Who goes to heaven?

[IDK]

God is forgiving of a person's sins, correct?

This pertains to the religions that use various interpretations of the New Testament.

Man #1- Never accepted Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior. Simply didn't believe all the far-fetched stories included in the Bible. He did, however, devote his life to the aid of the misfortunate. His work included the construction of schools where children were once uneducated. The construction of hospitals where people died of preventable diseases. He did this all without committing the sins of the common devout Christian, who merely begs forgiveness. He dies of natural causes, an atheist.

Man #2- Was intrusive, self-absorbed and struck hard with greed. He was an alcoholic and addicted to whatever high he could find. To pay his bills and drug dealers, he committed robberies on houses in rich developments, often trashing them just for excitement. A near death experience actually opens his eyes to God and he accepts him as his savior, cleansing himself of his sins and his drug use. He dies soon after, not committing one sin after his "rebirth."

So, which goes to heaven and which deserves to go to heaven?

[poly_nightmare]

Man #1- Never accepted Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior. Simply didn't believe all the far-fetched stories included in the Bible. He did, however, devote his life to the aid of the misfortunate. His work included the construction of schools where children were once uneducated. The construction of hospitals where people died of preventable diseases. He did this all without committing the sins of the common devout Christian, who merely begs forgiveness. He dies of natural causes, an atheist.

He, unforunately, would likely end of in purgatory, but there would be people who would say he would go to hell for not believing in God.

Man #2- Was intrusive, self-absorbed and struck hard with greed. He was an alcoholic and addicted to whatever high he could find. To pay his bills and drug dealers, he committed robberies on houses in rich developments, often trashing them just for excitement. A near death experience actually opens his eyes to God and he accepts him as his savior, cleansing himself of his sins and his drug use. He dies soon after, not committing one sin after his "rebirth."

Here's the scary thing, according to the Catholic Church, at least what I was told a year ago, that this person would go to heaven because was reborn and left behind his old life and embraced Christ and God.

My question is: what exactly is heaven? Is heaven the same thing for everyone? I personally do not believe in hell. I think that everyone goes somewhere, other than six feet under the ground. Everyone has their own view of heaven and when you die if you have lived a good life, then you will wind up there.

[Craig]

God is forgiving of a person's sins, correct?

This pertains to the religions that use various interpretations of the New Testament.

Man #1- Never accepted Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior. Simply didn't believe all the far-fetched stories included in the Bible. He did, however, devote his life to the aid of the misfortunate. His work included the construction of schools where children were once uneducated. The construction of hospitals where people died of preventable diseases. He did this all without committing the sins of the common devout Christian, who merely begs forgiveness. He dies of natural causes, an atheist.

Man #2- Was intrusive, self-absorbed and struck hard with greed. He was an alcoholic and addicted to whatever high he could find. To pay his bills and drug dealers, he committed robberies on houses in rich developments, often trashing them just for excitement. A near death experience actually opens his eyes to God and he accepts him as his savior, cleansing himself of his sins and his drug use. He dies soon after, not committing one sin after his "rebirth."

So, which goes to heaven and which deserves to go to heaven?

As I understand from Christians, no one "deserves" to go to heaven because of our actions on earth. We're all sinners who fall miserably and hopelessly short, so your example isn't a matter of who deserves and who does not, but rather an example of degrees of severity in terms of evil.

This is a necessary premise however, because if it was implied that it was possible to be good enough to go to heaven on one's own, divine grace would not be necessary, and therefore we would not need to look to God for salvation. In effect, we must fall short- because if we don't, there's no need for Christianity.

[towski]

Who goes to heaven?

Puppies, little girls with blond curls & big giant lollipops, and republicans.

Next Question.

(oh and btw, those big giant lollipops are called lollapaloozas. who knew?)

[Blueangel]

Here's the scary thing, according to the Catholic Church, at least what I was told a year ago, that this person would go to heaven because was reborn and left behind his old life and embraced Christ and God.
As an extremely lapsed Catholic who recently lost her mother, please forgive me for my views.

If there is a heaven, you instinctively know who is there.
If the one's you've loved most in this life aren't there, then there's absolutely no point in persuing a heavenly home.
When the time comes...and I hope that isn't for a good few decades yet....I want to be where my mum, dad and dogs are. I don't care what the place is refered to. Wherever it is, it will feel like home.

[Seth928]

Don't you watch South Park? The Mormons and the Mormons only.

[Sauniere]

Who goes to heaven?

Puppies, little girls with blond curls & big giant lollipops, and republicans.

Next Question.

(oh and btw, those big giant lollipops are called lollapaloozas. who knew?)

You definitely ain't going there! ;)

If you don't believe then it makes no sense how you could go there, whatever or wherever that might be. If you believe, but are lapsed, and the only reason you seek God is the hope that there is a heaven and that you will end up there, well, you don't deserve to be there, but maybe God is that forgiving and will let you in anyhow. This is all theoretically speaking of course… :devil:

[julierep]

As I understand from Christians, no one "deserves" to go to heaven because of our actions on earth. We're all sinners who fall miserably and hopelessly short, so your example isn't a matter of who deserves and who does not, but rather an example of degrees of severity in terms of evil.

This is a necessary premise however, because if it was implied that it was possible to be good enough to go to heaven on one's own, divine grace would not be necessary, and therefore we would not need to look to God for salvation. In effect, we must fall short- because if we don't, there's no need for Christianity.

Correct.

[heel31ok]

God is forgiving of a person's sins, correct?

This pertains to the religions that use various interpretations of the New Testament.

Man #1- Never accepted Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior. Simply didn't believe all the far-fetched stories included in the Bible. He did, however, devote his life to the aid of the misfortunate. His work included the construction of schools where children were once uneducated. The construction of hospitals where people died of preventable diseases. He did this all without committing the sins of the common devout Christian, who merely begs forgiveness. He dies of natural causes, an atheist.

Man #2- Was intrusive, self-absorbed and struck hard with greed. He was an alcoholic and addicted to whatever high he could find. To pay his bills and drug dealers, he committed robberies on houses in rich developments, often trashing them just for excitement. A near death experience actually opens his eyes to God and he accepts him as his savior, cleansing himself of his sins and his drug use. He dies soon after, not committing one sin after his "rebirth."

So, which goes to heaven and which deserves to go to heaven?

there is only one thing that determines heaven or not, that is acceptance or rejection of Christ's death for you. No good works or a good life gains salvation though it is a symptom of a redeemed life.
#2 accepted Christ and was accepted in the beloved which is not limited but is open for all who believe. If you are going by the christian belief.

[cpwill]

God is forgiving of a person's sins, correct?

This pertains to the religions that use various interpretations of the New Testament.

