Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

Being religious is for the most part harmless, KN. I know there have been exceptions (al-Qaeda), but as a rule, religious people aren't hurting anyone. Trying as hard to convert someone to athiesm is almost as obnoxious to most people as trying to "save" them by proselytizing. Practicing a religion is fine, as long as you don't hurt anyone by it, mentally or physically.

Live and let live, you know?

Remember, I'm the moderate one!

_________________
beep beep I'm a Jeep

Yes, I noticed you're moderate, but I've met more moderate people (those so nice they believe atheists are not going to hell. YES, these people live in the US).

Physically, religion isn't hurting anyone exempting the exceptions. What bothers ME, and why I would want a world free of religion, is that some technologies and ideas are being suppressed by religion.

'converting' people to atheism can indeed help them if they have grown up in a short-sighted community where the world is flat and where notions even laughable to YOU are taken for granted. You, as you're moderate, could also try and convert the obnoxious to your moderate view, but you'll have to beat me to it

Believe me, I've been trying.

And I don't necessarily think all atheists are going to hell. I really think the whole thing revolves more around what kind of person you are, good or bad. I think if you are truly a decent person, God will forgive you.

There goes my moderation again!

_________________
beep beep I'm a Jeep

*grabs*

PLEASE, keep trying, for the good of mankind!

But Tiny Cowboy, that's a nice sentiment, but it is clearely not what the Scriptures teach. Ephesians 2:8-9 does NOT say, "For you are saved by being an okay person," does it? No. It says, "For you are saved by grace (i.e., God's favor) through faith (i.e., by trusting in him), and this not of yourselves; it is a gift of God." As the Lord himself says, "I am the way, the truth, and the life." As John 3:18 says, "Whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son."

_________________

Didymus to the rescue, once again.

I know, you're right. It's just a tough pill to swallow, you know? That good, decent people could be sent to hell for that. I like to think God is more forgiving. Maybe after death you get one more chance, I have no idea. I really don't want to get into a huge discussion, though. Heh. I'd lose.

_________________
beep beep I'm a Jeep

But the key question for us is, if we are going to say we have faith in Christ, then ought we not believe what he says, and not just those parts we like?

I do not personally want anyone to go to hell. C. S. Lewis once said that it was the most abominable doctrine of the Christian faith, but he also said that he was compelled to believe it because it hung so tightly upon the words of Christ. I do not like the fact than non-believers will go to hell, but there's really only one thing I can do to change that reality, and that is to be faithful to my calling both as a Christian disciple and as a minister of God's Word. And the same is true of you as well: remain faithful to your calling as one of God's Christians; only by sharing your faith will you be able to change the reality.

_________________

I think even Lewis felt that hell might not be eternal, what with The Great Divorce. But you're right, of course; whether there is an eternity of suffering waiting or not, we must realize our purpose and spread the Word as best we can.

_________________
You're a moron if you think I'm not.

Lewis believed that hell didn't have to be eternal. According to him, a person who ended up there might come to realize their mistake and repent posthumously. I don't agree with him. The Lord does make it fairly clear that, once there, it's too late.

_________________

And this all comes from an old, unverifiable book ZING

Unverifiable? By whose standards? With plenty of manuscript and historical evidence to back it up, I sincerely doubt that anyone with any sense of historicity can call it unverifiable.

For now, I'll concentrate my efforts on just the New Testament. Okay, let's see. Four biographical accounts of the life of Jesus, two of which were written by men who knew him personally. A third written by a learned man who did thorough research into Jesus' life before writing, and the fourth by a man who travelled with St. Peter and St. Paul and recorded what they said. In addition to that, many various writings by men who knew Jesus personally, including several written by one man who was Jesus' enemy but later became his disciple. And almost all of these men, except for St. John, were brutally murdered because they refused to renounce the message that they proclaimed (and even John was imprisoned). So, at the very least, we have every reason to believe that these men were telling the truth about what they believed, and were not trying to propogate some sort of scam. Otherwise, it would be very unlikely that they would consider their message worth suffering and dying for.

Now as for the other possibility you might claim, that they were all insane. Not very likely. If they were, their writings would be so incoherent and inconsistent, that there would be no unity between them. Yet the writings of all these men contain a certain wisdom (albeit contrary to what you believe). The writings of the New Testament are clearly not the ramblings of a group of raving lunatics.

Which leaves us with the third possibility: that what they claim is actually true.

You do realize, of course, that both manuscript and historical evidence overwhelmingly confirms the New Testament as historically accurate, don't you? By any realistic standards of historical criticism, what we have in the New Testament must be considered authentic.

It is easy to SAY the Bible is unverifiable, but it is a completely different thing to DEMONSTRATE this claim. In your own words, ZING!

_________________

Readable sources, not names, Didy. Return-ZING'D!

PAPYRUS MANUSCRIPT'D!!

Look, KN. As I stated on the other thread, it is becoming painfully obvious that you don't give a rip what I have to say. Therefore, explain to me again why I should give a rip about what you have to say?

