Hero Professor In Hell Right Now

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
God focuses much less on individual placement in Heaven and Hell than his believers do.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I imagine. After all, what would God care where each of billions of people happen to end up.

OTOH, it's a pretty big deal for the individuals involved. Hell, how can you think about anything else? Eternal torment versus limitless happiness? I tell you what, I'd be way holier than anyone you've ever met if I believed any of this!

[dknightx]

the ignorance about christianity on this forum is laughable. whatever, high fives to my christian bashing aetheist buddies! you win again!

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
the ignorance about christianity on this forum is laughable. whatever, high fives to my christian bashing aetheist buddies! you win again!

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't get it. You made a specific post. People are responding to what YOU said. Christianity needn't play any role, YOU are the one who said he is burning in hell, and gave an analogy to explain it.

You don't like what people replied, but you cannot refute their points, so instead you would rather simply attack their ignorance of Christianity? This seems pretty childish.

[dknightx]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the ignorance about christianity on this forum is laughable. whatever, high fives to my christian bashing aetheist buddies! you win again!

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't get it. You made a specific post. People are responding to what YOU said. Christianity needn't play any role, YOU are the one who said he is burning in hell, and gave an analogy to explain it.

You don't like what people replied, but you cannot refute their points, so instead you would rather simply attack their ignorance of Christianity? This seems pretty childish.

[/ QUOTE ]

the posts before the analogy, and the posts about the analogy that speak on aetheist interpretation of Christianity are ignorant. I don't feel like refuting their points because i could care less if you understand christianity or not (i just find it hilarious, is that an attack?). If you really desired to, you would do it on your own merit.

btw, i'm guessing by "you" you meant "christians"

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the ignorance about christianity on this forum is laughable. whatever, high fives to my christian bashing aetheist buddies! you win again!

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't get it. You made a specific post. People are responding to what YOU said. Christianity needn't play any role, YOU are the one who said he is burning in hell, and gave an analogy to explain it.

You don't like what people replied, but you cannot refute their points, so instead you would rather simply attack their ignorance of Christianity? This seems pretty childish.

[/ QUOTE ]

the posts before the analogy, and the posts about the analogy that speak on aetheist interpretation of Christianity are ignorant. I don't feel like refuting their points because i could care less if you understand christianity or not (i just find it hilarious, is that an attack?). If you really desired to, you would do it on your own merit.

btw, i'm guessing by "you" you meant "christians"

[/ QUOTE ]

No, by 'you' I meant you, dknightx. Where is the misunderstanding? A bunch of people jumped to the conclusion that this guy was going to be burning in Hell because he wasn't a Christian. Then YOU made a post with an analogy explaining that, while it was obv true he WAS going to be burning in Hell, it was ok, because he still deserved it.

And now you are complaining we don't understand Christianity? What parts? The only pertinent part is that he is burning in Hell, which you, yourself, agreed with.

EDIT: Oh, sorry dknightx, I just reread this, and KUJustin is the one who made the analogy post, not you. Apologize for the misunderstanding. Do you agree with his analogy, though?

[dknightx]

vhawk, since i'm bored, let me just respond to the first response to the analogy, to show you what I mean.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
At the risk of offending some, let's invent a separate but nearly identical professor.

This professor committed a rape a week before the attack. He made the exact same heroic effort with regard only for the well-being of his students, except for whatever reason this time he survives. He is then put in jail shortly thereafter. I don't think very many people would be outraged at his jailing despite his heroism or Holocaust-survivor status.

In fact, I think the above professor is a useful illustration of what the "conservative" Christians are trying to explain in these discussions which is that when a rule is broken there's a consequence, a penalty to be paid and how "good" of a person you are doesn't change that fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

So wait, you freely ADMIT that in your moral philosophy, good deeds are completely irrelevant?

[/ QUOTE ]

where did he say that? faith without works is dead

[ QUOTE ]
Your argument about consequences when rules are broken might make sense if there were any rules except "Worship God".

[/ QUOTE ]

wrong

[ QUOTE ]
But in fact, as long as someone accepts Jesus as savior, then they are automatically a good person and all previous broken rules are ignored, while if they don't, they are automatically a bad person and no amount of good deeds are sufficient to prove otherwise. It's a one-rule moral universe.