Man #1- Never accepted Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior. Simply didn't believe all the far-fetched stories included in the Bible. He did, however, devote his life to the aid of the misfortunate. His work included the construction of schools where children were once uneducated. The construction of hospitals where people died of preventable diseases. He did this all without committing the sins of the common devout Christian, who merely begs forgiveness. He dies of natural causes, an atheist.

:shrug: and he remains a sinner. you can't "earn" something you are not.

Man #2- Was intrusive, self-absorbed and struck hard with greed. He was an alcoholic and addicted to whatever high he could find. To pay his bills and drug dealers, he committed robberies on houses in rich developments, often trashing them just for excitement. A near death experience actually opens his eyes to God and he accepts him as his savior, cleansing himself of his sins and his drug use. He dies soon after, not committing one sin after his "rebirth."

:shrug: sounds like me :) this man, sounds like the thief on Jesus side, to whom he said "today you shall be with me in paradise."

So, which goes to heaven and which deserves to go to heaven?

neither deserve to go to heaven.

[cpwill]

Don't you watch South Park? The Mormons and the Mormons only.

Hey! Let's go put on a skit about how alcoholism hurts the family! :D

[poly_nightmare]

All I know is I'm going to hell.

Figure of speech of course.

[JoeR]

there is only one thing that determines heaven or not, that is acceptance or rejection of Christ's death for you. No good works or a good life gains salvation though it is a symptom of a redeemed life.
#2 accepted Christ and was accepted in the beloved which is not limited but is open for all who believe. If you are going by the christian belief.

The christian god strikes me as childish.

[cpwill]

perhaps then that is because you are a child. :)

[JoeR]

perhaps then that is because you are a child. :)

Worship me, believe in me, or burn for eternity. What does that sound like to you?

[poly_nightmare]

Worship me, believe in me, or burn for eternity. What does that sound like to you?

The Bush Administration??? :lol:

[Craig]

The Bush Administration??? :lol:

:eek: :laughter: :rofl:

[cpwill]

:) it doesn't sound like God. God sounds more like "choose heaven or choose hell, but please choose heaven."

[JoeR]

:) it doesn't sound like God. God sounds more like "choose heaven or choose hell, but please choose heaven."

Of all people, you seem like you would hate doublespeak.

[cpwill]

??? this isn't double speak; you have the choice. however, the notion that it is better to rule in hell than serve in heaven seems to be a powerful draw among people.

[IDK]

??? this isn't double speak; you have the choice. however, the notion that it is better to rule in hell than serve in heaven seems to be a powerful draw among people.
Then it is entrapment.

[cpwill]

how in the world is it entrapment if you have the choice?

[Blueangel]

Correct.
There's a right and wrong answer to that?!!

My ex husband used to say that nothing I ever did was ever good enough, but that was officially described as 'abuse'. :rolleyes:

[IDK]

how in the world is it entrapment if you have the choice?
Maybe more of a cruel test, but you set up temptations in the form of sex and drugs, equip us with natural feelings of hate and selfishness, place us in a world of cruelty and readily accepted slaughter, then expect us to make the "right" decision based on a book which lacks reputability, and even still deserve hell despite the fact that they found the right path through their own accord? Also, it is disgusting to think that good people deserve hell because they did not accept theocracy.

[IDK]

Also, you said neither deserve to go to heaven. This is your assumption? Seems like one is going to go, but you hold contempt for the man who doesn't conform?

[Aly Liz]

there is only one thing that determines heaven or not, that is acceptance or rejection of Christ's death for you. No good works or a good life gains salvation though it is a symptom of a redeemed life.
#2 accepted Christ and was accepted in the beloved which is not limited but is open for all who believe. If you are going by the christian belief.

No. There is not only one thing that determines heaven or not. You have to live by Gods word and be able to know a Christian not by the cross they wear or how often they go to church but by their actions. Just going to church doesnt do it. Just accepting Jesus doesnt do it, just reading the bible doesnt do it, just doing good doesnt do it. Its all these things combined. You have to live through God and live according to his word.

[JoeR]

No. There is not only one thing that determines heaven or not. You have to live by Gods word and be able to know a Christian not by the cross they wear or how often they go to church but by their actions. Just going to church doesnt do it. Just accepting Jesus doesnt do it, just reading the bible doesnt do it, just doing good doesnt do it. Its all these things combined. You have to live through God and live according to his word.

Depends which christian you ask, but I'd agree that both faith and works are necessary, if any of it is true. If it was just faith alone, as some protestants believe, passages like James 2:24 and Matthew 25:34-45 wouldn't make any sense

[eugene40]

I think if God really existed,, he would have sent someone,,, ANYONE that can give a good explanation of why we should believe in him and follow some sort of stupid path. I think it is rather lame,,, you should live your life the way you see fit and if there is a god,,, then bugger him if he doesn't like it.

[cpwill]

Maybe more of a cruel test

not necessarily, we are given every chance to succeed, and if we fail the test we can still pass the course.

but you set up temptations in the form of sex and drugs

A) nothing wrong with having a desire for sex. it's artificial twisting of that desire where it becomes temptation to sin.
B) who created and sells the drugs?

equip us with natural feelings of hate and selfishness

and with feelings of love and selflessness and equip us with the ability to choose between the two.

place us in a world of cruelty and readily accepted slaughter

it's such only because we make it so.

then expect us to make the "right" decision based on a book which lacks reputability

A) we are expected to make the right decision based on a good bit more than just the book; what do you think concience is, anyway?
B) who is it that doesn't give the book reputability?

and even still deserve hell despite the fact that they found the right path through their own accord?

only one person in the history of the world has ever managed to find the right path of their own accord.

Also, it is disgusting to think that good people deserve hell because they did not accept theocracy.

why is it disgusting to think that people who refuse to acknowledge the presence and rule of God will choose not to live in the presence and rule of God?

[cpwill]

I think if God really existed,, he would have sent someone,,, ANYONE that can give a good explanation of why we should believe in him and follow some sort of stupid path.

:) he's sent many someones'. it's not their fault if you choose not to listen, or search hungrily for the merest flaw on which you can pounce to denounce the entire message.

I think it is rather lame,,, you should live your life the way you see fit and if there is a god,,, then bugger him if he doesn't like it.

now here's the question; does rejecting God hurt Him??? or hurt You?.

[cpwill]

Depends which christian you ask, but I'd agree that both faith and works are necessary, if any of it is true. If it was just faith alone, as some protestants believe, passages like James 2:24 and Matthew 25:34-45 wouldn't make any sense

:) and yet if it were works and faith, Romans 3:28, Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. Romans 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ Matthew 9:29 Then touched he their eyes, saying, According to your faith be it unto you. Romans 9:32Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone Galations 3:11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. Galatians 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. Philipians 3:9 And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith: and Hebrews 10:38 Now the just shall live by faith make no sense.

