The Biblical Realities of Hell

[edge]

When I said I don't know I was talking about the adultry part of your question.
The ranking in heaven is in there.
I'll be back in a little bit.

 

[edge]

there is no evidence of this in either time frame.
what now?

Sure there is you just can't accept it.

 

[bikerdruid]

Sure there is you just can't accept it.

biblical evidence....an oxymoron.
if jesus rose from the dead, and zombies were roaming the streets, i believe this would have been news worthy enough to be included in other contemporary accounts.
the gospels accounts are all second hand, at best. there are no eye-witness accounts.
there is no evidence.

 

[Paulhoff]

Jesus..............

I wish we could get you to understand that any so-called "Real Truth" needs no name to make it true, it will stand on its own merit.

That name carries with it no more credit with us than any other name you may want to use. To tell us you know Jesus only tells us that you need something to be true no matter if there is any real evidence for it or not. You in no way can know Jesus any more than I can know anyone else that I have only read about. What you know is only what you want Jesus to be, and there is no reason I and/or anyone else should believe that his is anything else than this.

As for hell, I can’t understand why in hell any so-called god that has everything would have to have anything it creates go to such a place. If any god needs that, it isn’t a god, and there needs nothing more to be said about that.


Paul

 

[edge]

So he figured since it would all come out in the wash, he wouldn't stop anybody from owning or beating their slaves, got it. Why actually go out of your way to help real people in real need, when you can just say, "Oh god will take care of them at some point. The poor and sick are so blessed by god!!" Do you ever think through the moral failings of your religion? If a religion were good or true, it wouldn't need so many apologists.
Just a note that this was in response to me asking you to clarify something you asserted: "There's indications that adulterers will get a raking in heaven (paraphrased)." It's okay for you to think something so ridiculous is true, but if you're going to say there's an indication of something, expect to be asked for evidence of any indications.
Except he wasn't. People thought he was. It doesn't happen often but it does happen that non-dead people are pronounced dead and placed in morgues. If they come out alive, then they were never actually dead.

When I say filthy sinners, I'm not talking about hygiene. The whole basic premise of Christianity is that all fall short of the glory of God, and they need a savior to wash away their sins. All are sinners, and a coveter is equally sinful as an adulterer or a mass murderer. If you have even one negative thought, that's the same as murder. If you look at someone with lust, you've committed adultery. Only through the grace of god can anybody get to heaven. The first step is admitting that you're a sinner, worthy only of death or hell, and only through god's grace (and your acceptance of a human sacrifice) can you make it to heaven.

Are you saying that most Christians are already sin-free? From my understanding, if you're free of sin, you get to go to heaven without accepting the human sacrifice.

Of course. This will all make sense later, and the churches can take all the money they want and never have to fulfill any promises to the people, because it will all make sense after everyone's dead. I'm honestly surprised that nobody has thought to sell automobiles or houses "for when you get to heaven." Just give me $10,000 and this car will be waiting for you at the pearly gates. Sadly, there are people who would fall for that.

I said:

All people who come to Christ are not all that filthy and there’s an example of that, when Jesus washes the feet of the disciples, “when peter asks why wash just my feet lord why not my hands or face?
The answer is why would you wash something that is already clean?
Most aren’t that dirty.
He also explains that a leader must also be a servant for the second or third time he explains this and then says you don’t understand this now but later you will.

Let see if I can clarify this part first.
I'm not talking about hygiene either.
Nor was he, since he told them that they would understand this later, it is because it had not taken place yet or was not in place yet till he was glorified.
Take care of what is truly wrong, the big things because most people have some morality.

Are you saying that most Christians are already sin-free? From my understanding, if you're free of sin, you get to go to heaven without accepting the human sacrifice.

No just that they aren't that bad when they accept Christ.
Good people accept Christ too and all of us have a reason to accept, some worst than others and some appear to be perfect but are not and some are either in a really bad spot and some are criminals and some are skeptics.
Being a skeptic isn't that bad but being atheistic and blasphemous is and probably worst than most other bad sins, filthy disgusting describes blasphemers.
Worst than being queer because there is no love in them.
Homosexuals are probably the most loving of all people in general.
Most are very funny too.

And

Originally Posted by edge
We are all in agreement with Jesus so I see no problem.

I see now that you're talking about all Christians, I guess being in agreement that they're all filthy disgusting sinners who need Jesus’ human sacrifice to save them from his self-daddy's punishment. Christians are certainly not in agreement when answering the question WWJD. You think he would be okay with your fornicating and drinking in moderation. Others think he wouldn't be accepting of any of those failings. Some think he's okay with being gay and others think he'd be the one to throw the first stone at the most morally repugnant of all - the homosexuals.

