Materialists
- Thread starter ShoeshineBoy
- Start date
You are obviously delusional.Seek help immediately.Quote from axeman:
This is just soooo hilarious.
So basically, someone who has accepted Jesus,
IS FREE TO DO ANYTHING THEY WANT, including murder
and genocide and they STILL get to go to heaven.
And some theists call Atheists IMMORAL and CLAIM
that there is nothing to stop us from doing horrible things?!?!?!?
LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!
Doubter just admitted you are free to commit to ANY ATROCITY
as a "believer"!!!
I guess its just the opposite.
The true hedonist, who can kill steal and murder his fellow man
for his own enjoyment ** WITH A GUARANTEE TO GET INTO HEAVEN***
is in fact the JESUS BELIEVER!!!!!!! LMAOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!
Well since you are FREE to murder me for just any damn reason,
please stay away from me. You jesus freaks are the most
dangerous people on EARTH!!! You have a LICENSE TO KILL! LOL!
I cant stop laughing... this is so ironic and funny as hell!
My name is Christ.... Jesus Christ.... 007...license to kill baby.
peace
axeman
Shoe, you are SOOOO full of double speak. If you believe that hell is a place of ugly punishment, why would you even *entertain* the following scenario where you attempt to convince the materialists that hell could be just a benign place where their lives are just "taken away" and they are given "exactly what they want and expect..."
>...let's take the SDA case. You live a "rational and
>reasonable" life by your definition, i.e. you're a
>"pretty nice guy":
>Sometime after the end of your life you are judged and
>sometime thereafter your life is taken away. This is exactly
>what you "want" and how you view life right now. As a
>materialist, you believe that your life will end after your
>time here on planet earth anyway. So I don't see the
>objection as you essentially would be given exactly
>what you want and expect...
Make up your mind Shoe...if you believe hell is a place of punishment, stop trying to say that hell may be so benign that it is "exactly what materialists want and how they view life right now".
JB
>...let's take the SDA case. You live a "rational and
>reasonable" life by your definition, i.e. you're a
>"pretty nice guy":
>Sometime after the end of your life you are judged and
>sometime thereafter your life is taken away. This is exactly
>what you "want" and how you view life right now. As a
>materialist, you believe that your life will end after your
>time here on planet earth anyway. So I don't see the
>objection as you essentially would be given exactly
>what you want and expect...
Make up your mind Shoe...if you believe hell is a place of punishment, stop trying to say that hell may be so benign that it is "exactly what materialists want and how they view life right now".
JB
But isn't that exactly the logical inference to draw from Doubter's post?
If Jesus died to save us from all sins past, present and future except for the sin of rejecting him, doesn't this mean that, technically speaking, one could actually go and do whatever the hell he wants and as long as he's accepting Jesus then he's fine?
Of course, I'm not claiming that this what Christians actually go and do -- far from it -- but, again, technically speaking, they could if they wanted to.
Well, those are Doubter's views, at least my understanding of them. I don't think this sqaures with the views of a lot of other Christians, who believe that 'works' matter (like Catholics). And there's some who believe God judges you on what you 'truly' feel 'in your heart'. For example a mass murderer who couldn't help himself, but 'down deep in his heart' he knew he was wrong and was 'truly' sorry could get into heaven while someone whose sins were 'only' (in the sense that it's not as bad as mass murder) lies and deceit and is generally unrepentant may not.
In any case, whether it's true or not, the story of Jesus' sacrifice to save us from our 'sinful nature' (in the sense that we will, from time to time, 'screw up') is deserving, I think, of some respect and reflection, as I'm pretty sure we'd all agree that we could all do with a bit more compassion and humility in our lives (myself definitely included).
If Jesus died to save us from all sins past, present and future except for the sin of rejecting him, doesn't this mean that, technically speaking, one could actually go and do whatever the hell he wants and as long as he's accepting Jesus then he's fine?
Of course, I'm not claiming that this what Christians actually go and do -- far from it -- but, again, technically speaking, they could if they wanted to.
Well, those are Doubter's views, at least my understanding of them. I don't think this sqaures with the views of a lot of other Christians, who believe that 'works' matter (like Catholics). And there's some who believe God judges you on what you 'truly' feel 'in your heart'. For example a mass murderer who couldn't help himself, but 'down deep in his heart' he knew he was wrong and was 'truly' sorry could get into heaven while someone whose sins were 'only' (in the sense that it's not as bad as mass murder) lies and deceit and is generally unrepentant may not.
In any case, whether it's true or not, the story of Jesus' sacrifice to save us from our 'sinful nature' (in the sense that we will, from time to time, 'screw up') is deserving, I think, of some respect and reflection, as I'm pretty sure we'd all agree that we could all do with a bit more compassion and humility in our lives (myself definitely included).
punishment doesn't have to mean "bad stuff happens". it also has a relative sense and can simply mean "good stuff doesn't happen".
reincarnation has been a widely held view in judaism as far back as anybody knows. a view of "hell" that goes with this is that hell is not a place but a state of getting snuffed out of existence. no pain, no torture, no fire, no brimstone - the punishment is not being allowed anymore go-rounds. of ceasing to exist. kind of like falling off the lowest rung on the karmic ladder.
but since none of this can be proven, i won't be offended if you think it's crap.
reincarnation has been a widely held view in judaism as far back as anybody knows. a view of "hell" that goes with this is that hell is not a place but a state of getting snuffed out of existence. no pain, no torture, no fire, no brimstone - the punishment is not being allowed anymore go-rounds. of ceasing to exist. kind of like falling off the lowest rung on the karmic ladder.
but since none of this can be proven, i won't be offended if you think it's crap.