[eugene40]

[QUOTE]:) he's sent many someones'. it's not their fault if you choose not to listen, or search hungrily for the merest flaw on which you can pounce to denounce the entire message.
Well if they were convincing and had the divine behind them... there would be little choice but to hear them. :D Because their words would be like music and the animals would come to hear them and yada yada blah blah blah... Can't think of anyone that fits that.



now here's the question; does rejecting God hurt Him??? or hurt You?.
Well since he is the one that gets pissed and sends you to hell I would say it hurts both. If his feelings are hurt enough to send someone there then it leads the belief again to the petulant child that doesn't get his way. But personally I lend no creedance to the catholic version of what hell is suppose to be.. It is completely contradictory of who satan is suppose to be. Personally I think hell is merely the absence of god... that to a christian would truly be hell.. to an aetheist would be heaven. ;)

[JoeR]

:) and yet if it were works and faith, Romans 3:28, Romans 5:1 Matthew 9:29 Romans 9:32 Galations 3:11 Galatians 3:24 Philipians 3:9 and Hebrews 10:38 make no sense.

Then you have preordination, which doesn't make any sense at all. Is there even a biblical justification for it?

[Ophelia]

Then you have preordination, which doesn't make any sense at all. Is there even a biblical justification for it?

I think you're talking about predestination. Here's what the Holman Bible Dictionary has to say about it:

http://www.studylight.org/dic/hbd/view.cgi?number=T5089

[JoeR]

Yeah, predestination. My bad.

I would think something like purgatory would make more sense than everlasting flames. That is unjust punishment for all but the most vile.

[cpwill]

Then you have preordination, which doesn't make any sense at all. Is there even a biblical justification for it?

some, but it's tricky to make the two mesh.

[JoeR]

Sounds like Calvin did a lot of cherry-picking

[Aly Liz]

I think if God really existed,, he would have sent someone,,, ANYONE that can give a good explanation of why we should believe in him and follow some sort of stupid path. I think it is rather lame,,, you should live your life the way you see fit and if there is a god,,, then bugger him if he doesn't like it.

Have you ever heard of Jesus Christ? I think its a rather obivious answer.

And if you think then path is so stupid then you dont have to follow it. But good luck buring in hell.

[JoeR]

And if you think then path is so stupid then you dont have to follow it. But good luck buring in hell.

This is exactly the kind of sentiment that I would never attribute to any supreme being.

[Tuatara]

Nobody. There is no heaven. Next question.

[Sauniere]

All I know is I'm going to hell.

Figure of speech of course.

Hey, I'm right behind you!

Uh, figure of speech, of course.... :flowers:

[dittohead not!]

Both people in your example would go to heaven, of course, because both died as good people, the kind you would want to share heaven with.

Did you believe that heaven was only for the gullible?

Now, here's a third person. He didn't believe in an afterlife at all. He lived the life of a rounder, totally self absorbed, left a wife and child to fend for themselves while he gambled and drank. He spent all of his life pursuing selfish pleasures, then died unrepentant. Much to his amazement, only his body died, not his spirit. On the other side, he saw his parents and other relatives who had passed on before him. When his life flashed before his eyes, he saw how wrong he had been, and begged for forgiveness.

All of the relatives had been just people who lived good lives.

Would they forgive him and let him in with them?
Is there an unforgiving god who wouldn't let them do so?

[eugene40]

Have you ever heard of Jesus Christ? I think its a rather obivious answer.

Ha,,, do you have anyone that actually have been proven to exist beyond a reasonable doubt, as well as including viable proof that said person is actually the son of God. please.

And if you think then path is so stupid then you dont have to follow it. But good luck buring in hell.
Ahhhh how christian of you to wish me well in my afterlife. And which hell is that... Milton's, Alighieri's.... the bible's ha.... It is contradictory to who satan is suppose to be and what he stands for. And I don't really take the word of catholics nor christians versions,,, since they are more then a bit biassed in their portrayal of hell.

[Mr. Opus]

To bad we don't actually live by the rules of the bible, because then I would be able to crush my mom to death with a big *** rock for having an affair.
To answer your question, the guy who sinned then believed in God would get a free ride to heaven while the guy who was good and all that jazz would go cruising to hell. Unfair but elitism needs to be reinforced by something, in this case, religion. It's similar to High School, when you would look for a table, one table was the cool table, the other the stoners, losers, whatever else.

[Aly Liz]

Ha,,, do you have anyone that actually have been proven to exist beyond a reasonable doubt, as well as including viable proof that said person is actually the son of God. please.

What is the def. of religion? If you look it up it is stated that religion is the belief in something. If you had facts to prove Jesus was here and that God really excisted then it wouldnt be religion would it?

[dittohead not!]

To bad we don't actually live by the rules of the bible, because then I would be able to crush my mom to death with a big *** rock for having an affair.
To answer your question, the guy who sinned then believed in God would get a free ride to heaven while the guy who was good and all that jazz would go cruising to hell. Unfair but elitism needs to be reinforced by something, in this case, religion. It's similar to High School, when you would look for a table, one table was the cool table, the other the stoners, losers, whatever else.

Do I detect an underlying anger in your post?

If heaven is like high school, I'd rather go to hell. That had to have been the worst four years of my life, and I had to endure adults telling me that youth was the best time. No, the best times are yet to come. You don't have to be one of the "cool" kids to get into heaven, and I for one don't buy the idea that you have to be a believer to go to the good place in the afterlife. I've never read that the gullible shall inherit heaven, or Earth, or anything else.

[eugene40]

What is the def. of religion? If you look it up it is stated that religion is the belief in something. If you had facts to prove Jesus was here and that God really excisted then it wouldnt be religion would it?


Actually it would technically still be religion. If you still worshiped him and his father ie god. How would that supposedly change anything?

[Scaryclouds]

Yea Eugene Jesus never existed. Just for no reason the Jewish faith spilt yet both faiths point to Jesus as the cause of the division. Also the whole B.C./A.D. thing its all just a lie cooked up by the republican party back in ancient times. I mean what do you want skeletal remains? Well you won't find that because of the whole resurrection thing. But no point in even explaining that to you. Even if that wasn't the case bones would have long decayed and turned to dust seeing as Jesus was not buried. Evolutionist criticize creationists for turning a blind eye to facts yet here we stand and you are doing the EXACT same thing. Next if God was to put a man on Earth acting in the same manner as the biblical description of Jesus and proclaiming to be the son of god and YOU saw this in person with your own eyes woud you believe it?

[Seki]

My thing is prove Jesus ressurected. I certainly believe he existed but how can you prove he came back to life?

Now if a prophet of God or whatever came to Earth; to me there would be three possibilities in what he said.

1. Liar
2. Lunatic
3. Telling the truth

And it would depend heavily on what was said. I can not believe in an allpowerful being that would send people to eternal torture; especially when everyone is so intent on calling It all loving and all merciful.

