Why you'll go to hell

I don't see how the definition does anything other than reinforce my opinion that threatening children with hell is textbook child abuse, assimong the child takes the threat seriously.

And by the way you might want to research what signficant actually means.

 

I wouldn't call it child abuse. That's the PC police whiney parent version of child abuse. It's stupid, yes. But let's not be dramaqueens. This is why I don't associate my self with serious atheists (I'm atheist). They constantly whine about child abuse, or "this cross offends me". Wussified America we've become.

 

There are also people minding their own business and are killed by bureaucrats who are reaching beyond their delegated authority. The parents you demonstrated are also found in homes that do not practice a religion. As for the people who voluntarily go to church on Sunday morning are not committing any type of abuse. The Supreme Court has already determined that parents have the inherent right to bring their children up according to the religion of their choice. Want to try again?

 

The only thing you provided as a list of wild goose chase material. Your closing statement above only represents a private opinion and does not come close to Proof.

 

No it's stupid for adults. But why would any parent want to allow anyone to threaten a child with eternal hell if that parent actually loved the child. Might be OK to try and brainwash the child into believing but threatening seems a bit beyond the pale.

Never heard athiests say the cross offends them unless it constitutes state sponsored religion.

And protecting children is not being a wuss.

 

Whatever you say dude. My point is that America has become emotionally weak. Sack up! (or was that offensive too? never know anymore)

 

I have done more research on the subject matter than you would really want to know. However because you seem to think that I need to research it... here is the simple definitions: "
[h=2]significant[/h] (sɪɡˈnɪfɪkənt) adj1. having or expressing a meaning; indicative
2. having a covert or implied meaning; suggestive
3. important, notable, or momentous"
Now take your pick

perhaps you should check out the meaning of ambiguous or capricious.

 

What do you know about "the afterlife"???? I posted the OP because I got tired of reading about atheists sweating a load over getting sent to hell for subbing their toes, and they usually think "hell" is something from Dante's Inferno.

Then they talk about how evil God is for having created such a place, so they want to go there just to teach God a lesson. It's psychotic. Whether you think "hell" is the grave or whether it's Gehenna, you don't believe in any of it anyway, so what's your problem?

The answer to your question is FALSE. You can't very well pledge eternal love and loyalty to my God if you don't know who He is, but you have to live up to your own idea of what it means to live righteously. That's an oversimplification, because everyone has some idea of a supreme being no matter where they were raised - God's eternal attributes are clearly seen.

And if what I say doesn't mean anything to you now, why should my pedigree matter?

 

I provided you specific contradictions, laws and punishments. I'll take you are going avoid and distract from addressing them.

 

you have shown nothing but a list of numbers that are supposedly located on some outside source. You have offered no explanation for any of the numbers you listed and have not shown how each of those numbers are relevant to this discussion.

 

Those numbers are the 613 mosaic laws, handed down by your God. They have their scriptures attached.

 

Again... all I have seen are your numbers and no quotes pertaining to each of the numbers. As stated before... I am not going to do the footwork for you nor am I going on a wild goose chase. So instead of me doing your footwork, why don't you just provide the list with the quote from each number and your assessment on each quote as to how it is relevant to this discussion?

 

http://www.jewfaq.org/613.htm

My apologies if I did not post the the link. Here it is.

The link is there. You need to click on it and scroll to these numbers. You will find the laws and the scriptures that support them. Grow up.

 

I'm providing you the actual laws and scriptures. Me posting my opinion means nothing. If you do not find them immoral or brutal punishment, you may be insane.

 

Let me spoon feed you.

Brutal punishment:

#287-death by burning(Lev. 20:14)
#288-death by stoning(Deut. 22:24

Immoral laws:

#199-slavery(Lev. 25:46)
#301-marriage by rape(Deut. 22:28-29)

Contradictions:

Where was Jesus at the sixth hour on the day of the crucifixion?

A) On the cross(Mark 15:23)
B) In Pilates court(John 19:14)

What did Judas do with the blood money he received for betraying Jesus?

