"A free thinker is Satan's slave"

[Montrovant]

But your logic makes no sense... if I was a christian, but 'think freely' and decide that it's a bunch of hogwash, I therefore do not believe in a place called 'hell' anymore, therefore it is not an impediment from me quitting Christianity.

It's an impediment to reaching that point. I know, as I've been there. And compared to many, I had it easy, because of my background.

I was raised in an agnostic home. When I was twelve years old, I had my first spiritual experience and decided that my parents were wrong and had a limited view of reality. I became a Christian because that was the most readily-available model or religious metaphor around where I lived. For several years, I participated in Christianity, studying the Bible, praying, and so on.

When I began to question things, it was quite traumatic -- and that was exactly because of the fear of Hell, in which I had been taught to believe. It acted as a restraint, as a way of blocking out certain directions of thought.

I eventually did overcome it, of course. But I am certain that it would be much stronger for someone who was actually raised a traditional Christian and indoctrinated into the fear of Hell from as soon as he or she learned to talk.

In any case, the fact that some people are able to overcome the threat doesn't change the fact that the threat exists. And that is a serious indictment of traditional Christian doctrine, just as the fact that some people have overcome armed robbers doesn't make the would-be robber guiltless.

How is that an indictment? If it's true, it's true. Whether there is the threat of hell or not really has nothing to do with the truth of Christianity by itself. I could be reading you wrong, but you seem to be saying the idea of hell is evidence of Christianity being wrong or bad, because you don't like the concept.

Don't take this the wrong way, I consider the idea incompatible with that of a loving, merciful god, as I've stated before. I just tend to get annoyed when people judge the 'truth' of religious beliefs based on how 'nice' those beliefs are. I think it's just as likely, if a god exists, that we would consider that being to be a cruel, merciless bastard as that god would be loving and merciful. Whether or not I like or am comforted by the tenets of a religion has no bearing on it's accuracy.

Let me stop here before I go into a rant about unrelated things!

 

[koshergrl]

But your logic makes no sense... if I was a christian, but 'think freely' and decide that it's a bunch of hogwash, I therefore do not believe in a place called 'hell' anymore, therefore it is not an impediment from me quitting Christianity.

It's an impediment to reaching that point. I know, as I've been there. And compared to many, I had it easy, because of my background.

I was raised in an agnostic home. When I was twelve years old, I had my first spiritual experience and decided that my parents were wrong and had a limited view of reality. I became a Christian because that was the most readily-available model or religious metaphor around where I lived. For several years, I participated in Christianity, studying the Bible, praying, and so on.

When I began to question things, it was quite traumatic -- and that was exactly because of the fear of Hell, in which I had been taught to believe. It acted as a restraint, as a way of blocking out certain directions of thought.

I eventually did overcome it, of course. But I am certain that it would be much stronger for someone who was actually raised a traditional Christian and indoctrinated into the fear of Hell from as soon as he or she learned to talk.

In any case, the fact that some people are able to overcome the threat doesn't change the fact that the threat exists. And that is a serious indictment of traditional Christian doctrine, just as the fact that some people have overcome armed robbers doesn't make the would-be robber guiltless.

How is that an indictment? If it's true, it's true. Whether there is the threat of hell or not really has nothing to do with the truth of Christianity by itself. I could be reading you wrong, but you seem to be saying the idea of hell is evidence of Christianity being wrong or bad, because you don't like the concept.

Don't take this the wrong way, I consider the idea incompatible with that of a loving, merciful god, as I've stated before. I just tend to get annoyed when people judge the 'truth' of religious beliefs based on how 'nice' those beliefs are. I think it's just as likely, if a god exists, that we would consider that being to be a cruel, merciless bastard as that god would be loving and merciful. Whether or not I like or am comforted by the tenets of a religion has no bearing on it's accuracy.

Let me stop here before I go into a rant about unrelated things!

What he is saying is that the idea of hell is evidence of Christians trying to force others to believe.

He also claims that the concept of hell means that people aren't *free* to choose, which is just bad logic (and in fact is logical fallacy), as has been pointed out ad nauseum.