[Redratio1]

Gandhi is going to hell.....'nuff said?
Yeah I think so.

[Hawkins]

God is forgiving of a person's sins, correct?

This pertains to the religions that use various interpretations of the New Testament.

Man #1- Never accepted Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior. Simply didn't believe all the far-fetched stories included in the Bible. He did, however, devote his life to the aid of the misfortunate. His work included the construction of schools where children were once uneducated. The construction of hospitals where people died of preventable diseases. He did this all without committing the sins of the common devout Christian, who merely begs forgiveness. He dies of natural causes, an atheist.

Perfect man, another Adam. So what's his choice after he dies, to follow the good or evil. He'll go to Hell if his soul *chooses* (again) to believe what the snake says, especially when he does not know who God is. Simple as that.

[IDK]

not necessarily, we are given every chance to succeed, and if we fail the test we can still pass the course.




A) nothing wrong with having a desire for sex. it's artificial twisting of that desire where it becomes temptation to sin.[/qoute]
Agreed..

B) who created and sells the drugs?

Excluding alcohol and coke and all that, the forests, dirt, and cow s*** creates them.


and with feelings of love and selflessness and equip us with the ability to choose between the two.

So why not just make it easy and make it a world without evil? What about those who DO choose good? Still goin to hell without jesus, right?

it's such only because we make it so.

No, the killing would occur, and has occurred, without humans.


A) we are expected to make the right decision based on a good bit more than just the book; what do you think concience is, anyway?

Coincidence is what you make of it, sometimes it's just coincidence. I happen to be of the same mind as you, on this topic, but there's no proof or evidence either way. If we are encouraged to think outside the book, there's is no reasonable expectation for people to be able to pick and choose what is right and what is wrong (from the book). If he's given us the book, and he's given us this life and we are supposed to find the common ground, Jesus is left out.

B) who is it that doesn't give the book reputability?

God-given logic.


only one person in the history of the world has ever managed to find the right path of their own accord.
And this man's skin color is even up for debate. How can we be assured he was telling the truth?



why is it disgusting to think that people who refuse to acknowledge the presence and rule of God will choose not to live in the presence and rule of God?
We are given logic, which tells us that some very big sections of the Bible are completely beyond rational thought, so we must decide which is true and which isn't. We have 2 things to prove God, the Book(s) and life. Life tells us, "stuff like that doesn't happen." The Book says it does. Which is more reputable? Why should we be punished for using logic?

[::Major_Baker::]

This sounds so familiar. My dad died unexpectedly 5 years ago.
I was dating a relgious girl at the time who was trying to convert me.

She had me meet with a pastor and that dick said my dad was currently burning in hell becasue he was an athiest. If any of you would have met him you would be offended to think that such a good man is thought by some to be suffering after his death.


Of course he tried the tag line "only god truly knows what was in his heart' BS. I told him my dad was clearly an athiest.
I almost punched him, but he was so wimpy when he said" I know, it is hard to believe isn't it'
needless to say, I ain't religious.

[IDK]

This sounds so familiar. My dad died unexpectedly 5 years ago.
I was dating a relgious girl at the time who was trying to convert me.

She had me meet with a pastor and that dick said my dad was currently burning in hell becasue he was an athiest. If any of you would have met him you would be offended to think that such a good man is thought by some to be suffering after his death.


Of course he tried the tag line "only god truly knows what was in his heart' BS. I told him my dad was clearly an athiest.
I almost punched him, but he was so wimpy when he said" I know, it is hard to believe isn't it'
needless to say, I ain't religious.
Yeah, it shows that a persons purity has nothing to do with this.

[::Major_Baker::]

Yeah, it shows that a persons purity has nothing to do with this.
No it shows that it is a bunch of BS.

BTW, where is heaven located?

[GI Joe]

Well I am not going to hell, I have already been there and they done kicked me out. They were afraid I was going to take over. :D

[GI Joe]

This sounds so familiar. My dad died unexpectedly 5 years ago.
I was dating a relgious girl at the time who was trying to convert me.

She had me meet with a pastor and that dick said my dad was currently burning in hell becasue he was an athiest. If any of you would have met him you would be offended to think that such a good man is thought by some to be suffering after his death.


Of course he tried the tag line "only god truly knows what was in his heart' BS. I told him my dad was clearly an athiest.
I almost punched him, but he was so wimpy when he said" I know, it is hard to believe isn't it'
needless to say, I ain't religious.


That sounds like what happend to my buddy, His Girlfriend wasnt religious but she had some religious friends. My buddys dad just died a few weeks earlier and he and his GF were at a party with these people. They started telling him his dad was burning in hell and that crap, he left before he broke his foot off in there ***.
His dad was one of the nicest guys you could ever know. He would go out of his way to help someone out of trouble. I knew him since kindergarten and he was like a second dad to me. He had helped me out of many a jam. If I was there I would have definately broke my foot off in there ***.

[eugene40]

Yea Eugene Jesus never existed.
ok

Just for no reason the Jewish faith spilt yet both faiths point to Jesus as the cause of the division.
doesn't mean he was the son of god
Also the whole B.C./A.D. thing its all just a lie cooked up by the republican party back in ancient times.
actually, it was the catholic church,,, there wasn't a republican party back then silly.

I mean what do you want skeletal remains?

that would be nice, other types of proof would be good as well.

Well you won't find that because of the whole resurrection thing.
Ah yes the whole resurrection thing,, how convenient.


But no point in even explaining that to you.
probably right.

Even if that wasn't the case bones would have long decayed and turned to dust seeing as Jesus was not buried. Evolutionist criticize creationists for turning a blind eye to facts yet here we stand and you are doing the EXACT same thing.
Not facts,, heresay,, mostly by one particular group that say he existed and was the son of god without any proof.

Next if God was to put a man on Earth acting in the same manner as the biblical description of Jesus and proclaiming to be the son of god and YOU saw this in person with your own eyes woud you believe it?

Well that did happen,,, didn't david Koresh claim to be the son of god.... Were you one of the ones that joined him at the branch davidian you being a believer and all. Anyone can claim to be the son of god hell in my career I have met at least 20 that claim that very thing. I don't see any so called christian following them around. But still if I saw it, what of it he can claim all he wants it proves nothing as koresh did, as the 20 other people I have met claiming the same thing. It proves little to nothing.... I tell you what,,, I could relent and say a man back in the day was called jesus and was crucified by the romans for being a trouble maker. But you can't prove that he was the son of some supposed god. It is silly to claim it.

[eugene40]

BTW, where is heaven located?

Playboy Mansion!!!!! :D

[GI Joe]

Nobody. There is no heaven. Next question.


bingo,,,,

[GI Joe]

Playboy Mansion!!!!! :D

Bingo,,,,

[IDK]

No it shows that it is a bunch of BS.

