Misc. Hell Responses

Originally posted by lemon lime
How convenient. So, you enjoy the luxury of peddling your own ideology (under the guise of questioning someone else) without feeling any onus of having to explain yourself... so what's the problem FMF, too lazy to engage or too small minded to deal with it?

sonship is proseltyzing various dogmatic notions ~ and truth claims about the reality that affects me ~ based on his personal superstitions and his subscription to ancient Hebrew mythology, and he is doing this in public on a debate and discussion and debate forum. I am not proseltyzing anything, nor do I have to in order to question sonship.

Originally posted by lemon lime
What exactly do you mean by 'coherence'? Do you mean coherent in that it all fits together, or coherent in the sense that it's understandable? I do not believe simply disagreeing with you and dive is able to constitute incoherence, so what definition of 'coherence' applies here?

The question is what is the moral basis for such a demented and grotesque punishment for a lack of belief. Just declaring that torture is "perfect justice" does not lend the notion any coherence.

Originally posted by lemon lime
Winnowing out what you and dive find personally offensive does not demonstrate [b]co-herence. Or how about deciding for yourselves what is literal or not in spite of evidence to the contrary (page 15 Thread 164162). Do you honestly think your own self determined interpretations based on personal preferences can any way demonstrate 'coherency'?[/b]

The issue here is that sonship cannot in "any way demonstrate coherency". He is the one who is making the extraordinary claims about 'reality' for billions and billions of humans, not me. I don't find sonship's ideology "offensive" at all. We are debating the contents of his imagination. There is not one jot of evidence that any human ever has, is, or ever will be kept 'alive' and tortured for eternity for not subscribing to one particular religion.

Originally posted by FMF
sonship is proseltyzing various dogmatic notions ~ and truth claims about the reality that affects me ~ based on his personal superstitions and his subscription to ancient Hebrew mythology, and he is doing this in public on a debate and discussion and debate forum. I am not proseltyzing anything, nor do I have to in order to question sonship.

...truth claims about the reality that affects me

So which is it?
1.) it's true and it affects you
2.) it's not true and does not affect you

It can't be both, it has to be either one or the other.

Originally posted by lemon lime
...if hell is morally[/i] wrong, then how can heaven be morally[/i] right?

There is no reason to believe that an afterlife exists. What is being questioned here is the ludicrous man made concept that the beliefs of non-believers can somehow be modified by threats of stupendously vindictive revenge that they don't even believe in, and have not been given convincing reasons to believe in. If the nature of the supernatural revenge is morally sound in your estimation ~ I realize that you have only believed in it for a few days ~ then it is your case to make.

Originally posted by lemon lime
So which is it?
1.) it's true and it affects you
2.) it's not true and does not affect you

It can't be both, it has to be either one or the other.

It doesn't make any sense. It is a depraved ideology. It is a set of morally abhorrent ideas. If sonship wishes to parade such grotesque concepts of "justice" and "glory" on a debate and discussion forum, they will get scrutinized and called out for what they are.

Originally posted by FMF
There is no reason to believe that an afterlife exists. What is being questioned here is the ludicrous man made concept that the beliefs of non-believers can somehow be modified by threats of stupendously vindictive revenge that they don't even believe in, and have not been given convincing reasons to believe in. If the nature of revenge is morally sound in your ...[text shortened]... ion ~ I realize that you have only believed in it for a few days ~ then it is your case to make.

So I take this to mean you believe the warning (of hell) is only a threat, in order to modify the behavior of people. I personally believe such a threat would drive people away rather than draw them in, but maybe I only believe this because I'm not particularly influenced by threats... I think it's a good idea to heed warnings, but it's also good to not be ruled by fear.

It's also useful to note that most warnings are not threats employed to simply modify behavior for some nefarious reason. If you're driving at night on a winding road and you see a sign that says the bridge ahead of you is washed out, what evidence do you have that this is true? Or will you presume the sign was simply put up to discourage people from continuing on, and ignore the warning as an obvious 'threat' meant only to cause fear? Automatically assuming warnings are threats is a sure way of setting yourself up for an eventual fall.

