Does anyone deserve to burn forever?

Great Debates
41

Roches wrote:

“Also, apparently, ‘history proves [unbelievers] wrong’ – I’m not sure what this means. Of course the words of the Bible are eternal – at least, they will endure as long as there remain any copies of the book. But the words of Homer and Virgil and Shakespeare are also eternal; the books have been preserved, and they will continue to have meaning as long as there are humans left to read them. There are many books which contain the same circular argument as the Bible.”
Your first sentence: I’m glad you put “unbelievers” in brackets, because I didn’t say that. What it means is this; no matter what you, I, or anyone says, the Bible’s words will stand forever. They’ve certainly stood up on their own quite well up to now.

Do you even know how many copies of the Bible there are, compared to any ancient text? There’s not even a close comparison. Homer’s words? Are you sure about that? Seeing as how the book was written 2200 years after his death, I wouldn’t have included that as any sort of reliable ancient text. A good story? Sure. I don’t think I would include entertainment with the Bible…But, you are speaking of ancient (or, in the case of Shakespeare, kind of older), so I won’t quibble.

You really can’t compare the Bible with any other religious text. I’m sure a comparative religions teacher would disagree. He/she would be wrong in stating that.
Robertliguori wrote:

“This is a perfectly valid position, once you posit that God is an evil motherfucker. On the other hand, given that a Biblical God is established to be the source of all evil by definition, this isn’t surprising.”

Ah, you don’t know what you’re talking about. Go read the Bible, and discover what it says on the subject.
Guinastasia:

My apologies. You are correct. However, in just the brief time I’ve been here, I oftentimes don’t see actual debate on this subject. I see insults, such as this one from Hawkeyejo:

“You are a nut.

And oh so gullible.”

I’m not surprised by this…It really just supports what I just said.
Oh, wait. Hawkeyejo also wrote:

“I think you are missing the point of eternal hell here Hayduke. Religion - any religion - was created, and required, in times before codified civil law to keep the population in control. All religions lay down laws and rules that make common sense and are naturally required to be followed to keep an orderly society.

Having said that, most people are asses and are not going to follow common sense rules if they are not enforced. That is the reason priests (or so-called religious authorities) had to create a supernatural fear to make the people fall in line. And the best way to do that was to mete out maximum punishment to those who didn’t follow - and what’s worse than eternal torture? Moreover, this plays right into the hands of those who promote blind faith - they don’t have to prove anything, and they can count on the fear of the unknown (present overwhelmingly in most humans).

Ergo, followers get lapdances from God in heaven; the rest get stakes up their ass from the Devil.”
I am unconcerned with “any” religion. For that matter, I have no religion. Priests didn’t “make up” hell. It’s in the Bible, plain as day.

I’d just as soon not see emotional responses, without actual information on the subject. I’m sure if I took a snippet of Darwin, and twisted it around into something it wasn’t intended to mean, there would be an outcry. Yet, time and again, I see this happen with Biblical text. If you don’t know, then please, don’t open your mouth and prove it.

:smack:

42

On the other side of the token, how does believing in God (and doing all the good things ones supposed to do) justify an eternity spent in bliss.

A person who was “saved” as a young child and lived a long, righteous life and a person “saved” two months before their death would both deserve an everlasting life…

On the other hand, a serial killer and a good-hearted pagan would both be tossed into the fiery depths…

That’s why I refuse to even think about the after life. IMHO, people shouldn’t concern themselves with the hereafter, for the simple reason that no one knows what’s going to happen. Coming up with a bunch of hogwash theories is crazy. It’s like a little kid daydreaming about the gifts they may have coming on Christmas morning without knowing if 1) they deserve those presents and 2)their idea of a happy Christmas differs from their parents’.

If fear of hell is the only thing keeping you on the “righteous” path, then you’re sorta missing the point.

43

As far as I understand it, it works like this:

Man is separated from God, having entered some sort of state of ‘broken-ness’ because of:
a) Any bad stuff we do ourselves. (No scale of magnitude applied - the smallest misdemeanour still breaks the link)
b) Some kind of heritable fallen-ness, from the fruit incident.
-The default position for all of humanity is therefore the waste chute, not because we’re really bad, but because we’re broken.