BTW, where is heaven located?
In the same realm as your soul.

[cpwill]

My thing is prove Jesus ressurected. I certainly believe he existed but how can you prove he came back to life?

everyone at the time agreed that the body of Jesus was gone from the tomb; that's a pretty easily falsifiable statement, after all. the difference comes in to establish how it was that the body left. the problem with the "the disciples stole it" theory is not only the sealing of the tomb, but the contingent of Roman gaurds placed outside. group of peasant fisherman v. Roman troops = fisherman winning with no casualties to themselves or injuries to the troops? i find that to be distinctly unlikely.

Now if a prophet of God or whatever came to Earth; to me there would be three possibilities in what he said.

1. Liar
2. Lunatic
3. Telling the truth

that is indeed the condundrum; and places those who would claim that "Jesus was merely a great teacher and a good man" into a rather tight conundrum, as He did not leave that possibility open.

And it would depend heavily on what was said. I can not believe in an allpowerful being that would send people to eternal torture

can you believe in an all-powerful being that would not force people to worship it and live in it's presence?

especially when everyone is so intent on calling It all loving and all merciful.

as it loves without need and forgives without recompense, i'd say it matches those two qualifications fairly well.

[cpwill]

Well if they were convincing and had the divine behind them... there would be little choice but to hear them.

incorrect. as you so amply demonstrate, free will remains.

Because their words would be like music and the animals would come to hear them

:confused: if they needed to, perhaps, but what makes you think it would be so?

Well since he is the one that gets pissed and sends you to hell I would say it hurts both.

He's not the one that really sends you to hell; you're the one that chooses it. as for God being hurt by it? living in perfect love, He does not need you; He is whole without you. the same cannot be said of you v. Him.

If his feelings are hurt enough to send someone there then it leads the belief again to the petulant child that doesn't get his way.

if you were to reject american citizenship and choose instead to move to North Korea; could you rightly blame the American people when you were put in jail in NK for belatedly discovering that you weren't a fan of kim jung il? who in this instance is the petulant child? america? or the former citizen who cut off his nose to spite his face?

Personally I think hell is merely the absence of god... that to a christian would truly be hell.. to an aetheist would be heaven. ;)

quite the contrary; there are no athiests in the afterlife.

[cpwill]

AExcluding alcohol and coke and all that, the forests, dirt, and cow s*** creates them.

and who refines them to create drugs and drink for profit?

So why not just make it easy and make it a world without evil?

such a world would be a world without choice. we would not be individuals, but automans.

What about those who DO choose good? Still goin to hell without jesus, right?

if you manage to achieve perfection in this life, then you have fufilled the Law and deserve heaven. however, with the exception of Jesus himself, no human has ever done it. we are far too fallible.

No, the killing would occur, and has occurred, without humans.

well then we get into the difference between killing and murder, and we have to ask ourselves what is so bad about death.

Coincidence is what you make of it, sometimes it's just coincidence.

concience, not coincidence.

I happen to be of the same mind as you, on this topic, but there's no proof or evidence either way. If we are encouraged to think outside the book, there's is no reasonable expectation for people to be able to pick and choose what is right and what is wrong (from the book). If he's given us the book, and he's given us this life and we are supposed to find the common ground, Jesus is left out.

concience is a base guide, the theory of right and wrong is an idea that doesn't seem to come from human sources, but that we have anyway and can't quite get rid of (despite some of our best efforts); the book provides an explination, not a narrowing, but a defining of that base guide. Jesus comes to us because we seem to be somewhat incapable of still doing the right thing.

God-given logic.

all logic is God-given; however, explain your answer.

And this man's skin color is even up for debate.

not really; he was semitic.

How can we be assured he was telling the truth?

he could, of course, be a complete liar; but that would require a pretty big leap of faith to establish that as the basis for subsequent events.

We are given logic, which tells us that some very big sections of the Bible are completely beyond rational thought, so we must decide which is true and which isn't. We have 2 things to prove God, the Book(s) and life. Life tells us, "stuff like that doesn't happen." The Book says it does. Which is more reputable? Why should we be punished for using logic?

firstly, you didn't answer the question.
secondly, to what are you referring, let's have specifics
thirdly, realize that science only measures the typical; not atypical intervention.

[cpwill]

BTW, where is heaven located?

if heaven is defined as in the presence of God, then heaven is permeated throughout all existance. however, if heaven is defined as the "place" (for lack of a better term) where God resides then it is outside of the created universe(s).

[::Major_Baker::]

if heaven is defined as in the presence of God, then heaven is permeated throughout all existance. however, if heaven is defined as the "place" (for lack of a better term) where God resides then it is outside of the created universe(s).Thanks Will, but I thought you for one would know the definition! I have heard it was in the sky or clouds, an dI find this hard to believe. It being a 'parallell universe' would be easier for me to undersatnd, believe it or not....

[cpwill]

doesn't mean he was the son of god

only that he claimed to be with a fairly substantial demonstration of legitimacy.

that would be nice, other types of proof would be good as well.

ah :) and so what kind of historical proof would you be looking for, then?

Ah yes the whole resurrection thing,, how convenient.

not really; if anything the new testament tale is pretty danged inconvenient for someone trying to preach a new messianic faith; especially for first-century jews.

probably right.

:) faith requires we keep trying.

Not facts,, heresay

multiple written accounts from differing authors written at different times and places with the same story containing both historical and divergent details in suffecient quantity and placing lead to the judgement that, in fact, the new testament texts alone would serve as excelent base of historical fact; this isn't even considering subsequent actions by the authors themselves.

mostly by one particular group that say he existed and was the son of god without any proof.

and yet who not only were in the position to know the truth (they were there, would have witnessed places of claimed miracles, ressurection, etc; and would therefore be aware of an absolute that no one working off of mere accounts could ever match); but seemed so sure of the actual fact of the matter that they were more than willing to die for it. you do not allow yourself to be repeatedly jailed, tortured, and killed for that which you know to really a particularly wierd proto-religious prank.

Well that did happen,,, didn't david Koresh claim to be the son of god....

as did the leader of the Taiping Rebellion; however, neither of these were really able to provide any kind of evidence; certainly not on the scale that Jesus provided.

I could relent and say a man back in the day was called jesus and was crucified by the romans for being a trouble maker. But you can't prove that he was the son of some supposed god. It is silly to claim it.

not really, considering that all the available evidence points in that direction.

[cpwill]

Thanks Will, but I thought you for one would know the definition!

:) heaven is far beyond the finite ability of human thought to provide definition for, my friend.

It being a 'parallell universe' would be easier for me to undersatnd, believe it or not....

of course it would be; that would be a fellow finite, as opposed to an infinite, which human minds are incapable of comprehending.