When I said being in agreement meaning they believe in the first important part accepting ...Christ...the translations of the rest of the bible is where the disagreement comes from, the reason for different churches.
As far as myself my partner we at this precise time and back moths ago are not fornicating as we both are over that, the only thing right now is the smoking of cigarettes.
We are as clean as we can be fasting away from adultery in a sense, the question is can we stay here and end it or get married?
I judge my self as she has done.
I have no idea about what the judgment is going to be with the most repugnant of sinners, I can only know about myself and try to fix it.
As far as drinking it’s written do things in moderation, except the fornicating.
If you do that then you are not like some one who says I love to drink.
I say I like to dink every once in a while, I don’t make it a habit as it was in the past.

You could say I love to have sex.
Sex is about love.
But there are those who are womanizers on purpose and count off their conquests.
They love sex not the person and throw the latest partner off like a rag for the next partner and that also happens in the homosexual community.
These people are in deep trouble.
They are not even trying.
I am not making excuses for me, because I still don’t know even as a Christian if I will not see you in Hell.
So we try to get better.

Now for the slave issue.
If Jesus was going to make a stand against it being that the Romans were the ones that enslaved the whole race of Hebrews in general and on a personal level, had he gone against the Romans at that time the whole plan of salvation for us would have been in jeopardy, a cause for justice, for that, slavery, at that time… would have made him guilty of sedition for that cause, which is not what would have made him totally innocent of what he was found unjustly guilty for at the precise time and plan of the Father.
To do that would have followed what the Zealots wanted and what Judas wanted.

I can’t believe you can’t see this?



I hope you all are having a great holiday and for the rest of the religious folks in here Happy Easter.

 

[edge]

biblical evidence....an oxymoron.
if Jesus rose from the dead, and zombies were roaming the streets, I believe this would have been news worthy enough to be included in other contemporary accounts.
The gospels accounts are all second hand, at best. There are no eye-witness accounts.
There is no evidence.

There is no such thing a Zombie?
Zombie is a man made concept that is not biblical at all?

Stop being an oxymoron.

I suspect that this is the point of the very first N.D.E.
Which would be the beginning of grace.
In these times these incidents have been examined and recognized for what it is.
If it was just a person’s imaginings or something that can be reproduced by us then why could not a God do it for what it was meant to be?
A witnessing of truth?
No one who has had one of these experiences comes back mindless or eating the flesh of other humans?
In actuality they are transformed into great believers and Christians even the most astute of atheists.
Whether they get to see heaven… or especially if they have had a glimpse of Hell.
Get your head out of the sand there is plenty of eyewitness accounts even today.

 

[Elizabeth I]

Now for the slave issue.
If Jesus was going to make a stand against it being that the Romans were the ones that enslaved the whole race of Hebrews in general and on a personal level, had he gone against the Romans at that time the whole plan of salvation for us would have been in jeopardy, a cause for justice, for that, slavery, at that time… would have made him guilty of sedition for that cause, which is not what would have made him totally innocent of what he was found unjustly guilty for at the precise time and plan of the Father.
To do that would have followed what the Zealots wanted and what Judas wanted.

This is one of the times I hate the autocensor, because there are a few posts for which the only possible answer is "********."

First, you are talking about GOD - according to you, the Creator of the Universe, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent. He can do anything he wants to, anyway he wants to. It's stupid to say that if Jesus had spoken against slavery, God's plan wouldn't have turned out the way he wanted it to, because, according to you, Jesus IS God, and by your definition of God anything that happens is because he either wanted it to happen or allowed it to happen.

Second, according to the story Jesus got crucified by the Romans regardless. Wouldn't it have sent a more glorious message if he had been crucified for opposing the whole cruel, oppressive structure of slavery, rather than for causing a civil unrest problem because of a piddling feud with the local religious establishment in a backwater province?

Seriously, edge, it seems as if you sometimes do try to reason. Try to think about this stuff sensibly and don't tell people that God Almighty couldn't make a plan turn out the way he wants it to. That's just a stupid thing to say.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Now for the slave issue.
If Jesus was going to make a stand against it being that the Romans were the ones that enslaved the whole race of Hebrews in general and on a personal level, had he gone against the Romans at that time the whole plan of salvation for us would have been in jeopardy, a cause for justice, for that, slavery, at that time… would have made him guilty of sedition for that cause, which is not what would have made him totally innocent of what he was found unjustly guilty for at the precise time and plan of the Father.
To do that would have followed what the Zealots wanted and what Judas wanted.