Originally posted by FMF
It doesn't make any sense. It is a depraved ideology. It is a set of morally abhorrent ideas. If sonship wishes to parade such grotesque concepts of "justice" and "glory" on a debate and discussion forum, they will get scrutinized and called out for what they are.

Okay, so I take it this means your answer to my question is number 2. See, that wasn't so hard...

There was a third possible answer (the answer being that you don't know) but you seem pretty sure of yourself, and I can't imaging you portraying yourself as someone who doesn't know something.

Originally posted by lemon lime
Okay, so I take it this means your answer to my question is number 2. See, that wasn't so hard...

There was a third possible answer (the answer being that you don't know) but you seem pretty sure of yourself, and I can't imaging you portraying yourself as someone who doesn't know something.

Have you decided whether or not you believe there will be literal eternal suffering at the hands of God?

Originally posted by FMF
There is no reason to believe that an afterlife exists. What is being questioned here is the ludicrous man made concept that the beliefs of non-believers can somehow be modified by threats of stupendously vindictive revenge that they don't even believe in, and have not been given convincing reasons to believe in. If the nature of the supernatural revenge is mora ...[text shortened]... ion ~ I realize that you have only believed in it for a few days ~ then it is your case to make.

If the nature of the supernatural revenge is morally sound in your estimation ~ I realize that you have only believed in it for a few days ~ then it is your case to make.

It's statements like this that work to undercut your arguments and undermine your own credibility. First you call the natural consequences of rejecting God 'revenge', then you presume this unique interpretation of yours is something I've only believed for a few days. Aren't you the least bit interested in anything being discussed here, or are you hopelessly stuck in some kind of permanent attack mode?

Originally posted by whodey
What kind of punishment do will you sentence him to king Poseidon?

Pain free of course.

Have you decided whether you are a believer in the teaching of god torturing people for eternity? Or do you like to just make silly comments in the middle of a thread about, from a Christian perspective, the most serious topic facing humanity.

Originally posted by sonship
Presently, I am persuaded that limited years of one's sinning may not be the reason for unlimited eternity of punishment. But eternal sinning among the lost calls for eternal suffering if the being separated from God is endless in existence.

If I say it is unjust for God to inflict eternal suffering solely because of men's past acts on earth, that would ...[text shortened]... time. You shrug. We say there is nothing more important and we should hear Him and believe Him.

What on earth are you waffling on about here?

It seems to me that you use these long posts as a sort of debating defense mechanism, if the reader can actually be bothered to wade through the reams of blurb, they will find at least half of it to be empty a string of nonsensical burbling rhetoric.

Originally posted by divegeester
Have you decided whether or not you believe there will be literal eternal suffering at the hands of God?

Have you decided whether or not to take the subject seriously enough to stop playing childish games with it?

Instead of going over each and every little thing you disagree with and find offensive with Christian belief, why not just simply tell us what you do agree with? I suspect the list of what you do find agreeable among doctrinal beliefs will be much shorter than everything else that offends you.

Originally posted by lemon lime

It's statements like this that work to undercut your arguments and undermine your own credibility. First you call the natural consequences of rejecting God 'revenge', then you presume this unique interpretation of yours is something I've only believed for a few days.

It is sonship who has characterized his God figure's action as "revenge". I am simply using the terminology sonship himself has used to explain his own ideology.

...you presume this unique interpretation of yours is something I've only believed for a few days.

OK, well, yes this brings us to your brand new belief. You are a 65 year old Christian who has been a Christian for 40 or more years. Thirteen days ago, you suddenly decided that you now believe non-believers are tortured for eternity as a punishment for their lack of belief. Now, you've only believed this for 13 days, I know, but that's very nearly two weeks, so why don't you make the case as to why such a demented kind of "revenge" represents something morally sound and "perfect justice"?

Originally posted by lemon lime
Have you decided whether or not to take the subject seriously enough to stop playing childish games with it?

Instead of going over each and every little thing you disagree with and find offensive with Christian belief, why not just simply tell us what you do agree with? I suspect the list of what you [b]do find agreeable among doctrinal beliefs will be much shorter than everything else that offends you.[/b]

This kind of undisguised evasion reminds me of josephw. 😉