I figured it was either Myrtle's your uncle or Charlie's your aunt. The latter seems better.

Did I really use an apostrophe to pluralize Brit? I blame the mental strain of switching back and forth between QWERTY and Dvorak.

Yes God says that he is just and all that jazz but why can't god lie?

So we all agree that Hitler and JFK are in the same place? Someone put forth a convincing argument that suggests otherwise.

of course they are in the same place. But it depends what you mean by "they".

Their dead bodies enrich the soil that helps grows plants/wildlife nearby. Because energy transfers it never "dies". I think so anyway not sure of the scientific phrasing but you get what I mean.

Deuce, I tried to respond hastily as I'm in the middle of some work, but to be fair to your comments, I'll have to do this properly when I have more time.

No, though it's certainly possible that they are.

Why isn't the person making the claim bearing the responsibility to support it? What are your heaven/hell criteria?

That's a very interesting comment. What is your interpretation of the parable recorded in Luke 16:19-31? There Jesus uses the Greek word Hades rather than Gehenna. Also the Greek word used in 2 Peter 2:4 is Tartarus. Do you think these are different places? or merely different names for the same place? Long ago a coworker told me his theory of three hells. The hell for demons was eternal. The other two hells were temporary holding places for humans awaiting their destruction. I dunno.

Ugh, that switch to the first person creeps me the f out.

Hel- http://norse-mythology.org/gods-and-...es/giants/hel/

On the contrary, I do think they believed at the time. Their faith was genuine, just not that deep. Keeping with your metaphor, they had not handed over the deed.

Two things. For starters, faith is not a "yes" or "no" prospect, it's a spectrum. It's difficult to conclude anything from simply saying that someone was a Christian and now they are not - "this must mean X". Which leads to my next point, that looking at a hypothetical example doesn't help us. We would need to examine how much faith a person had, that is, what they believed and why they believed. If they no longer believe, what are the reasons they no longer have the faith they used to. The specifics of this are crucial, where simply looking at a case in general without examining the details won't get us anywhere.

I think that you are right in that you can't conclude that Christ is real, simply by pointing to those who have faith, but at the same time, I do not believe that those who no longer profess Christ gives any credence to Christ not existing, either.

Faith, belief, and knowledge are difficult concepts to scrutinize. By their nature, there will be contradictions. If someone confesses Christ is real, and then denounces him, there was an error in their thinking at some point. Either they were wrong when they professed him, or were wrong when they denounced him, he can't be both real and imaginary. I agree that it could mean that Christ is not real, and a person simply realized they were fooling themselves, but there is also no reason why the same person could not be fooling themselves now. It's the same process of cognitive dissonance at work. You either lie to yourself that there is something at work, or you lie to yourself that it was all in your mind. Both are possible. If someone is able to fool themselves to such a degree that they believe in Christ where they live their whole life in a dramatic way, there is no reason why someone couldn't simply believe that it was all in their mind, even though Christ is real.

Of the examples of my friends in particular, their faith was never that strong to begin with. Their faith in general, or lack thereof, really does not prove anything one way or another. For someone to point to their denouncing Christ really means no more than someone saying Christ must exist since they professes him.

Of the more dramatic examples I can think of, I did not know them personally. One was a Pastor of many years, who woke up one morning and said, "I can't do this anymore, this whole thing is a lie." The other was a born-again Christian, at least allegedly, who gave a very convincing account of why the Holy Spirit doesn't exist. They both could be right, in theory. The second guy in particular, explained what I said earlier, that it was all in his mind, that it was cognitive dissonance. He could be right, but that's the problem with cognitive dissonance, you don't know you're employing it. Both sides makes sense - you don't want to live the Christian life anymore for whatever reason, and it's easier to tell yourself Christ is not real, or you want Christ to be real, for whatever reason, so you convince yourself he is.

I have struggled with my faith in the past, as well. When I was at the peak of my addictions, I began to think that it would be better if Christ was not real so I could just let go, and I naturally wanted to downplay all my faith.

