Just want to remind everyone that lagtight thinks that your sweet, Jewish, Muslim, atheist or other non Christian grandparents are in hell or some other version of non heaven unless they converted before they died. As opposed to much more sinful people who died proclaiming faith in Jesus. Not only that it would upset him if he found out that they weren't. Especially if only some of them were in heaven, namely the ones who sinned a lot less than lagtight has admitted that he has.

You see, lagtight? You've said any number of deeply reprehensible things featuring a religious bent, and you're still here. It's almost as if you have a Christianity-infused irrational persecution complex that doesn't match reality!

As far as I've observed, religious kooks actually get MORE leeway to spread their malignant idiocy than others. At least in the US, there's a mostly unwritten ethos of "you must respect people's religion", that certainly doesn't extend to other demonstrations of mental illness, even though these other demonstrations DON'T carry 1 billion historical corpses along with it, as religion does.

Anyway, I've long thought that belief in the Abrahamic God is like Santa Claus for adults, or Santa Claus for higher stakes. If you're a good little boy or girl, you get presents (heaven), but if you're a bad little boy or girl, you get coal (hell). And you can't trick the big men either, for both God and Santa are always watching! Good analogy, bad analogy, what say the thread?

You gotta love how ridiculously convenient American Protestant-style religious faith is. Oh, you're a serial killer? Well, God loves you, just repent on your deathbed, keep on rockin'!

I bet Donald Trump is gonna strike a DEAL with God right before his death and secretly repent. That monstrous scumbag is gonna be chillin' in Heaven while noted Jewish person/60s era civil rights worker/lifelong advocate for the poor Bernie Sanders will burn for eternity in Hell. Cool deity you got!

David, where and when did you learn how punctuation works?

And I think a bunch of pre birth babies, that God aborted.

Imagine that. God forces their abortion and then sends them to hell for not being baptised or saying the magic words to ensure they can get in heaven.

And yet we are not to question because if God aborts them and then condemns them to hell for not having the time to get the sacrament it is necessarily good, because God is good.

Is that right Laggy? Those unborn babies will spend eternity in hell for not getting what they needed done prior to them being killed.

this looks like a fun discussion

Here is a PM I received from a P&S Mod last August:

My response via PM:

Finally, a PM from the Mod:

But I think we've established that we mostly want to be in a version of 'non heaven'

'Heaven' sounds bloody awful

I will quote the late Dr. R.C. Sproul (from memory):

"Jesus' sacrifice was sufficient for all, but only efficient for the elect."

Here's an analogy:

Suppose I am very thirsty and a friend hands be a tall glass of cold water. The water is suffiicient to slake my thirst, but only efficient to slake my thirst if I actually drink the water.

One more analogy:

Suppose I am drowning and am thrown a life preserver. The life preserver is *sufficient* to keep me from drowning, but only *efficient* if I hold fast to it.

Eternal life is appropriated by freely accepting the free gift of Jesus by faith (trust).

Heaven would indeed be awful for those who hate God.

No.

I understand the Complex Question Fallacy just fine. Which is the fallacy Cuepee committed.

"Have you stopped beating your wife?"

Bad analogy.

No "sweet" person is in Hell.

For all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God. - Romans 3:23

There are only two kinds of people in the world:

FORGIVEN wretched sinners, and

UNFORGIVEN wretched sinners.

Which are you?

I have no idea if Trump or Bernie or both or neither are going to Heaven.

Doesn’t seem that you do because you keep conflating it with actual logical fallacies that render arguments invalid.

I’ve never beat my wife.

See how easy informal fallacies are to deal with?

But this is a contradiction. Everything is owned by god, so you have no business at all incinerating this painting. You’re just a mere lump of clay, after all, how dare you claim any kind of prerogative over the physical objects god had made.

all the unborn babies who God aborts are unforgiven wretched sinners right?

The difference being God is not even giving them a chance to repent and be forgiven before killing and condemning them, correct?

This is the exact problem with Luther's bright idea that people are saved by faith and not works. 'Accept' is a verb.

Also, assuming God's intentions were to save mankind then mankind is already saved. And if not...well, then as others have pointed out, what's the use of being stuck with a God like that for all of eternity ? That's a tyrant who created sentient beings with the express intention of torturing them for ever.

The whole Gospel story is trying to get people to stop focusing on random religious traditions and concepts and seek God directly as He is. I suspect that's why people in The West are drawn to Buddhism these days. It's got more of that vibe to it then Christianity which is even more corrupt then the Democratic party.

Complex question fallacy alert !!!!

Hopefully if there is a god then it isn't an horrific monster.

Let's have faith that if there is a 3O type god then it's a good god

In your opinion, are we supposed to worship God solely because he is omnipotent? In other words, does the logic work as follows:

God created humans.

God can do whatever he wants with his creations. His creations effectively are his toys, which he can discard or break for any reason, or no reason at all.

Humans should worship God because that pleases God. And pleasing God is the best way to avoid the fate of the unwanted toy.

That logic is fine as far as it goes. But isn't there more? Aren't we supposed to believe that God's actions are just and non-arbitrary?

Same for Jews?

An Informal Fallacy is more than "stylistic".

Your example above indeed contains an ad hominem attack, but it does not commit the Argumentum ad hominem Fallacy.

The fallacy is committed when, for example, an argument is rejected out-of-hand because the person advocating the argument is an idiot.

E.G.:

Lagtight supports Proposition X

Lagtight is an idiot

Ergo, Proposition X can be summarily rejected.

There is almost nothing right in the above dumpster-dive.

I think you claimed to have taken a religion class or two. There is no evidence of that in the above mess.