A) He bought a Field(Acts: 1:1
B) He threw it into the temple and went away(Mathew 27:5)

 

Ah, well, I attended Julliard, I am a graduate of the Harvard Business School, I travel quite extensively, I lived through the Black Plague and I had a pretty good time during that, I've seen The Exorcist about 167 TIMES, AND IT KEEPS GETTING FUNNIER EVERY SINGLE TIME I SEE IT! NOT TO MENTION THE FACT THAT YOU'RE TALKING TO A DEAD GUY! NOW WHAT DO YOU THINK?! Am I qualified?

 

"False"? It is "false" that Christianity teaches that if you love God, you go to Heaven....but if you don't love God, you go to Hell????

- - - Updated - - -

IOW, he won't answer.....just quote Michael Keaton from "Beetlejuice"


Next up, he'll declare his superor intellect by quoting Gene Hackman in the first "Superman".

 

You are sitting in front of a computer, and Google books is just full of old theology textbooks. Why don't you go there instead of pulling stuff out of your...self, and see if I am not right. Better yet, read the Bible for yourself instead of reading what a bunch of angry atheists say it says and stop asking me the same questions over and over again?

And who I am is none of your business.

 

Well, aside from the fact that Baptists don't believe in priests, except for the priesthood of all believers and Jesus himself as the lone High Priest, there's some context here that should help better explain my initial question. IJM (It's just me) has repeatedly claimed to speak for God and on behalf of all of Christianity, and he has said that his authority to do so comes from his priestly office through apostolic succession. My question was centered around trying to figure out how he reconciles this authoritative claim with his acknowledgement that Baptists, who do not see any authority in such claims, are also Christians.

Issues of respect and manners and fruits of the spirit are all important, but IJM's claim has been that people should show him deference, not just respect, on issues involving Christianity. I'm sure most Baptists would be respectful, but no Baptist would treat a priest's opinion with deference solely because of his ordination or his claims of apostolic succession.

In addition to this, Baptists have only two ordinances (they don't even like the term "sacrament"), and they see the main duties of their clergy as evangelical, not ecumenical. These ordinances are purely symbolic, according to Baptists, and clergy do not act as any sort of earthly intermediary for God.

I guess that is what it all boils down to: IJM has claimed to be an earthly intermediary for God on behalf of Christendom, but many Christians reject even the notion that there are any earthly intermediaries for God. I'm trying to figure out how he reconciles those facts.

For reference: http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=466708&page=5&p=1066446519#post1066446519

 

Where did I misquote you and what part of your position have I misrepresented? Please be specific. You have, indeed, said that you speak for God and for Christendom. You have, indeed, said that you draw your authority from apostolic succession. If you misspoke when making these claims, or if your position has changed, I will gladly drop any argument involving those positions, but these are the positions you have communicated.

Need I remind you . . . ?

Sorry, but speaking for someone means you are their intermediary.

 

Probably not offensive although most women would find it rather stupid ( just for your education they are about fifty percent of the population of the emotionally weak America)

 

I was raised Catholic and made to believe that Hell consisted literally of a sheet of fire and that I would "burn" in it forever (if I sent myself there via mortal sin). Later I came to reject everything in the Bible other than the Jewish poetry of the Old Testament) and the guide to ethical living of the New Testament.

Then I calmed down and came to see hell as "mere" estrangement from God, however defined or conceived. That's still more or less where I am now, this belief recently buttressed and augmented, oddly enough, by the spellbinding, bracing, Meditations of Marcus Aurelius. . This great emperor of the Roman Empire was a studied Stoic and apparently a persecutor of Christians whom he held in low regard for their "theatrics," but his philosophy is shot through with references to god, to "the gods," to "the divine within you" (this reference eerily similar to "the Kingdom of God is within you, Luke 17:20-21) and to those lost to atheism whom he actually pities.

It's the most interesting book I have read in decades.

Thanks for the OP, IJM; I'm sorry to see you being abused here for your faith, though it does come across, you'll own, as a little preachy.

 

Ah, the real you. We all knew you made stuff up, this just confirms it.

 

There are tons of aspects in which Stoicism overlaps with Christianity, even down to their notion of the logos. I'm trying to remember, but I think even Paul quoted from the Stoics on the Areopagus. "In Him we live and move and have our being"? Something to that effect?

Well, when you claim to speak for God and for an entire religion, it does come off as a little preachy, and you definitely should own it.

 

Yes, they are 50% of the emotionally weak.