My point from before was not that the "proof" (which is a word I don't like to use, but use for communication sake) is necessarily concrete evidence that Christ is real. That is why I said that I couldn't prove Idi's credentials, but that you would meet someone named Idi. I'm leaving room for doubt and error. I can't be sure that Christ is real, no more than you are, but that when you sign the deed over, there will be a change that takes place and Christ will speak to you. Just like when I type this message, someone responds to me (hopefully?). Maybe that's not the best analogy in terms of knowledge and belief, but you get my point. There is evidence that happens when you do sign over your life. Can I prove that this is without a doubt truth? No. I believe it is, based on my life, the bible, and the Christians that are close to me.

Not unbeatable, but if you are willing to concede that someone can live a Christ-centered life in error, then the opposite would have to be true.

Edit: Sorry for the long post, feel free to cut as much as you want if you want to respond.

Do you believe that morality evolved for our survival?

Not really I believe that we evolved to be able to identify morally relevant questions.

It's important to note that the parable in Luke 16 is exactly that, a parable and not a historical narrative. It's themes also have nothing to do with hell or the nature of final punishment.

In verses 1-13 Jesus is talking about the importance of stewardship. In verse 14 the Pharisees mock Jesus, and Jesus tells them that God sees the hearts and views people differently than their fellow mortals. In v. 15-18 he cautions that the times are critical and that people should not waste opportunity to obey God. Then he tells the parable you mentioned, to illustrate those points.

See also:
http://www.rethinkinghell.com/2012/0...al-punishment/

2 Peter 2:4 - Tartarus is only found this once, and only refers to angels being held there until judgement day. It's definitely not talking about a place of final punishment, and clearly says so:

For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell (tartarus) and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment;"

I think it's clear in Scripture that Sheol (Hebrew) and Hades (Greek) just refer to the grave.

I'm not that familiar with the proofs of conditionalism, but I often wonder if that was the more popular view, if people would be less likely to consider hell unjust or extreme.

Doesn't "identify" imply an existing framework?

Anything that collectively exists in the minds of majority of people is real . God is mankind's biggest invention.

Believing in god is always better than believing in Satan or being atheist
Many pretend to the world they are atheist but actually do believe

Some don't even know what they truly believe lol



Sent from my Micromax A96 using 2+2 Forums

I'm fairly certain "God" would be a rather long way down on your list of inventions if we hold your logic to be true. "Ground" would be hugely superior as a concept for example.

Which I think is cool. I'm seeing opportunity in the tele-terrangelical market.

Not really, questions such as how should I act don't need a framework in order to be asked.

i don't exactly understand what u mean, what I am considering is the impact, I consider it to the biggest invention, no other invention has had so much impact on mankind.

Since God is a concept, you are using "invention" to also imply concepts and you rank them based on their impact on mankind. Surely then, a greater invention must be the concepts necessary to invent God.

This in the same sense that "wheel" must be a greater invention than "car" if measured by impact on mankind, since the wheel has by default had a greater impact than the car. Note that I don't necessarily agree with your logic, I'm merely using it.

I mean god has become so complicated and we remember him in our most dire times because we are so linked to him sub consciously from child hood. He is the epitome of every good human quality and we would like our foes to borrow from him.

But clever people have been manipulating others on gods name , imagine how fewer wars would gave happened . the brain washing continues today in madrasas.

What initially I intended was a link between god and chaos theory and the effects of portraying oneself as god fearing in society

Thanks for the response. I was not trying to raise an argument. I do not disagree with you. Your original comment just reminded me of something a coworker had told me. As I said it was a long time ago. He specifically said it was mere speculation. His theory was that people are held in hell only long enough to repay their sin debts. Similar to the parable of the unmerciful servant who was "tortured, until he should pay back all he owed" (Matthew 18:21-35). I'll look at the link you've posted later today when I have some time. Peace be with you.

Um... no?

Does it at all seem to you to be somewhat arrogant and condescending to tell people that they're wrong about what they think they believe but you know what they actually believe?

I don't mean to be rude, but I think that is your own biases and attitudes speaking. There are many versions of "God" I think are less than decent, and even tending towards fascist.

Likely because they were construed in times when such traits were deemed rightful in rulers. Ironically, later rulers would cling to these ideals by claiming to be chosen by God. Full circle.

The 3 theories of hell are very interesting to me, especially since I've never bothered to study them in depth. I find conditionalism very appealing.
Check out that link, it outlines the 3 theories.

I'd like for a conditionalist to explain this view more in depth, but not sure that's an easy task here.