Are there non-Christian religions where ALL nonbelievers suffer eternally?

[Archimedes]

Why not ask an expert in Christianity - e.g. someone who has studied theology a few years like a pastor or priest.

Because they'll all give me different answers. Ask a Catholic priest, Presbyterian minister, Baptist pastor, etc. and you'll get a whole bunch of different answers. Ask "experts" in the same religion the same question and you'll get different answers.

And I'm asking you the question because you brought it up. If you say that avoiding hell is about "whether you accepted the gift of Jesus's salvation properly or not" then I assume you know what you mean when you say that. Why say things like that if when questioned what you mean you're just going to shrug your shoulders and say "I dunno. Ask a priest or something."

On second thoughts what about what Jack Chick's tracts say at the end:
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1087/1087_01.asp

Chick tracts? You're scraping the bottom of the barrel of Christian apologetics when you're resorting to Chick tracts.

Is there a point to all this?

 

[excreationist]

"Apparently it involves whether you accepted the gift of Jesus's salvation properly or not."

Because they'll all give me different answers.

If God exists then there is ONE answer to this question. I didn't claim to know what that answer was.

And I'm asking you the question because you brought it up. If you say that avoiding hell is about "whether you accepted the gift of Jesus's salvation properly or not" then I assume you know what you mean when you say that.

I said "apparently it involves"... that is the extent of my knowledge. If I had a better answer I would have given it.

Why say things like that if when questioned what you mean you're just going to shrug your shoulders and say "I dunno. Ask a priest or something."

Maybe it's like me saying "apparently the earth is 4.6 billion years old" and you asking me how I know and then I'd say to do some research yourself.

Chick tracts? You're scraping the bottom of the barrel of Christian apologetics when you're resorting to Chick tracts.

Well you asked "what's the "proper" way of accepting Jesus's salvation" and he does have it very clearly defined in his tracts. I think his theology is supported by a lot of Christians.

Is there a point to all this?

I don't know - you seem to be the one directing the conversation a lot of the time.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Because they'll all give me different answers. Ask a Catholic priest, Presbyterian minister, Baptist pastor, etc. and you'll get a whole bunch of different answers. Ask "experts" in the same religion the same question and you'll get different answers.

With no way to winnow out the ones who are wrong. Or lying. Or just making shit up.

 

[Archimedes]

If God exists then there is ONE answer to this question. I didn't claim to know what that answer was.

The answer is of course that there is no God, heaven, hell, etc. and the whole idea is nonsense, which is why there's such a variety of answers various people give to the question. They're just making shit up.

And it doesn't follow that if God exists then there's some proper way of accepting Jesus's salvation in order to get to heaven. God existing is not the same thing as Christianity being true in some way. That's a pretty narrow minded viewpoint.

 

[Rhea]

hylidae wrote:
"Your ideology, at its core, is one of the most immoral ever to exist"


I think there are FAR more immoral ideologies than mine.... like people feeling pleasure from the suffering of others - what about them even *personally* inflicting the suffering... e.g. personally pulling their nails out or skinning them alive or whatever as they scream in agony. Since you were saying "Your ideology, at its core, is one of the most immoral ever to exist" and I was also talking about the most immoral ideologies you thought I was saying you thought I got pleasure from the suffering of others.

.

When you think about it objectively, that is not worse. Unless they are pulling out fingernails FOREVER, which none can do.


For someone who has thrown off Christianity, you show a remarkable uniformity in talking about Christianity in words assuming it is true. It’s hard to tell if you are doing that on purpose or if you don’t realize you are doing it. It strikes me that you don’t realize. That you no longer believe but still deeply fear that you are wrong and will go to hell.

Because of this you make the common failure of people who are still Christian when thinking about Pascal’s Wager, and that is to neglect to account for the fact that pretending to believe in order to hedge your bets against hell throws away your entire human life which may be the ONLY ONE YOU HAVE That’s the other half of the eternal punishment. That’s the sick and immoral ideological core that makes us all despise the human construct of hell.