God<Roman Empire. Got it.

 

[Paulhoff]

There is no such thing a Zombie?
Zombie is a man made concept that is not biblical at all?

You have a problem with Zombies, but you think there was a guy that could come back after being dead for 3 days.............

Go figure.

Paul

 

[Paulhoff]

They love sex not the person and throw the latest partner off like a rag for the next partner and that also happens in the homosexual community.

That happens with all people that have different sexual orientation, what of it.

Paul

 

[Ladewig]

There is no such thing a Zombie?
Zombie is a man made concept that is not biblical at all?

Stop being an oxymoron.

I suspect that this is the point of the very first N.D.E.
Which would be the beginning of grace.
In these times these incidents have been examined and recognized for what it is.
If it was just a person’s imaginings or something that can be reproduced by us then why could not a God do it for what it was meant to be?
A witnessing of truth?
No one who has had one of these experiences comes back mindless or eating the flesh of other humans?
In actuality they are transformed into great believers and Christians even the most astute of atheists.
Whether they get to see heaven… or especially if they have had a glimpse of Hell.
Get your head out of the sand there is plenty of eyewitness accounts even today.

You are missing the point completely. The name of the event is irrelevant. The point was: why did no one else write down this event. People were placed in tombs - they walked out of these tombs and everyone saw them. Why didn't any other contemporaneous source record the event?

In fact, your description is even more troubling than the zombie one because now we have to wonder why none of the NDEers wrote down his or her story? Surely that would have been evidence to first century folk looking for a true religion.

 

[Sun Countess]

Being a skeptic isn't that bad but being atheistic and blasphemous is and probably worst than most other bad sins, filthy disgusting describes blasphemers.
Worst than being queer because there is no love in them.

I don't know if this post is more offensive to atheists or to homosexuals. Being atheist or blasphemous has no bearing on how loving a person is. You're atheistic and blasphemous where Islam is concerned, so should they be able to say you're not a loving person? You don't have to love any particular sky daddy to be able to love actual human beings.

Homosexuals are probably the most loving of all people in general.
Most are very funny too.

I don't know why you felt the need to write this, but I do enjoy the company of my gay and lesbian friends.

When I said being in agreement meaning they believe in the first important part accepting ...Christ...the translations of the rest of the bible is where the disagreement comes from, the reason for different churches.
As far as myself my partner we at this precise time and back moths ago are not fornicating as we both are over that, the only thing right now is the smoking of cigarettes.

So you're saying you don't have any other sins? Are you giving all your money to the poor? Are you thinking only loving thoughts toward your fellow man? I would argue that by saying that atheists have no love, you have committed a grave sin, according to your own rule book.

They love sex not the person and throw the latest partner off like a rag for the next partner and that also happens in the homosexual community.
These people are in deep trouble.
They are not even trying.

If these people are all single, and entering into consensual sexual relationships, who exactly are they hurting? Answer: They're not hurting anybody, least of all a long-dead Jesus or an imaginary god.

I am not making excuses for me, because I still don’t know even as a Christian if I will not see you in Hell.
So we try to get better.

You won't see anybody there, because you'll never be there. You won't be in heaven either, because they're both imaginary.

Now for the slave issue.
If Jesus was going to make a stand against it being that the Romans were the ones that enslaved the whole race of Hebrews in general and on a personal level, had he gone against the Romans at that time the whole plan of salvation for us would have been in jeopardy, a cause for justice, for that, slavery, at that time… would have made him guilty of sedition for that cause, which is not what would have made him totally innocent of what he was found unjustly guilty for at the precise time and plan of the Father.
To do that would have followed what the Zealots wanted and what Judas wanted.

I can’t believe you can’t see this?

What I can't see is how anybody would need to make excuses for why a supposedly omnipotent god can give people rules for owning other people or how he couldn't defeat the Roman empire, the same way he defeated Sodom and Gomorrah, or maybe the way he had his chosen people defeat Jericho. Just think how much more powerful it would have been for god to destroy Rome with fire and brimstone, when people were recording that empire's history, instead of just destroying a bunch of made-up cities. I wonder if he had anything to do with pushing Atlantis back into the ocean?

I hope you all are having a great holiday and for the rest of the religious folks in here Happy Easter.

I sincerely hope you're having a nice holiday too, edge. I've said before that I think you're a good guy. I hope you see that some of us blasphemous atheists are good people too, even if we never accept your particular brand of supernatural events.