 

[Montrovant]

It's an impediment to reaching that point. I know, as I've been there. And compared to many, I had it easy, because of my background.

I was raised in an agnostic home. When I was twelve years old, I had my first spiritual experience and decided that my parents were wrong and had a limited view of reality. I became a Christian because that was the most readily-available model or religious metaphor around where I lived. For several years, I participated in Christianity, studying the Bible, praying, and so on.

When I began to question things, it was quite traumatic -- and that was exactly because of the fear of Hell, in which I had been taught to believe. It acted as a restraint, as a way of blocking out certain directions of thought.

I eventually did overcome it, of course. But I am certain that it would be much stronger for someone who was actually raised a traditional Christian and indoctrinated into the fear of Hell from as soon as he or she learned to talk.

In any case, the fact that some people are able to overcome the threat doesn't change the fact that the threat exists. And that is a serious indictment of traditional Christian doctrine, just as the fact that some people have overcome armed robbers doesn't make the would-be robber guiltless.

How is that an indictment? If it's true, it's true. Whether there is the threat of hell or not really has nothing to do with the truth of Christianity by itself. I could be reading you wrong, but you seem to be saying the idea of hell is evidence of Christianity being wrong or bad, because you don't like the concept.

Don't take this the wrong way, I consider the idea incompatible with that of a loving, merciful god, as I've stated before. I just tend to get annoyed when people judge the 'truth' of religious beliefs based on how 'nice' those beliefs are. I think it's just as likely, if a god exists, that we would consider that being to be a cruel, merciless bastard as that god would be loving and merciful. Whether or not I like or am comforted by the tenets of a religion has no bearing on it's accuracy.

Let me stop here before I go into a rant about unrelated things!

What he is saying is that the idea of hell is evidence of Christians trying to force others to believe.

He also claims that the concept of hell means that people aren't *free* to choose, which is just bad logic (and in fact is logical fallacy), as has been pointed out ad nauseum.

I believe that some Christians DO use the threat of hell as a way to try and get others to believe. I've seen it before, someone says, 'You need to accept Jesus as your lord and savior or you're going to burn in hell!' or something along those lines.

On the other hand, I think there's rarely any real attempt to 'force' anyone into belief; you have to be pretty foolish to think you can force a person to believe anything. At best you might 'force' someone to CLAIM belief, but you cannot make them truly believe.

There is also, of course, the argument that the truly devout are trying to save people they believe are on a path to eternal suffering. Of course, if one is trying to be compassionate, to feel empathy for your fellow man, etc. and you believe many people are going to suffer, you would expend at least a little effort to try and save them from it. It may annoy those of us who don't believe, but that doesn't negate the moral responsibility to try under those circumstances.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Which question?

Phrase it in English, we'll see if it makes sense. I doubt at this point if you even know what you're asking.

Okay.........I'll make it simple for you....................

Is it true that Christians consider anyone who follows a different religion than themselves such as Judaic, Buddhist or Hindu beliefs as someone who is going to be put in the pits of hell?

If so, why is it that Christians can consign people of different belief systems, who ALSO believe in Heaven and some version of hell, to be placed in the lake of fire?

 

[koshergrl]

We don't consign people anywhere.

See, there's no point in answering questions that are based upon FALSE PREMISE. You're asking me to defend a stance that I've never taken.

 

[Dragon]

How is that an indictment? If it's true, it's true. Whether there is the threat of hell or not really has nothing to do with the truth of Christianity by itself.

The "truth" of Christianity is not under discussion, at least not directly. What I'm saying on this thread is that traditional Christianity is anti-liberty. It is opposed to people using their brains freely and drawing logical conclusions. It attempts to put the mind in shackles.

Indirectly, one might argue, and I do, that putting the mind in shackles is hardly the way to find the truth. And one might argue that a religion which paints God as an abominable tyrant is very, very unlikely to be true.

Be that as it may, though, traditional Christianity is a religion that has no use for freedom, and that is the point I'm making here.

 

[koshergrl]

Being opposed to people using their brains, even if it were true, is not the same as being ANTI-LIBERTY, you fuckwit.
Again, it comes down to not understanding the language you choose to use.