[eugene40]

[QUOTE]incorrect. as you so amply demonstrate, free will remains.
Allow me to clarify,,, if someone had the divine behind there words,, mixed in,,, it would touch something in everyone and they would listen.

:confused: if they needed to, perhaps, but what makes you think it would be so?
Cartoons :D



He's not the one that really sends you to hell; you're the one that chooses it. as for God being hurt by it? living in perfect love, He does not need you; He is whole without you. the same cannot be said of you v. Him.
No,,, I choose to not believe him or follow whatever his idiotic followers wrote that were his rules and so on, Then you go to him and say this was me I don't appologize for it.. like it or leave it.... He is god he as the sign going into the YMCA say is forgiveness... he can forgive me and allow me into heaven whether I asf for forgiveness or not.. he is the almighty he has the power to do so. But he doesn't and he sends you to hell. Or so the story goes.



if you were to reject american citizenship and choose instead to move to North Korea; could you rightly blame the American people when you were put in jail in NK for belatedly discovering that you weren't a fan of kim jung il? who in this instance is the petulant child? america? or the former citizen who cut off his nose to spite his face?
I wasn't aware god was into politics. And are you really comparing citizenship to the afterlife... really,,, I wouldn't choose to go to NK I would go to Aussie land,, New Zealand or Spain.



quite the contrary; there are no athiests in the afterlife.
Sweet then I don't have to worry about it... What about agnostics? I am only and aetheist while talking about christianity.

[Aly Liz]

God is forgiving of a person's sins, correct?

Only man #2 will go to Heaven because in order to have God forgive your sins, you have to ask for forgivness first.

[eugene40]

[QUOTE]only that he claimed to be with a fairly substantial demonstration of legitimacy.
Which would be? What the whole fish thing.



ah :) and so what kind of historical proof would you be looking for, then?
Proof that he was the son of god,,,,, Don't know can you really prove that now. How about he even existed. How about the davinci code for that matter,,, prove that and I will accept there was a guy named jesus back in the day. ;)



not really; if anything the new testament tale is pretty danged inconvenient for someone trying to preach a new messianic faith; especially for first-century jews.
But convenient that there were noe remnants of jesus, bones, clothing, records, he was a carpenter,, works he ever did. Anything would be a plus.



:) faith requires we keep trying.
Ahh thanks for caring and trying to save my damned soul.



multiple written accounts from differing authors written at different times and places with the same story containing both historical and divergent details in suffecient quantity and placing lead to the judgement that, in fact, the new testament texts alone would serve as excelent base of historical fact; this isn't even considering subsequent actions by the authors themselves.
Ok,,, and the authors merely say there was a guy named jesus.. They provide no proof that he was in fact the son of god, as he claimed.



and yet who not only were in the position to know the truth (they were there, would have witnessed places of claimed miracles, ressurection, etc; and would therefore be aware of an absolute that no one working off of mere accounts could ever match); but seemed so sure of the actual fact of the matter that they were more than willing to die for it. you do not allow yourself to be repeatedly jailed, tortured, and killed for that which you know to really a particularly wierd proto-religious prank.
And there were more around that time that didn't believe in him either... And I don't think anyone allows themselves to be crucified by the romans,, I don't think any had a say in it. Maybe he just accepted that there was no use in fighting the romans,, him being a pacifist and all I am sure he went along quietly.


as did the leader of the Taiping Rebellion; however, neither of these were really able to provide any kind of evidence; certainly not on the scale that Jesus provided.
What kind of evidence would you require?


not really, considering that all the available evidence points in that direction.
Your "evidence" wouldn't hold up in any court in the world. Or scientific study or really anything for that matter.... Sorry Cp,,, keep trying.

[cpwill]

Allow me to clarify,,, if someone had the divine behind there words,, mixed in,,, it would touch something in everyone and they would listen.

i agree it would definitely touch everyone who heard it, however, whether or not they listened would remain up to them.

Cartoons :D

ah :) i am defeated, i cannot match the depth of your source material :D

No,,, I choose to not believe him or follow whatever his idiotic followers wrote that were his rules and so on, Then you go to him and say this was me I don't appologize for it.. like it or leave it....

well, He won't like it, but He will leave you to it, unfortunately for you.

He is god he as the sign going into the YMCA say is forgiveness... he can forgive me and allow me into heaven whether I asf for forgiveness or not..

wrong; he can offer you all the forgiveness (literally) in the world. he cannot force you to accept it.

But he doesn't and he sends you to hell.

no, you choose to reject Him and go to hell.

I wasn't aware god was into politics.

Jesus tended to avoid them like the plague, actually.

And are you really comparing citizenship to the afterlife.

eh, it's a rough comparison; but it'll do.

I wouldn't choose to go to NK I would go to Aussie land,, New Zealand or Spain.

sorry, NK and America are the only two choices here; and you've chosen that you're so upset with Bush you'd rather go live in NK.

Sweet then I don't have to worry about it...

you misunderstand, you will not be an athiest in the afterlife.

What about agnostics? I am only and aetheist while talking about christianity.

you will not be agnostic in the afterlife either; however, i have to ask, what the hell do you mean when you state "you are only an athiest while talking about christianity"?

[cpwill]

Which would be?

:) the actual performance of actions impossible to mere human beings.

Proof that he was the son of god,,,,, Don't know can you really prove that now.

prove to where you'll be forced to accept it? no, that is impossible; i could provide for you all the proof in the world and you could (and possibly would) choose to refuse to believe. however, as stated, all available evidence tends to point in this direction, and irrespective of the issue of the Son of God; here we were discussing historical evidence of mere existance.

How about he even existed.

:) more than easily done. (http://www.whistlestopper.com/forum/showthread.php?p=591101&highlight=early+church+fathers#post591101)

How about the davinci code for that matter

:) quite easily disproven. (http://www.whistlestopper.com/forum/showthread.php?p=116051&highlight=davinci+code+women#post116051)

prove that and I will accept there was a guy named jesus back in the day.

hope i've helped you along (assuming, of course, you actually read the posts).

But convenient that there were noe remnants of jesus, bones, clothing,

well, there wouldn't be, as his body did not remain in his tomb.

records

there were plenty of records.

he was a carpenter

more of a half/carpenter/stonemason. a builder, in any sense.

works he ever did.

:shrug: which wouldn't have been described so at the time, any more than you currently brag to your friends about debating me online, even though i am a future president of the united states :D.

Ahh thanks for caring and trying to save my damned soul.

:) you're welcome.

Ok,,, and the authors merely say there was a guy named jesus.. They provide no proof that he was in fact the son of god, as he claimed.

on the contrary; they constantly reference easily falsifiable events and happenings to show that he was, in fact, who he claimed to be.

And there were more around that time that didn't believe in him either

:shrug: there were indeed. so?