>I didn't spend any time on the last four because
>they are simply so weak to your position.
That is only because you CONTINUE to misrepresent my position (see below).
>All those verses do is simply put the word "hell"
>and "fire" together in the same verse.
Yes, and that is weak to my position that hell is a fiery place of punishment how exactly?
>Yes, "hell" is placed in a negative context in these
>verses. But my point is that "hell" could easily be a fire that
>destroys both body and soul and satisfy all four verses.
OK, I'M GOING TO YELL FOR AN ENTIRE PARAGRAPH TO SEE IF I CAN GET THIS THROUGH TO YOU. I---HAVE---NOT---ARGUED---ONE---SINGLE---TIME---FOR---"MILTONION HELL". Please stop representing that I do because I DO NOT AND HAVE NOT ARGUED SUCH!
>Again, there is nothing in these last four verses that
>imply directly or otherwise that a person is tortured
>short term or long term in a fire.
Yeah, sure Shoe. Let's cast you alive into a large fire and then ask you ONE MOMENT IN if you consider the flames to be torture. Where do you possibly come off presenting that being burned alive is not torturous.
>So that's why I say that the entire doctrine of a
>short or long term torturing hell is built on the
>story of Lazarus and Rev 20 which I have already
>talked about...
Leave your "long term" out of this as I continue to state it's not my argument. Are you saying that you don't consider being thrown into a fire and being burned alive to be a "short term torturing hell"?
JB
>they are simply so weak to your position.
That is only because you CONTINUE to misrepresent my position (see below).
>All those verses do is simply put the word "hell"
>and "fire" together in the same verse.
Yes, and that is weak to my position that hell is a fiery place of punishment how exactly?
>Yes, "hell" is placed in a negative context in these
>verses. But my point is that "hell" could easily be a fire that
>destroys both body and soul and satisfy all four verses.
OK, I'M GOING TO YELL FOR AN ENTIRE PARAGRAPH TO SEE IF I CAN GET THIS THROUGH TO YOU. I---HAVE---NOT---ARGUED---ONE---SINGLE---TIME---FOR---"MILTONION HELL". Please stop representing that I do because I DO NOT AND HAVE NOT ARGUED SUCH!
>Again, there is nothing in these last four verses that
>imply directly or otherwise that a person is tortured
>short term or long term in a fire.
Yeah, sure Shoe. Let's cast you alive into a large fire and then ask you ONE MOMENT IN if you consider the flames to be torture. Where do you possibly come off presenting that being burned alive is not torturous.
>So that's why I say that the entire doctrine of a
>short or long term torturing hell is built on the
>story of Lazarus and Rev 20 which I have already
>talked about...
Leave your "long term" out of this as I continue to state it's not my argument. Are you saying that you don't consider being thrown into a fire and being burned alive to be a "short term torturing hell"?
JB
Well, speaking for myself, I can see how that could be the case.
Materialists view their lives as finite and have a certain expectation of what their deaths will mean and thus live their lives accordingly (consciously or not). Hell in this case would be a 'punishment' in the sense that eternal life would be preferable to eternal death and it would also be a fulfillment of the materialist's expecations; although I wouldn't say it's exactly what a materialist would want, in the sense that if at that time of 'judgement' materialists were actually given a choice, I'm pretty sure most would say, "well hol-ee cow. I never expected this to happen. Say, sorry about that God! Sure, if it's on offer, I'll take eternal life, thanks!".
Clearly you are incapable of READING, because Doubters
post logically implies this perfectly.
So either you are incapable of reading, or are the delusional one
because you cant see the obvious implications.
If you wish to claim im delusional, then explicitly point out WHY
or shut the hell up.
peace
axeman
post logically implies this perfectly.
So either you are incapable of reading, or are the delusional one
because you cant see the obvious implications.
If you wish to claim im delusional, then explicitly point out WHY
or shut the hell up.
peace
axeman
The problem is that these verses apply to both your position and my position and therefore are not proof texts for either.
>Hell in this case would be a 'punishment' in the
>sense that eternal life would be preferable to
>eternal death and it would also be a fulfillment
>of the materialist's expecations;
You are right Spec ONLY if Shoe believes that hell is NOT a place of fiery/torturous punishment. If it is NOT a painful place then the position that you state is reasonable and I have no quarel with it.
The word of god however is VERY clear regarding the nature of hell...it is a fiery place of pain and anguish.
JB
>sense that eternal life would be preferable to
>eternal death and it would also be a fulfillment
>of the materialist's expecations;
You are right Spec ONLY if Shoe believes that hell is NOT a place of fiery/torturous punishment. If it is NOT a painful place then the position that you state is reasonable and I have no quarel with it.
The word of god however is VERY clear regarding the nature of hell...it is a fiery place of pain and anguish.
JB