Believing that people will go to hell if they choose to reject Christ is not anti-liberty. Because there's a CHOICE.

You claim that a choice you don't like is the same as no choice at all. Nope, wrong.

You insist on discussing matters when you don't even have the most basic understanding of what it is you're talking about. Why do you do that? Talk about something you know and understand. Do you have a hobby, perhaps? Besides wasting everybody's time with your vapid lunacy here?

 

[Montrovant]

A couple of quick responses.

First, I don't see any reason to expect that a god like that in Christianity would even have recognizable motives, let alone reason to expect those motives would be 'good' by human standards.

Second, while it is true there is a choice to believe or not, I think the point Dragon is making would be analogous to our laws. You have a choice to commit a crime or not, but the more actions you make criminal, the less liberty you have. For example, were the government to ban all gun ownership, that would be considered anti-liberty by most. However, people would still have the choice to own a gun. They would simply be punished if found with one. With Christianity (or other religions with a hell-like belief) you have the choice not to accept Jesus as your savior, but if you don't, you will be punished.

 

[koshergrl]

All I can do is continue to repeat.....all actions have consequences. dragon is promoting the idea that if there is justice, in this world or the next, then there can be no liberty.

Which is about as insane as you can get.

 

[Montrovant]

All I can do is continue to repeat.....all actions have consequences. dragon is promoting the idea that if there is justice, in this world or the next, then there can be no liberty.

Which is about as insane as you can get.

That is only true if you consider consignment to hell to be justice.

 

[logical4u]

Second, Liberty is essential to Christianity, traditional or otherwise.

I noted you capitalized the word "liberty," which is not properly capitalized except at the beginning of a sentence, and it's good that you did, because you are giving it an idiosyncratic definition, making it identical in meaning to free will.

Liberty and free will are not the same thing. Even a slave has free will: he cannot be literally FORCED to obey his master's commands. When we speak of denial of liberty, we mean that someone has been threatened with punishment for disobedience, and compelled to obey by threat of force; or, more subtly, we may mean someone has been brainwashed (usually with a threat of force in the background) to believe what his captors want him to believe.

Traditional Christianity includes the mother of all threats of force: a threat that, if you lapse in your beliefs, you will be horribly tortured forever and ever without end, screaming uncontrollably in hideous agony forever and ever and ever. As long as that threat remains in force within Christian belief, Christians will never be free in their beliefs. They will never have liberty.

Free will, yes. Liberty, no.

I disagree. No one has ever returned from "hell" to tell us how bad it will be if we do not tow the line. There are promises of "justice" for those that sin against the Lord (and to a lesser degree against man, remember the thief on the cross was promised heaven just for "believing"). That is, way different, than if you make your mom mad, you will burn in hell 'for all eternity'.
Christianity is the "belief" that we will receive the greatest prize: eternal life in the presence of the the Lord, being able to see His Father, and the Holy Spirit. To do that there are instructions for those that choose to ignore their "heart", the 10 Commandments. For those that choose to listen to their "heart", and try to follow the ways of Christ is a possibility to spend eternity in absolute ecstasy that will be given to those that do not "deserve" it, but believe it is possible.
Your attempts to align Christianity with slavery are... again, pitiful. I would say it is more like wanting to be the best at something (your life), and you have an opportunity to train under the best "coach" that ever lived; would you follow every tip, every pointer, every suggestion to be the "best"? Many choose to do that.

The majority choose to live life the easiest way possible, without considering the rewards they are missing by setting the highest goals: to be the best human, you can possibly be, and to encourage others to do their best also.... I find it amusing that those that resent Christianity, seem to be the most miserable, the saddest, the lonliest people that I meet. Those that accept Christ seem to be happier, roll with the punches, and promote well-being and happiness around them. Just my observations of living 5 or 6 different life experiences in my time here.

 

[logical4u]

Sorry, but traditional Christians do believe in Hell.

Now, if you want to nit-pick that they think you can temporarily lapse in your belief as long as you come back to the fold before you die, I'll allow that. But it doesn't invalidate what I was saying.

Guess it depends on how you define 'lapse' doesn't it?

