has no properties outside of the negative property of being "not anything." So again, if one is made non-existent, then there is no "one" that can lack happiness. Now, on to your bolder statement: Until there is agreement or concession, there is always an argument. You made a pretty strong statement. Now, how does it follow that if I'd rather be non-existent then suffer an eternity of pain that I do not appreciate life. And what do you mean by "appreciate life." What are your standards for determining if someone appreciates life? Also, wouldn't you consider an eternity of agony, lonliness, anxiety, and physical torment also a lack of happiness?
I say you dont apreciate life because you would throw it away at the prospect of pain. anyone who is willing to throw away their life under any circumstance, doesnt apreciate it (where i mean, values it to its deserved level). and for you religious people, i mean the conscious, not the living body. in cases of sacrifice for anothers life, the situation changes a bit..
That makes more sense, but please allow me to rebutt. Pain comes in varied levels. I would not throw life away for anything. However, when we talk about Hell, we do not mean a little physical pain (even getting a needle through your eye is a measured amount of pain. the pain will eventually cease). When the pain in Hell is that of total and complete agony. Not just physical pain, but emotional and mental pain as well. Pain so intense that it is described as being bathed in burning sulphur continuously. Combine that with the thought that one has also seen God in all His glory, has lived life, remembers life, and light, and warmth... and has lost it all to an eternity of darkness and lonliness. When one goes to Hell, he goes there completely alone for eternity. If there was nothing else to life but agony and excruciating pain and sorrow, what about life would make it better than non-existence?
when in hell, does one have a body to burn, or is it jsut the feeling of burning in hell, the mind surrounded by darkness?
