No one talked about hell more than Jesus. Hell is a punishment that is deserved by all humanity. The miracle is that through God's grace some are saved at all. God doesn't want us to burn, but if you spend your life not wanting anything to do with him, he will not force himself on you and you will receive justice for your crimes.
I thought that they were angels, But much to my surprise, We climbed aboard thier starship and headed for the skies! Styx - Come sail away
Jesus talks about hell in over 40 verses. Read for yourself. Even if the church had said it, they would have to substantiate the claim for us to determine if it was true or false. You think that by vilifying the church you're somehow proving a point, unfortunately logic and evidence talk and name calling walks.
This is a misunderstanding of how Christianity works. Hell isn't for people who don't believe in God. Hell is justice for criminals. Anyone who breaks God's law must face justice as any criminal should. If you've ever lied or cheated or stolen or murdered or whatever; you are guilty. That goes for every single person. Christian or not. The uniqueness of Christianity is that God loves us enough that he paid the penalty that we should have paid. To use a courtroom analogy, Jesus says I will take the punishment due to this person. The Christian says thank you and is free. The non-Christian says either "I've done nothing wrong" or "I don't want you to take my punishment". And is sentenced according to their crimes. I'm under no illusion that I'm going to change any hearts or minds over the Internet. But if you're interested in an actual discussion with someone who didn't grow up in the church and is open to what you have to says, PM me.
Why are you being so defensive? I literally only asked if you got your beliefs from the church.... Why do you find that so offensive? I wasn't vilifying the church why do you say that? I can vilify them if that's what you want? I have another question for you. Do you think that the bible is gospel but the qur'an, torah, tripitaka, bhagavad-git, tao-te-ching, adi granth, dianetics, law of one, lord of the rings etc. are not? My point being that just because you read something in the bible doesn't make it any more real than something I read in Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings. If you don't believe in the Eye of Sauron I suggest you read the Lord of the Rings again. Tolkien talks about it in over 40 paragraphs. I have no problem with you basing your own personal belief system on the bible (well, as long as you don't include the parts about slavery etc) as long as you understand that's what it is - a personal belief system based on some literature you read or perhaps more likely that the church taught you about.
well if you believe in the holy trinity of god the father, god the son and god the holy spirit, the bible clearly says that if you do not believe you will be/are condemned, and in some verses, condemned to the "lake of fire" and the bibe also says that just having faith and believe isn't enough to get into heaven “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned.†"He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?' Then I will declare to them solemnly, 'I never knew you. Depart from me, you evildoers.'" plus the first 3 commandments are in the same vein
Maybe I wasn't as clear as is like to be. Hell doesn't exist simply because God feels jilted by us. Unbelief does preclude one being saved, but it's not the only reason.
Reductio ad-absurdum By this logic we have reason to believe anything that supposedly took place before the invention of photography and audio recording. Historians should just pack it up. Sure. Pascal's wager I suppose
"Reason to believe" I don't necessarily agree with but "Freedom to theorise" for sure. That doesn't mean that some theories can't hold more weight than others, some make more sense logically based on what we see now and the evidence we have available to us (such as evolution over new earth creationism for example), but everything is still just a theory. That's really my point. You can subscribe to the theory laid out in the bible, you choose to adopt that and that's fine, but it doesn't make it any more than a theory just because you got it from some literature and certainly doesn't give it any extra credence over lets say... other literature or someones own personal belief system because of that. A anthropomorphised god deity and literal heaven and hell is one of the wilder and more unlikely theories out there in my opinion.
I'd agree with that. We all have to weigh the evidence before us on any given topic and come to a determination based on the strength of the evidence and our confidence in the source. But to your last point, there are at least some absolutes. Some things are not simply theory, they can be verified as objectively true or false.
Yeah I agree with the first point. That's all we really have, our own opinions and beliefs based on what we see and feel. I'm all for that as long as people accept that that's all it is and respect that others can go through life believing very different things. I am really against any form of preaching. I'm curious about what you think are absolutes? I've given this a lot of thought recently and so far my conclusion has been that there is only one absolute and that is that something exists, as we are experiencing some type of phenomena in that we are having this conversation, there is some type of something going on. I'm not sure that nature of this something or anything within it can ever be more than speculation though, as up for speculation as I am
This is obviously a great topic but I don't know if this is the best venue. I will say this, I think that we would need to define what a "something" is and what defines existence. For instance, love or logic aren't physical things but they certainly exist. I would I know that absolutes exist because a relativistic position is illogical. Sayings like "we can't truly know anything" or "that's true for you but not for me" are logical fallacies because as statements they are subject to their own premises and therefore cannot be true. The truth must then mean that absolute truths do exist. Such as the topic of this post. If someone were to meet an alien then it's no longer suppositional, they absolutely exist.
God says we are created in his image. Why would he feel the need to clarify that? Maybe because there resides other life forms beyond our galaxy? I agree to an extent that some creatures (reptilians, aliens) are fallen angels (demons). But I have an open mind about other life forms. I've thought about what God has planned for them, maybe nothing. Maybe they just sit back and wait for the sun or humanity to destroy our earth soGod can create a new one. iMO, as a Christian and some one who does believe the bible, I think all life forms play an important role in our future.
You are choosing to believe in god out of fear of eternal damnation. Instead look at the world around you and decide if the creator of this world is deserving of your worship.