God’s solution to this was to take the blame himself (or something like that) for us, in the person of Jesus, making it possible for anyone to get fixed up back to factory condition.

The application of this transaction occurs (somehow) through the process of believing it.

Now I should say at this point that this is just my understanding of the mainstream Protestant doctrine - I’m not going to try to defend it because it generates many more questions than it answers.

44

My humorous answer was going to be : yes, Bill O’Reilly, but

I don’t think we really know !
No one has come back after death to tell us( shhh don’t tell lekatt).

I read somewhere that the ones who don’t get to Heaven will simply perish, not exist anymore.
Sounds more merciful.

45

I’m glad that you mentioned Orthodox theology on the matter and The River of Fire. If you hadn’t, I would have. Unfortunately, what I have found is that the vast majority of people, when confronted with the Orthodox synthesis, tend to blink and then rattle on exactly as before, with their same limited categories and arguments.

It very often boils down to this:

Western “skeptic”: I don’t like it that Christians believe X, since it means Y.

Orthodox Christian: The Orthodox don’t believe Y when we say “X”; our doctrine is fundamentally different in the following ways…

Western “skeptic”: How can you keep believing Y?

Orthodox Christian: I already told you we don’t believe that. What we mean when we use the term “X” is different from what the West has made “X” out to be, so the implications are different and Y simply does not come up.

Western “skeptic”: You are stupid/evil for continuing to believe Y.

Now, if the Orthodox Christian has a lick of sense, he quits there, since attempting to instruct a pile of dead wood is generally fruitless and can lead to fairly un-Orthodox treatment of people. I’ve yet to get to the “lick of sense” part of my life.

46

So Svt4Him believes telling one lie merits an eternity of hideous suffering, which only confirms my opinion of the moral depravity of fundamentalist Christians, a group of people that have no sense of right or wrong, but merely of obedience to a supernatural dictator. Scary.
rklewis2

I’m not sure what you intend by this passage. Do you mean that the Bible will remain in print and be read by generations to come? I’m sure you are right.

Not counting that you have your facts wrong, (ithe gap between the oral poem and its earliest copy is more like 500 years), the accuracy of the Bible’s manuscripts have nothing to do with the accuracy of its content. The Iliad and Odyssey are well-sourced documents, but the accuracy of the source material does not mean that the Greek gods and goddesses affected the outcome of the war nor does it confirm the existences of the main characters.

Why not?

Dude, if you believe in God, you have a religion–that’s what the word means.

47

Are you taking issue with God being evil, God being a motherfucker, or God being the source of all evil?
In order:
It is evil to do horrible things to people for no good reason.
God, being omnipotent, can acheive any effect without side effects.
Horrible things happen.
Because horribleness happens, it must be not because God cannot avoid it, but because he wants it.

The holy spirit is part of God.
Jesus is part of God.
The holy spirit inpregnated Mary.
Mary is the mother of God.
God is a motherfucker.

God created all things.
Evil exists.
God therefore created evil.

48

Nut.

Liar.

49

Does anyone deserve to be suckered into reading this thread?

It’s virtually indistinguishable from Hell, at least from the perspective of a rational being.

50

rklewis2,
I have a question about what you said. I know you can’t respond, since you’ve already gone 1 post over your self imposed limit, :slight_smile: but I’ll ask anyway.

(I added the bolding in the following quote.)

My question is, what happens to those who don’t “hear the gospel”?

51

Actually, original sin is more of a church doctrine. The Bible is clear we are not judged for the sins of our fathers. Not only that, but if we were born sinful, then children would not be innocent when they died, and they are. But to say we are born with a desire to sin may be more accurate.

Without the existence of God, there is no “evil” or “good” in an absolute sense. Everything is relative. The problem of evil does not negate the existence of God. It actually requires it. Is something evil because I think it’s evil? Is God unjust because I don’t think He’s just? By what do you measure this by if everything is relative?