That the idea of hell, and the hewing to it via Pascal’s Wager is the ACTUAL eternal punishment – throwing away the only life you have in all of eternity to live in fear of a sick and twisted fear of punishment that would never happen and was only made up by sick people who were trying to control you – in other words, letting them win.

You don’t get that part of our responses. But rest assured it is always part of our reaction. Why knowingly submit to an ACTUAL eternal hell for a thought experiment. Why watch you do it. How painful to watch all these Christians do it. Throw away their eternal life – the only one they have in eternity – from a choice to suffer in fear.

THAT is eternal suffering. And it is offered to you on a Christian platter. Don’t lap it up.
You can see that we, in general, want no part of that sickness, that we wish to give up no part of our eternity (our only existence) to it.

THAT is the other side of the wager. They want you to not notice. You should notice and stop torturing your own eternity with it. Making your own hell. And making us watch you suffer in it.

 

[funinspace]

Well you asked "what's the "proper" way of accepting Jesus's salvation" and he does have it very clearly defined in his tracts. I think his theology is supported by a lot of Christians.


I don't know - you seem to be the one directing the conversation a lot of the time.

If you want to use argumentum ad populum, then you need to start pimping Roman Catholic theology, as it is the largest Christian sect by any count, corning roughly 50% of the world's Christians. Jack Chick is a fundegical shill, catering to a modest minority of Christians. The largest Protestant sect is the United Methodist Church, and their members would most likely vomit upon reading his tracks. Only about 25% of Christians claim to be fundamentalist or evangelical, which are the only groups that might be into his spiel. You might as well cite Jonathan Edwards....who would even condemn infants to eternal torment.

BTW, I was another bringing up Islam in your other thread...

 

[Keith&Co.]

BTW, I was another bringing up Islam in your other thread...

Sure.
But you aren't 100,000,000 posters, nor are you an acknowledged expert in ExC's threads. So your opinion of the content of that thread can be waived.

 

[excreationist]

hylidae wrote:
"Your ideology, at its core, is one of the most immoral ever to exist"

When you think about it objectively, that is not worse. Unless they are pulling out fingernails FOREVER, which none can do.

I said that if God was real I'd be too scared of him and I wouldn't rebel. I think someone who enjoys making others suffer is more immoral....

....neglect to account for the fact that pretending to believe in order to hedge your bets against hell throws away your entire human life which may be the ONLY ONE YOU HAVE That’s the other half of the eternal punishment. That’s the sick and immoral ideological core that makes us all despise the human construct of hell.

I think someone enjoying torturing others is a more immoral ideology. I mean I think the millions of Christians who fear hell are less immoral than people who torture others for fun.

That the idea of hell, and the hewing to it via Pascal’s Wager is the ACTUAL eternal punishment – throwing away the only life you have in all of eternity to live in fear of a sick and twisted fear of punishment that would never happen and was only made up by sick people who were trying to control you – in other words, letting them win.

Well that is a major reason why I don't repent - I don't want to serve Jesus in my life. I'd rather do things my way.

....Why knowingly submit to an ACTUAL eternal hell for a thought experiment.

I find it an interesting thought experiment. BTW I know Christians who spend many hours a week learning about God, etc. I find their beliefs interesting sometimes.

 

[Keith&Co.]

...And what's the "proper" way of accepting Jesus's salvation?

Why not ask an expert in Christianity - e.g. someone who has studied theology a few years like a pastor or priest.

In general, the question is posed to see exactly what you think you're saying when you spew these bon mots around with gay abandon.

Apparently you don't know what you're talking about and you don't care what you're talking about. It is sufficient for you that more than a few christains say it...therefore we should be convinced of it.

Seems like a waste of time, really.

 

[excreationist]

....Apparently you don't know what you're talking about and you don't care what you're talking about. It is sufficient for you that more than a few christains say it...therefore we should be convinced of it.

I'm saying that I take the Christians' views into account to some extent. It doesn't mean that everyone else has to.

 

[Rhea]

....Apparently you don't know what you're talking about and you don't care what you're talking about. It is sufficient for you that more than a few christains say it...therefore we should be convinced of it.