[/ QUOTE ]

wrong

[ QUOTE ]

As long as we're making up dubious analogies about real-world justice, imagine if Cho Seung-Hui had, instead of shooting himself after the massacre, gone to State House and kissed the feet of Virginia governor Tim Kaine, while professing his total love for and obediance to him. If Kaine then pardoned him and pronounced him now the equal of all other citizens, do you think that would be regarded as just? Yet the analogous situation with God is touted by Christians as an example of God's infinite justice.

[/ QUOTE ]

wrong again!

[ QUOTE ]

How you can simultaneously believe that:

- God is infinitely just
- Bad deeds from believers require no punishment, while good deeds from unbelievers receive no reward

and:

- God is infinitely merciful
- God will torture people for all eternity for the "crime" of not devoting themselves to a religion for which the evidence is extremely flimsy at best


[/ QUOTE ]

wrong again

[ QUOTE ]
I mean, do you SERIOUSLY believe all those statements? The cognitive dissonance must be simply amazing.

It also makes me wonder where you draw the line. Are non-Christian 5 year olds destined for hell? 10 year olds? 15 year olds? At what point is someone who dies cognizant enough of theology that they will suffer eternal torture for their belief system? This is one of those points at which Christians fall back on the "Well, you see, God Has A Plan" type answers.

[/ QUOTE ]

you really like this "eternal torture" stuff. i'm curious what you are basing it on.

[dknightx]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the ignorance about christianity on this forum is laughable. whatever, high fives to my christian bashing aetheist buddies! you win again!

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't get it. You made a specific post. People are responding to what YOU said. Christianity needn't play any role, YOU are the one who said he is burning in hell, and gave an analogy to explain it.

You don't like what people replied, but you cannot refute their points, so instead you would rather simply attack their ignorance of Christianity? This seems pretty childish.

[/ QUOTE ]

the posts before the analogy, and the posts about the analogy that speak on aetheist interpretation of Christianity are ignorant. I don't feel like refuting their points because i could care less if you understand christianity or not (i just find it hilarious, is that an attack?). If you really desired to, you would do it on your own merit.

btw, i'm guessing by "you" you meant "christians"

[/ QUOTE ]

No, by 'you' I meant you, dknightx. Where is the misunderstanding? A bunch of people jumped to the conclusion that this guy was going to be burning in Hell because he wasn't a Christian. Then YOU made a post with an analogy explaining that, while it was obv true he WAS going to be burning in Hell, it was ok, because he still deserved it.

And now you are complaining we don't understand Christianity? What parts? The only pertinent part is that he is burning in Hell, which you, yourself, agreed with.

[/ QUOTE ]

i didnt make that analogy ... please calm down.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the ignorance about christianity on this forum is laughable. whatever, high fives to my christian bashing aetheist buddies! you win again!

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't get it. You made a specific post. People are responding to what YOU said. Christianity needn't play any role, YOU are the one who said he is burning in hell, and gave an analogy to explain it.

You don't like what people replied, but you cannot refute their points, so instead you would rather simply attack their ignorance of Christianity? This seems pretty childish.

[/ QUOTE ]

the posts before the analogy, and the posts about the analogy that speak on aetheist interpretation of Christianity are ignorant. I don't feel like refuting their points because i could care less if you understand christianity or not (i just find it hilarious, is that an attack?). If you really desired to, you would do it on your own merit.

btw, i'm guessing by "you" you meant "christians"

[/ QUOTE ]

No, by 'you' I meant you, dknightx. Where is the misunderstanding? A bunch of people jumped to the conclusion that this guy was going to be burning in Hell because he wasn't a Christian. Then YOU made a post with an analogy explaining that, while it was obv true he WAS going to be burning in Hell, it was ok, because he still deserved it.

And now you are complaining we don't understand Christianity? What parts? The only pertinent part is that he is burning in Hell, which you, yourself, agreed with.

[/ QUOTE ]

i didnt make that analogy ... please calm down.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, sorry, I edited my post when I realized that.

However, a Christian, not an atheist, did.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
vhawk, since i'm bored, let me just respond to the first response to the analogy, to show you what I mean.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
At the risk of offending some, let's invent a separate but nearly identical professor.

This professor committed a rape a week before the attack. He made the exact same heroic effort with regard only for the well-being of his students, except for whatever reason this time he survives. He is then put in jail shortly thereafter. I don't think very many people would be outraged at his jailing despite his heroism or Holocaust-survivor status.

In fact, I think the above professor is a useful illustration of what the "conservative" Christians are trying to explain in these discussions which is that when a rule is broken there's a consequence, a penalty to be paid and how "good" of a person you are doesn't change that fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

So wait, you freely ADMIT that in your moral philosophy, good deeds are completely irrelevant?