And I don't think anyone allows themselves to be crucified by the romans

then clearly you would be wrong.

I don't think any had a say in it. Maybe he just accepted that there was no use in fighting the romans,, him being a pacifist and all I am sure he went along quietly.

:shrug: Jesus' pacifism is up for debate, however, i'm sure there is a lesson in his willingness to submit to authorities punishment as well.

What kind of evidence would you require?

:) i've already seen all the evidence i need.

Your "evidence" wouldn't hold up in any court in the world.

on the contrary, my evidence would indeed hold up in US court.

[Simba]

I don't know who goes to heaven. I still haven't gotten a straight answer from Monsignor about the latter choice. Best I can understand it is Number Two, for accepting Christ as his savior. Afterall, its his house. Don't want to open doors to people who said they don't believe in you.

Guess those of you who get there can enjoy communion with John Wayne Gacy and Ted Bundy.

Just do the best you can and hope for the rope.

[poly_nightmare]

Hey, I'm right behind you!

Uh, figure of speech, of course.... :flowers:

I'll save you a spot by the lake. I heard it's a little cooler.

[Scaryclouds]

What I find interesting is how people blame God for their own choices. Let me first make a few clarifications before I go on.

1.) I do not feel any any human being deserves to go to hell for all eternity yes that even includes the likes of Hitler (though he does deserve a few 1,000 years) on down. No person deserves to be eternally punished.

2.) There is a theory that upon judgment day or sometimes afterwards Jesus would go down into hell and bring all the damned sould back up with him to heaven proving once and for all God's soverign power over the universe.

Next onto the main purpose of the post atheism. While this isn't a one for one analogy this is a good general one to frame the argument. If a man stood outside in his house calling people into his house promising them food and a place to stay no strings attached (you have no reason to believe there is a sinister motive to this) and you refuse to go in to his house do you blame the man for not giving you food and a place to stay or yourself?

Like I said this is not a one for one analogy there is obiviously more to life than this small analogy could include but it does setup up the basics of the argument, that God is always calling you into his house and its YOUR choice, not his, whether or not you step through the doorway. God does not send you to hell you choose to go there. (read the above staments before just commenting on the lasts sentence)

As for the people who losts loved ones I am sorry for your loss (truly I am I have et to loose a parent and can not imagine my world without them) and given what you say is true (and I have no reason to believe otherwise) they do not deserve to go to hell. But sadly often times the worse things happen to the good, its the conseqeunce of having free choice whether you believe God gave it to us or not.

[JoeR]

Belief is not a choice though. Glad you acknowledge that eternal flames are a bit excessive a punishment at least.


If a man stood outside in his house calling people into his house promising them food and a place to stay no strings attached (you have no reason to believe there is a sinister motive to this) and you refuse to go in to his house do you blame the man for not giving you food and a place to stay or yourself?


But would this man then shoot me for not accepting his offer?

[cpwill]

no, but what if there were no food available any where else?

[Cricket]

Monsignor says if anyone will I surely must. I hope he is right.

And like, so this is where my dad has been coming to online. Hehe. Hi, Dad. I mean, Simba. I found it!

[JoeR]

no, but what if there were no food available any where else?

What if the man was omnipotent, and could make food available elsewhere?

[Cricket]

Belief is not a choice though. Glad you acknowledge that eternal flames are a bit excessive a punishment at least.



But would this man then shoot me for not accepting his offer?

Flame is not the the punishment. That is the final destruction of all that is seperated from God.

The punishment is seperation from God. The greater the sin, I understand, the further away one is in death from God. It is but darkness, without companionship or stimulation. Existance in spirit without anything but the realization that one is without Him.

[cpwill]

What if the man was omnipotent, and could make food available elsewhere?
food is of the nature that it is only available through this man. to an extent, this man is the personification of food.

[JoeR]

food is of the nature that it is only available through this man. to an extent, this man is the personification of food.

Nonsense, he is omnipotent. At the very least he doesn't have to shoot those who don't want to accept his hospitality.

[Scaryclouds]

Was the analogy that hard to understand? And no he would not shoot you. Like I have already said God does not send you to hell you choose to go there. In other words you choose to remain outside "the house."

[JoeR]

Was the analogy that hard to understand? And no he would not shoot you. Like I have already said God does not send you to hell you choose to go there. In other words you choose to remain outside "the house."

God makes existence, and makes the alternative to believing him Hell.

[cpwill]

Nonsense, he is omnipotent. At the very least he doesn't have to shoot those who don't want to accept his hospitality.

he doesn't, but those who choose not to accept food have no food.

[JoeR]

he doesn't, but those who choose not to accept food have no food.

If you have no food you starve to death, not burn for eternity. This analogy is really not getting anywhere.

[cpwill]

eh, say you cannot die, and you simply starve for eternity; it's not that far off.

[JoeR]

eh, say you cannot die, and you simply starve for eternity; it's not that far off.

Then the man is evil for making the alternative starving for eternity. Unless we are to assume that there are some cosmic laws that even god must follow... in other words that his omnipotence is only such from our perspective.

[Scaryclouds]

Once agian Joer he can not force you to eat the food it is your choice. How can you blame another for your own choices?

[cpwill]

Then the man is evil for making the alternative starving for eternity.

but how could he have made it the alternative, when it is us who have chosen and made it? or are you stating rather that the man should force us to eat against our will?

[JoeR]

but how could he have made it the alternative, when it is us who have chosen and made it? or are you stating rather that the man should force us to eat against our will?

So you're saying that we...humans....have made another realm of existence :confused:

The man could force us to eat and trick us to make us think that we weren't being forced. Perfectly acceptable.

And again belief is not a choice

[Scaryclouds]

So you're saying that we...humans....have made another realm of existence

The man could force us to eat and trick us to make us think that we weren't being forced. Perfectly acceptable.

Oh that is such a lie. You would not find that to be "acceptable." You already dislike god now for giving you a choice you would hate him if he made the choice for you. Also clearly you do not understand what me and cpwill are saying and yes it is your fault for not understanding.

[JoeR]

Oh that is such a lie. You would not find that to be "acceptable." You already dislike god now for giving you a choice you would hate him if he made the choice for you. Also clearly you do not understand what me and cpwill are saying and yes it is your fault.

Of course it would be acceptable, as we wouldn't know the difference.

I don't dislike god. I don't believe in god, or at least not the torturing kind.

I understand your position, and I find it lacking. You treat it as if it is a necessity that the dichotomy be either belief in god or suffering, and that god could not make the alternative something else, either suffering temporarily or simply not existing.

You are also ignoring that belief is not a choice. A person can not choose to believe something that a person does not truly believe.

[cpwill]

So you're saying that we...humans....have made another realm of existence

let us say that we humans have chosen to be seperate.