I'm saying that I take the Christians' views into account to some extent. It doesn't mean that everyone else has to.

Why do you take Christians' views into account? What is it about their Christianity that makes them expert - given that they cannot even convince each other or agree on anything in their religion up to and including whether one of them considers another a Christian at all. Doesn't this make them all rank amateurs who have no more sense in their religion (calling each other wrong) than an atheist (calling them wrong)?

For any given thing that I find wrong or ridiculous about christian religion, ANY THING, I can find one Christian who does it and another who agrees with me that it's wrong and ridiculous. Using this techniques, I can get Christian supporters to EVERY TENET of atheism and of christian criticism.

 

[excreationist]

....Why do you take Christians' views into account?

Most people I know including my family and wife are Christians. They want me to consider it and convert to it. I find it interesting so I discuss it with them sometimes.

....For any given thing that I find wrong or ridiculous about christian religion, ANY THING, I can find one Christian who does it and another who agrees with me that it's wrong and ridiculous. Using this techniques, I can get Christian supporters to EVERY TENET of atheism and of christian criticism.

What about the virgin birth and the resurrection? Yes very liberal Christians might not believe in that but many Christians would say that they aren't real Christians - according to the Christian creeds, etc.

 

[Rhea]

Most people I know including my family and wife are Christians. They want me to consider it and convert to it. I find it interesting so I discuss it with them sometimes.

....For any given thing that I find wrong or ridiculous about christian religion, ANY THING, I can find one Christian who does it and another who agrees with me that it's wrong and ridiculous. Using this techniques, I can get Christian supporters to EVERY TENET of atheism and of christian criticism.

What about the virgin birth and the resurrection? Yes very liberal Christians might not believe in that but many Christians would say that they aren't real Christians - according to the Christian creeds, etc.

Definitely can find those who say they can accept Jesus as Godly without needing a virgin birth. If, as they say, their god is OMNIPOTENT, it would have no trouble infusing itself into a blastocyst created the regular way.

And the Resurrection, I have no doubt at all I could find someone who agrees that resurrection is not necessary to create a godly emissary and important religious message. No doubt at all.

 

[Perspicuo]

Most people I know including my family and wife are Christians. They want me to consider it and convert to it. I find it interesting so I discuss it with them sometimes.

Yes, most of us live in a Christian atmosphere. Thought experiments are valid. Especially because every major Biblical scenario leads to reductiones ad absurdum of moral and logical kinds. It's fun as heck.

I get a laugh over Christianity as much as I can. After all, I get a lot of crap from the Christian crowd so it's just a bit of payback, a very small part of their dues.

 

[Keith&Co.]

....Apparently you don't know what you're talking about and you don't care what you're talking about. It is sufficient for you that more than a few christains say it...therefore we should be convinced of it.

I'm saying that I take the Christians' views into account to some extent. It doesn't mean that everyone else has to.

Huh.
You responded to "And what's the "proper" way of accepting Jesus's salvation?" by suggesting they resort to experts.
You, on the other hand, respond to expert findings with agenda-supporting presuppositionist amateur opinion.

If you're trying to be objective, you need to pick a standard and hold to it.
If you're trying to convince yourself of Christainity, then go ahead holding countering views to a higher standard of evidence than you do positive views.
Just don't be surprised if people get tired of trying to find something credible in your postings.

 

[excreationist]

.....You responded to "And what's the "proper" way of accepting Jesus's salvation?" by suggesting they resort to experts.

or
Well it is about Christian theology and I don't claim to be a proper theologist.

You, on the other hand, respond to expert findings with agenda-supporting presuppositionist amateur opinion.

I don't think that camel article was really very expert or at least there seemed to be reasonable counter-arguments.

If you're trying to be objective, you need to pick a standard and hold to it.

My standard is that I can't be absolutely sure of basically anything - whether it is about theology or non-theism.

If you're trying to convince yourself of Christainity, then go ahead holding countering views to a higher standard of evidence than you do positive views.
Just don't be surprised if people get tired of trying to find something credible in your postings.