[/ QUOTE ]

where did he say that? faith without works is dead

[ QUOTE ]
Your argument about consequences when rules are broken might make sense if there were any rules except "Worship God".

[/ QUOTE ]

wrong

[ QUOTE ]
But in fact, as long as someone accepts Jesus as savior, then they are automatically a good person and all previous broken rules are ignored, while if they don't, they are automatically a bad person and no amount of good deeds are sufficient to prove otherwise. It's a one-rule moral universe.

[/ QUOTE ]

wrong

[ QUOTE ]

As long as we're making up dubious analogies about real-world justice, imagine if Cho Seung-Hui had, instead of shooting himself after the massacre, gone to State House and kissed the feet of Virginia governor Tim Kaine, while professing his total love for and obediance to him. If Kaine then pardoned him and pronounced him now the equal of all other citizens, do you think that would be regarded as just? Yet the analogous situation with God is touted by Christians as an example of God's infinite justice.

[/ QUOTE ]

wrong again!

[ QUOTE ]

How you can simultaneously believe that:

- God is infinitely just
- Bad deeds from believers require no punishment, while good deeds from unbelievers receive no reward

and:

- God is infinitely merciful
- God will torture people for all eternity for the "crime" of not devoting themselves to a religion for which the evidence is extremely flimsy at best


[/ QUOTE ]

wrong again

[ QUOTE ]
I mean, do you SERIOUSLY believe all those statements? The cognitive dissonance must be simply amazing.

It also makes me wonder where you draw the line. Are non-Christian 5 year olds destined for hell? 10 year olds? 15 year olds? At what point is someone who dies cognizant enough of theology that they will suffer eternal torture for their belief system? This is one of those points at which Christians fall back on the "Well, you see, God Has A Plan" type answers.

[/ QUOTE ]

you really like this "eternal torture" stuff. i'm curious what you are basing it on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you think simply stating 'wrong' is a valid argument?

But really this is a side issue. It is going to ALWAYS be a simple rebuttal, for you, to claim that the other side simply does not understand Christianity. The reason for this? There are going to be Christians on both sides of every single controversial issue. For instance, where do I get the 'eternal torture' stuff? From Christians. Where do I get the idea that one can do whatever they want and, as long as they accept Christ as their savior they will be saved? From Christians. You can claim these Christians don't understand Christianity, but then again, why should we take your word for it?

It is more hilarious to me how badly Christians misunderstand Christianity, and apparently you are no exception? Or are you the one who has it all correct, and it is the vast majority of other Christians who are wrong?

[dknightx]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the ignorance about christianity on this forum is laughable. whatever, high fives to my christian bashing aetheist buddies! you win again!

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't get it. You made a specific post. People are responding to what YOU said. Christianity needn't play any role, YOU are the one who said he is burning in hell, and gave an analogy to explain it.

You don't like what people replied, but you cannot refute their points, so instead you would rather simply attack their ignorance of Christianity? This seems pretty childish.

[/ QUOTE ]

the posts before the analogy, and the posts about the analogy that speak on aetheist interpretation of Christianity are ignorant. I don't feel like refuting their points because i could care less if you understand christianity or not (i just find it hilarious, is that an attack?). If you really desired to, you would do it on your own merit.

btw, i'm guessing by "you" you meant "christians"

[/ QUOTE ]

No, by 'you' I meant you, dknightx. Where is the misunderstanding? A bunch of people jumped to the conclusion that this guy was going to be burning in Hell because he wasn't a Christian. Then YOU made a post with an analogy explaining that, while it was obv true he WAS going to be burning in Hell, it was ok, because he still deserved it.

And now you are complaining we don't understand Christianity? What parts? The only pertinent part is that he is burning in Hell, which you, yourself, agreed with.

EDIT: Oh, sorry dknightx, I just reread this, and KUJustin is the one who made the analogy post, not you. Apologize for the misunderstanding. Do you agree with his analogy, though?

[/ QUOTE ]

i agree with part of his analogy which he says bad deeds should be punished (and no, i do not consider "misbelief" the bad deed, i am speaking about sin), however, I do not believe that good deeds are completely ignored.

also, as i've stated many times before, God will judge each person justly, meaning, being a "christian" doesn't necessarily get you into heaven (parable of the sheeps/goats) and being a "non-christian" doesn't necessarily get you ETERNAL BURNING AND DAMNATION IN THE FIERY PITS OF HELL!! WHAHAHAH!!!.