The Fear Of God

Originally posted by KellyJay
So according to you, if the herd says X is moral, it is moral because that
what all the people around you says is moral. Sort of a sliding scale in
my opinion that can never be wrong, no matter who or what get hurt, or
how it goes against what would or could be thought of as wrong at some
other place or time. Yea, I'd say I'd reject a never changing God's
standards too if I were you, you'd be condemned no doubt about it.
Kelly

If you need religionist literature to stop you from harming people, deceiving them or coercing them, then that is a matter for you. I welcome your morally sound behaviour [assuming you are morally sound, that is].

Originally posted by whodey
It is all about perspective.

If sin is what bring about torture and pain and death, should it not be destroyed?

If sin is destroyed, where does that leave the sinner? Jesus endured torture for our sakes in order that we might escape.

Again, I'm sure Adam thought it no big deal to partake of the "fruit". But as we can plainly see today, it was a huge mistake. Those that persist will have to be dealt with. God will not force them to repent.

An answer to my point about deterrence would have been more interesting. You sound like you are writing stuff without any regard for what is in the post you are responding to. Use 'Reply' instead of 'Reply and Quote'.

Originally posted by whodey
If sin is what bring about torture and pain and death, should it not be destroyed?

How does torturing "sinners" ~ for eternity, AFTER they die ~ destroy "sin"? What effect has 2,000 years of torturing "sinners" for eternity in the afterlife supposedly had on the amount of "sin" in the world? Is it being "destroyed"? It seems to me that picking at any thread of your theology makes it unravel. Far from seeming "divinely inspired", it comes across as if you haven't thought it through at all.

Originally posted by FMF
How does torturing "sinners" ~ for eternity, AFTER they die ~ destroy "sin"? What effect has 2,000 years of torturing "sinners" for eternity in the afterlife supposedly had on the amount of "sin" in the world? Is it being "destroyed"? It seems to me that picking at any thread of your theology makes it unravel. Far from seeming "divinely inspired", it comes across as if you haven't thought it through at all.

Those that side against God side against the only entity which gives them life, which gives them peace, which gives them love etc. Such an existence is hell.

These people will suffer regardless. The only hope is for those who side with such a God.

Sinners in hell don't have any bearing on people who live on earth, but sending them there instead of the new heaven and new earth will prevent them from rebellion there as well.

Originally posted by whodey
Sinners in hell don't have any bearing on people who live on earth, but sending them there instead of the new heaven and new earth will prevent them from rebellion there as well.

What is the hypothetical purpose of holding them in a state of perpetual torture as opposed to destroying them forever? How is the purported prospect of this supposed to have any psychological effect on people who don't believe the threat is real and don't believe the state of perpetual torture exists?

Originally posted by whodey
Those that side against God side against the only entity which gives them life, which gives them peace, which gives them love etc. Such an existence is hell.

You've dodged the question. How does torturing "sinners" for eternity, AFTER they have died, destroy "sin" on earth in our lifetimes?

Originally posted by FMF
If you need religionist literature to stop you from harming people, deceiving them or coercing them, then that is a matter for you. I welcome your morally sound behaviour [assuming you are morally sound, that is].

You need something beyond your own lust and desires to show you what
is and is not acceptable behavior.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
You need something beyond your own lust and desires to show you what
is and is not acceptable behavior.
Kelly

Well I have explained clearly how I have something other than ~ or "beyond" ~ my "own lust and desires" to guide me towards "what is and is not acceptable behavior". I realize you have accused me of having a life that is "full of evil" on this thread, so you should bear in mind that, to my way of thinking, this places a question mark over your emotional intelligence ~ your angry personalized taunts in cyberspace, and your resort to passive aggressive demeanour when people pin you down on what you mean, being just two examples ~ and this makes me disinclined to take any philosophizing or lecturing from you on my "morality" seriously. You are person whose morality is rooted in Iron Age mythology. I will judge you by your interpersonal fruits and not by the superstitions that scare you into acting in a morally sound way, if indeed you do.

Originally posted by KellyJay
You need something beyond your own lust and desires to show you what
is and is not acceptable behavior.
Kelly

Are you speaking to just FMF or everyone?

Can you prove or justify the statement?

What is "acceptable behaviour"?

Brownie points for attempting to answer 2 of those. 😀