Many assume that because evil still exists today, God has not dealt with it. How can atheists assume that God has not already solved the problem of evil in such a way that neither His goodness nor omnipotence is limited? On what grounds do they limit what God can and cannot do to solve the problem? God has already solved the problem of evil. And He did it in a way in which He did not contradict His nature or the nature of man. We assume God will solve the problem of evil in one single act. But why can’t He deal with evil in a progressive way? Can’t He deal with it throughout time as we know it, and then bring it to the climax on the Day of Judgment?

God sent His Son to die on the cross in order to solve the problem of evil. Christ atoned for evil and secured the eventual removal of all evil from the earth. One day evil will be quarantined in one spot called “hell.” Then there will be a perfect world devoid of all evil. If God declared that all evil would, at this moment, cease to exist, you and I and all of humanity would go up in a puff of smoke. Divine judgment demands that sin be punished.

52

[quote]

Without the existence of God, there is no “evil” or “good” in an absolute sense. Everything is relative. The problem of evil does not negate the existence of God. It actually requires it. Is something evil because I think it’s evil? Is God unjust because I don’t think He’s just? By what do you measure this by if everything is relative.

[/quotes]

Why do fundies never bother to read philosophy?

Hey, Svt4Him, philosophers and thinkers have been wrestling with the definition of evil from time out of mind, and they do not always require the existence of a supernatural entity to do so.

I would submit, however, that your Christian deity is not the answer. In the famous 10 Commandments, the first 4 are wasted on asserting Yahweh’s supremacy over other gods. Moreover, your God is immoral–He permits slavery, decrees genocide for people in conveniently occupying land the Israelites want,and demands the killing of children who sass their parents and people who eat shellfish.

53

wow, that clears it up. So philosophers can or can not define evil? Or they don’t know how to define it so therefore it exists? And thinkers…wow, who can argue if thinkers are involved, unlike the fundies who don’t think.

I would submit you’re wrong, and I already mentioned why God doesn’t judge evil right away.

54

In which way am I wrong? That evil can be defined in a non-theistic context? That your god is an immoral being? Please explain.

55

How, exactly, is it BS?

56

Please show me where it’s been rewritten, and please tell me how it’s constantly re-interpreted on Sundays. Not only that, but I don’t use the Bible to show why I believe in the Bible, although again it’s like not being able to look in the white house to prove the president is there. So it’s not circular, the Bible hasn’t been rewritten, and it’s not re-interpreted on Sunday, hence it’s bs.

57

The Bible as a whole may not have been rewritten (although individual books have been), but it has certainly been retranslated, and each translation puts a particular theological spin on the text, from the evangelical Good News Version to the more liberal Jerusalem Bible.
And, yes, it is re-interpreted on Sunday, unless you believe that every priest, minister, and pastor gets the exact same meaning out of a given Bible passage.

Moreover, the Bible is not one coherent work, but a collection of religious writings compiled over a millennium in many different countries by many different people. Each book has passed through the hands of priestly editors and redactors who have made their own emendations. Look at the books of Moses, which are generally agreed to have been the work of at least 4 different authors.

I know you’d like to believe that God handed Moses a copy of the KJV bound in black leather, but I assure you that the history of the Bible is far more complicated than the simpleminded version the fundie accounts depict.

58

Gobear, are you Orthodox? This is very close to the centuries-old Orthodox Christian critique of western-style sola scriptura.

59

No, not Orthodox, just a well-read heathen (although I was raised in the Orthodox Church’s evil twin, the RCC, which has much the same objections).

60

Yes, of course I do. :smack:

I just love the digs that are thrown into these posts.

As for the translations, don’t forget to add that the RCC also corrupted the original language, so we don’t have the ability to go back and see what was originally there, and also overlook the amount of manuscripts found, as well as the locations where they were found. Don’t mention that most translations are translated from the original. Now I also have a Russian Bible, and the amount of differences between the Russian Bible and mine are amazing, so then we should just discredit both of them.