 

[edge]

You have a problem with Zombies, but you think there was a guy that could come back after being dead for 3 days.............

Go figure.

Paul

I can't believe you can't discern the differences still?

 

[edge]

I don't know if this post is more offensive to atheists or to homosexuals. Being atheist or blasphemous has no bearing on how loving a person is. You're atheistic and blasphemous where Islam is concerned, so should they be able to say you're not a loving person? You don't have to love any particular sky daddy to be able to love actual human beings.
I don't know why you felt the need to write this, but I do enjoy the company of my gay and lesbian friends.


So you're saying you don't have any other sins? Are you giving all your money to the poor? Are you thinking only loving thoughts toward your fellow man? I would argue that by saying that atheists have no love, you have committed a grave sin, according to your own rule book.
If these people are all single, and entering into consensual sexual relationships, who exactly are they hurting? Answer: They're not hurting anybody, least of all a long-dead Jesus or an imaginary god.

You won't see anybody there, because you'll never be there. You won't be in heaven either, because they're both imaginary.
What I can't see is how anybody would need to make excuses for why a supposedly omnipotent god can give people rules for owning other people or how he couldn't defeat the Roman empire, the same way he defeated Sodom and Gomorrah, or maybe the way he had his chosen people defeat Jericho. Just think how much more powerful it would have been for god to destroy Rome with fire and brimstone, when people were recording that empire's history, instead of just destroying a bunch of made-up cities. I wonder if he had anything to do with pushing Atlantis back into the ocean?

I sincerely hope you're having a nice holiday too, edge. I've said before that I think you're a good guy. I hope you see that some of us blasphemous atheists are good people too, even if we never accept your particular brand of supernatural events.

Not all atheists are blasphemous, it's what comes out of everybodys mouth.
Do I have more sins?
What do you think?


I am just glancing at these responses be back later.

 

[Sun Countess]

Not all atheists are blasphemous, it's what comes out of everybodys mouth.
Do I have more sins?
What do you think?

I blaspheme the holy spirit. Even in the mythology, he's a bit of a despicable character, acting as god's henchman to rape the virgin Mary. Nowadays he only seems to act as a secret decoder ring, allowing Christians to properly understand and interpret the bible, and never noticing that they all interpret it according to their own internal compass, with no consistency across decoder rings.

As far as sins go, you have none. If you want to smoke and drink and fornicate, that's your choice, as a consenting adult human. No need to feel guilty that you're not living up to some invisible bogeyman's standards. You won't be asked to pay for those sins in the afterlife. They're not hurting anyone and give you a bit of fun, so what do you think about the type of person who wants to regulate how much and what kind of harmless fun other people should enjoy?

 

[bikerdruid]

Stop being an oxymoron.
.

 

[Paulhoff]

I can't believe you can't discern the differences still?

You have no problem with one fantasy, why do you have a problem with the other one, I can't believe you can't see how they are the same.

Paul

 

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

If you have free will to choose between good and evil, and it is the heart of original sin how can there be predestination?

A question to ask a Calvinist, not I.

My point is that there are two types of spiritual beings, from my perspective.
If a person is predestined like Jesus, to succeed and one has failed God like Satan.
Then it follows what you choose is what your predestined for.
Now which one is your God?

Neither, now what does that have to do with my analogy on personal revelation?

Clipped for brevity

I fail to see what this has to do with any point I've raised.

 

[MinnesotaBrant]

I believe hell to be in the form of an inverse human pyramid whereup the baddest guys go to the bottems while the good guys frolic on the tops. I include all life including paramecium so its likely to get a bit heavy if you a bad guy. And its not even just for guys. Other sexes can join in too! Nonsexual? No problem! It doesn't even last forever. Just two millenia. You will hardly notice it you will be having so much fun. Enjoy!

 

[edge]

I blaspheme the holy spirit. Even in the mythology, he's a bit of a despicable character, acting as god's henchman to rape the virgin Mary. Nowadays he only seems to act as a secret decoder ring, allowing Christians to properly understand and interpret the bible, and never noticing that they all interpret it according to their own internal compass, with no consistency across decoder rings.

As far as sins go, you have none. If you want to smoke and drink and fornicate, that's your choice, as a consenting adult human. No need to feel guilty that you're not living up to some invisible bogeyman's standards. You won't be asked to pay for those sins in the afterlife. They're not hurting anyone and give you a bit of fun, so what do you think about the type of person who wants to regulate how much and what kind of harmless fun other people should enjoy?

I agree it's not hurting anyone and is pleasurable and after many years it's ok to test the waters the other way.