No more Clinton's philandering depended on the meaning of "is." The fact remains that traditional Christians believe that non-Christians go to Hell and are tortured forever. That means they believe what they believe under threat of force. And that means in turn that they are not free.

IMHO, there are going to be a LOT of non-Christians that make it to heaven. When they see the Lord, they will know that He IS the TRUTH and the LIGHT that they have always searched for and accept Him as such. At that moment, they will be eligible for life eternal with Him, the Messiah. Each of us will be judged (especially Christians, because we "know" how we are supposed to act), and justice will be done (He is a JUST LORD). "Hell" is reserved for those that refuse to give the Lord, proper "honor". Think of it as going to court where the judge has to sentence you (and he can sentence you, as he pleases), you curse him and insult him; how do you think your sentence will be?

 

[Montrovant]

Guess it depends on how you define 'lapse' doesn't it?

No more Clinton's philandering depended on the meaning of "is." The fact remains that traditional Christians believe that non-Christians go to Hell and are tortured forever. That means they believe what they believe under threat of force. And that means in turn that they are not free.

IMHO, there are going to be a LOT of non-Christians that make it to heaven. When they see the Lord, they will know that He IS the TRUTH and the LIGHT that they have always searched for and accept Him as such. At that moment, they will be eligible for life eternal with Him, the Messiah. Each of us will be judged (especially Christians, because we "know" how we are supposed to act), and justice will be done (He is a JUST LORD). "Hell" is reserved for those that refuse to give the Lord, proper "honor". Think of it as going to court where the judge has to sentence you (and he can sentence you, as he pleases), you curse him and insult him; how do you think your sentence will be?

It won't be eternal!

 

[The Irish Ram]

Which question?

Phrase it in English, we'll see if it makes sense. I doubt at this point if you even know what you're asking.

Okay.........I'll make it simple for you....................

Is it true that Christians consider anyone who follows a different religion than themselves such as Judaic, Buddhist or Hindu beliefs as someone who is going to be put in the pits of hell?

If so, why is it that Christians can consign people of different belief systems, who ALSO believe in Heaven and some version of hell, to be placed in the lake of fire?

Their different systems leave Christ out of the equation. Christians believe that you go to the Father through the Son.

 

[logical4u]

Umm, yea, and the threat of eternal hell if you're accidentally wrong isn't a factor

So, you've just decided that you're going to hell because you're not a christian? That's the outcome of your train of thought.

No.

Let me walk you through it really slow.

you're a "maybe christianity is true, maybe it isn't" person.

you read text and learn if you dont accept Christ, you go to hell for eternity.

you fear that hell MIGHT BE.

thus, you accept christ.

that is a means of behavior control, and works very well on the gullible.

You would not be a "Christian". You would be "lukewarm" (no passion), and would be rejected (spit out) by the Lord.

What happened to free thinking? Why would anyone believe they would be punished for not believing according to a religion (except islam were the "believers kill you)?

Christians do not believe to avoid punishment, they believe because the reward is beyond anything we can comprehend (Satan tempted the Savior with wealth, power, and other earthly things, He rejected them. He had been in his Father's presence and did not want those things Satan offered if it meant NOT being with His Father for all eternity). Just a thought....

 

[koshergrl]

All I can do is continue to repeat.....all actions have consequences. dragon is promoting the idea that if there is justice, in this world or the next, then there can be no liberty.

Which is about as insane as you can get.

That is only true if you consider consignment to hell to be justice.

Precisely.

If you don't believe, the point is moot because you can't be punished.

Which is exactly why dragon is such a lame ass debater.

 

[Avatar4321]

All I can do is continue to repeat.....all actions have consequences. dragon is promoting the idea that if there is justice, in this world or the next, then there can be no liberty.

Which is about as insane as you can get.

It's not only insane. It's completely backwards, because if there is no justice there can be no liberty.

 

[koshergrl]

Bingo.

 

[G.T.]

Hell is not Justice.

 

[Dragon]

Hell is not Justice.

Precisely. Sentencing someone to eternal torture for -- well, anything, really -- but certainly for using his mind as designed, is the antithesis of justice.