The man could force us to eat and trick us to make us think that we weren't being forced. Perfectly acceptable.

at which point we cease even to be ourselves, and become merely automans? No, as Lewis put it best: God does not rape, he can only woo.

And again belief is not a choice

it most certainly is.

[Scaryclouds]

The view of hell being fire and brimstone is false. At least as I have learned hell is being in the COMPLETE absences of God which means you will feel nothing. I guess the best way to put it is you loose your soul, the best example I can give though it maybe a bit juvinille is 'The Simpsons' episode where Bart sells his soul. He remains but life looses all its meaning.

[JoeR]

You could choose not to believe? I find that doubtful.

[Scaryclouds]

You could choose not to believe? I find that doubtful.

I don't believe in god

very efficent you answer your own questions :)

[JoeR]

very efficent you answer your own questions :)

Right, one day I decided to just not believe, and didn't just feel this way from the start.

[cpwill]

no, more likely it was a series of small decisions and feelings that took place over a period of time.

[JoeR]

The view of hell being fire and brimstone is false. At least as I have learned hell is being in the COMPLETE absences of God which means you will feel nothing. I guess the best way to put it is you loose your soul, the best example I can give though it maybe a bit juvinille is 'The Simpsons' episode where Bart sells his soul. He remains but life looses all its meaning.

This is more reasonable. Jesus pretty clearly makes references to fire though...are they merely symbolic?

That is a great Simpsons episode :D

[Scaryclouds]

Perhapes I am not as well versed in the bible as I should be. I have to know the whole passage before I can give a full comment. But anyways do you see what I am saying with my description of hell?

[eugene40]

[QUOTE]i agree it would definitely touch everyone who heard it, however, whether or not they listened would remain up to them.

Well if it was so inspirational then it would be hard to resist.. I am sure I could manage though.

ah :) i am defeated, i cannot match the depth of your source material :D
Yes well,, looney toons,, simpsons and South Park are pretty solid.

well, He won't like it, but He will leave you to it, unfortunately for you.
I will gladly go into heaven,,, but I will not appologize for following his supposed rules. He gave me life to live it, I lived it. Haven't done anything too bad so far... don't see why he has such a problem with me.

wrong; he can offer you all the forgiveness (literally) in the world. he cannot force you to accept it.
So he is not forgiveness,,, someone should tell the YMCA.

no, you choose to reject Him and go to hell.
Fair enough,, since he isn't big enough to forgive me,, I guess I am screwed

Jesus tended to avoid them like the plague, actually.
Good idea actually

eh, it's a rough comparison; but it'll do.
Certainly not one of your best.

sorry, NK and America are the only two choices here; and you've chosen that you're so upset with Bush you'd rather go live in NK.
Bush is not god,,, NK is close but not hell.

you misunderstand, you will not be an athiest in the afterlife. ah

you will not be agnostic in the afterlife either; however, i have to ask, what the hell do you mean when you state "you are only an athiest while talking about christianity"?
My inner jury is still out on the rest. Christianity doesn't pass the BS meter. So I don't believe in the christian god (Christian aetheist) don't know about the rest ie agnostic.

[eugene40]

[QUOTE]:) the actual performance of actions impossible to mere human beings.
Proof please.

prove to where you'll be forced to accept it? no, that is impossible; i could provide for you all the proof in the world and you could (and possibly would) choose to refuse to believe. however, as stated, all available evidence tends to point in this direction, and irrespective of the issue of the Son of God; here we were discussing historical evidence of mere existance.
Not so,,,, If jesus or god came down and performed 51 miracles that scientists and magicians couldn't duplicate or view as impossible then I wouls gladly accept it. Since that isn't going to happen anytime soon... too bad.



:) more than easily done. (http://www.whistlestopper.com/forum/showthread.php?p=591101&highlight=early+church+fathers#post591101)

So because parts of the book are real,, the whole thing must be real right. Ask a really good liar how to lie they will tell you always tell part of the truth and sneak the lie in there.. And tacitus and them all did write about a guy named jesus.. but it still doesn't prove that he was the son of god.


:) quite easily disproven. (http://www.whistlestopper.com/forum/showthread.php?p=116051&highlight=davinci+code+women#post116051)

This was actually a joke... sorry no emoticon

hope i've helped you along (assuming, of course, you actually read the posts).
All your posts,, since you seem to be a pretty knowledgeable

well, there wouldn't be, as his body did not remain in his tomb.
Really,,, it wasn't just his soul that went up to heaven,,, I thought they were all corporial up there.

there were plenty of records.
Not records proving he was actually the son of god.

more of a half/carpenter/stonemason. a builder, in any sense.
:shrug: which wouldn't have been described so at the time, any more than you currently brag to your friends about debating me online, even though i am a future president of the united states :D.
Yes,, but see,, some guy dies and comes back to life and he made your chair,, wouldn't you keep the chair and tell the whole world. Hell that one museum has the supposed Spear that stuck him in the side. But nothing else. not a chair,, not part of the cross, not anything... Please don't bring the lame shroud of turin in this very well and reasoned debate.

on the contrary; they constantly reference easily falsifiable events and happenings to show that he was, in fact, who he claimed to be.
So every single one of the people that wrote about jesus, met him, shook his hand,, and had him prove that he was the son of god. wow,,, cause I though it was only a few miracles...

:shrug: there were indeed. so?
If he was so divine,, then everyone that met him would have realized who he was. Or was he sneaky about it.

then clearly you would be wrong.
Alllow me to clarify,,, If I arrested you for a crime,,, you wouldn't have to allow me,, it would be done no matter what. If they tried you,, it would be done no matter what, If they put you to death (baring 80+ stupid appeals) you would be no matter what..

:shrug: Jesus' pacifism is up for debate, however, i'm sure there is a lesson in his willingness to submit to authorities punishment as well.
So he didn't allow them,, he was a fighter?

:) i've already seen all the evidence i need.
So if a guy came up to you tomorrow and said I am the son of god,,, what proof would you require.

on the contrary, my evidence would indeed hold up in US court.
Which court,, kangaroo court doesn't can't... or is that australia

[TomAZ]

"Saint" Peter holds the keys to the gates of heaven. He was canonized a saint by the Roman Catholic church. Those who reject the R.C. Doctrine are doomed to eternal punishment in hell no matter how good their earthly deeds. Pete will just not let you enter with that big mortal sin on your soul.

As it appears that the validity of any religion is based on consensus, can millions of catholics be wrong?

[Redratio1]

So because parts of the book are real,, the whole thing must be real right. Ask a really good liar how to lie they will tell you always tell part of the truth and sneak the lie in there.. And tacitus and them all did write about a guy named jesus.. but it still doesn't prove that he was the son of god.

"A lie, Mr. Mulder, is most convincingly hidden between two truths." -Deep Throat, X-Files.