Like I said I don't think I'm absolutely sure of just about anything. It is you who seem to be saying I should be. (and I'm unsure about that too)

 

[Keith&Co.]

Like I said I don't think I'm absolutely sure of just about anything. It is you who seem to be saying I should be. (and I'm unsure about that too)

Well, you SAY things as if they're sure facts, then instantly retreat to 'i can't be sure' when you're challenged.
Why post ANYTHING as if it were a fact, if you won't defend it?
Why link to any article, any statement, any research, if it's just as likely that they're wrong? Esp. if you're going to present it as some sort of evidence that contributes to the discussion, then fold like a cheap card table when anyone points out flaws, bias or amateur opinions? If you're trying to present yourself as super-agnostic (to mean, intensely unable to decide on any truths) then why post anything?

 

[excreationist]

Well, you SAY things as if they're sure facts, then instantly retreat to 'i can't be sure' when you're challenged.

It takes too long always say "I think", etc.

Why post ANYTHING as if it were a fact, if you won't defend it?

I didn't intend to post anything as a fact.

Why link to any article, any statement, any research, if it's just as likely that they're wrong? Esp. if you're going to present it as some sort of evidence that contributes to the discussion, then fold like a cheap card table when anyone points out flaws, bias or amateur opinions? If you're trying to present yourself as super-agnostic (to mean, intensely unable to decide on any truths) then why post anything?

I still have opinions - but in my recent threads I'm asking for other people's opinions. I'm not saying my opinions are correct. I think I can still be a super-agnostic and still have beliefs that I partly hold. You can probably find some problems in that. As far as "folding" goes, I give up on a belief "when anyone points out flaws, bias or amateur opinions" - would you prefer an alternative - for me to hold onto the belief no matter what?

 

[Keith&Co.]

As far as "folding" goes, I give up on a belief "when anyone points out flaws, bias or amateur opinions" - would you prefer an alternative - for me to hold onto the belief no matter what?

I'd prefer some sort of consistency. If you've given up on creationism, why post links to creationist websites?

 

[funinspace]

or
Well it is about Christian theology and I don't claim to be a proper theologist.

You, on the other hand, respond to expert findings with agenda-supporting presuppositionist amateur opinion.

I don't think that camel article was really very expert or at least there seemed to be reasonable counter-arguments.

If you're trying to be objective, you need to pick a standard and hold to it.

My standard is that I can't be absolutely sure of basically anything - whether it is about theology or non-theism.

If you're trying to convince yourself of Christainity, then go ahead holding countering views to a higher standard of evidence than you do positive views.
Just don't be surprised if people get tired of trying to find something credible in your postings.

Like I said I don't think I'm absolutely sure of just about anything. It is you who seem to be saying I should be. (and I'm unsure about that too)

If I had to guess, it sounds like you are hung up on the “absolutely sure” part of thinking. There are few absolutes in life, and the phrase “but for death and taxes” is a useful refrain. There are things that one can be reasonably certain of. And there are things that one can be reasonably certain are BS. Of course it is possible that some sort of vague omni-entity that made the universe, but is it plausible? The odds of some amazing personal deity hanging around out there, that wants us humans to respond in a certain way based upon goofy old human texts, is much less plausible.

One can be reasonably certain that the universe and the earth are billions of years old. One can be reasonably certain that modern humans have existed for over a hundred thousand years. One can be reasonably certain that dinosaurs existed millions of years ago on earth. Unless of course one puts the idea that “there is no spoon” on par with what one see’s and feels every day. One can be reasonably certain that there was no Eden; that there was no world encompassing flood/deluge; that there was no tower of Babel destroyed by some petty deity in order to cause the languages of the world; that there was never a day in which planetary objects froze for 24 hours; that there is no more truth to the Exodus tale than there is to the Greek tale of Jason and the Golden Fleece (both have trivial archeological references).

If one wants to believe in a liberal Protestant’s theologically mushy view of a personal God; that greased pig cannot really be pinned down. But on can be reasonably certain that the fundegelical God-theology is bunk by its own God-breathed Bible claims on history.

Just my wooden dime….