_________________

I will study these beautiful archeological finds. I really like them. I would really like it if you studied human fossils in a similar, not totally dismissing way.

I do not remember ever commenting on fossiles at all. Therefore, you have no clue as to how I view human fossiles, now do you? I'd prefer if you didn't make such assumptions about me again.

_________________

Zing???? Are you in grade school???? (no offence intende to those in grade school)

The biggest mystery imo, is why is KN participates in discussions that he refuses to give any ground in, even if he is proved wrong? Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the purpose here to exchange ideas and information?

I for one, am a firm believer that all those who have not had the chance to learn of Christ in this life will recieve an opportunity in the hereafter, and those who rejected Him in this life will also have that opportunity, although at the judgement they will be require to pay a penelty for their hard-heartedness and willfull resistance to the Spirit of God. So KN, you can be comforted that even after a life of willful disbeleif in the Son of God, you will have a chance to avoid the Eternal Hell that awaits those unwilling to accept the Grace and Mercy of a loving Savior. [size=0]zing ; ) [/size]

_________________

That's the problem, now isn't it? KN came on this forum essentially saying he was picking a fight with Christians SO THAT HE COULD ignore us. Further, he keeps claiming that we have to prove ourselves to his satisfaction scientifically, when I have yet to see him make a clear scientific argument on any thread on which he has posted. Take for example this one: he conceded concerning the manuscripts, but offered fossile evidence as a rebuttal. How exactly does fossile evidence contradict the Cross?

What he doesn't understand is that, for the Christian, faith begins and ends at the Cross, so if he wants to refute our faith, he needs to begin there, not in abstract philosophical concepts (If you'll remember, Dr. Zaius attempted that, but when he failed, he resorted to his usual ad hominem rants).

But I've got a notion about this: it seems to me that KN does okay arguing against a generic, conceptual god, but not so great at arguing against a specific God. That's why, in one thread, he said he asks those who argue with him to avoid bringing in their own specific gods and start with only a generic, conceptual god, so he can argue away that one (i.e., knock over the straw man). I believe he is afraid to tackle a God who acts in history. I believe he is afraid to address the issue of the Cross (thus his rather rude dismissal of my contributions); it means he'd need to be able to disprove a historical event, and that is beyond his ability. Thus, he refuses to discuss the Cross because he knows the burden of proof would be on him to disprove it. History supports the New Testament.

Even his invocation of fossile evidence (and the rather insulting false assumption about my beliefs concerning fossiles) was an attempt to draw attention away from the Cross, away from the New Testament, which is where my faith is founded. And not just my faith, but the faith of the whole Christian Church.

_________________

as Tiny said earlier, religion isn't harming anyone. have you ever been ppysically or mentally injured by any beliver of any faith? I should hope not, as the vast majority of religions teach you TO BE NICE TO PEOPLE!!!!! You are certainly not being nice, KN, and you're also not participating in discussions that way most rational and respectful people would expect you to.

but anyway... TOASTPAINT!!!!

Are all non-christians going to hell? I wouldn't like to tihnk so. I wouldn't be the expert, as I'm not sure I belive in hell, or anything else for that matter. PErhaps, later in my life, my experiences will lead me to change my mind, but until then...

The ide athat all non-christians are going to hell is somewhat contradictory. God is supposed to be all forgiveing, all knowing, and all wise, correct? It just bothers me that the most wonderful person in the world who doesn't belive in god would go to hell, and yet Sean Hannity will go to heaven.

_________________

I don't like to think so, either, DGS, but how can I take the words of Jesus in John 3:18, John 14:6, and Mark 16:16 seriously otherwise? The question, and I'm sure I've stated this before, is whether or not I can trust the words of Jesus over the words of someone who would contradict him.

And to quote Dr. Lutzer, "All religions are qualified to take bad men and try to make them better, but only Christ is qualified to take dead men and make them live."

_________________

I guess we won't know until we die.

_________________

That depends. On one hand, there is no absolute certainty: we can either trust or not. On the other hand, there is a certain kind of assurance that comes from that trust.

In Matthew, there is a story of St. Peter seeing Jesus on the water. He asked Jesus to command him to come so that he could walk on the water, too. Keep in mind, this is in the middle of a storm, too. And Jesus did command him. Just like the rest of us, we cannot know what will happen, until we act upon our trust. Peter had no assurance he wouldn't drown, but he got out of the boat anyway. And he walked on the water, an act of trust, and yet that trust was what kept him up.

But you see, I've been in St. Peter's place too many times in my life, called to step out of a boat and into a raging storm, for me to quit trusting my Lord now (heck, to a large degree, I'm there right now). That's all I'm saying.

_________________

The scriptures say "ask and ye shall recieve" In John we are told that ...the Holy Ghost,... he shall teach you all things."

This leads me to believe that one who searches and want to know if there is a God and if Christ was his son, then you will be told. It has worked for me.

_________________

on the whole thing of "will/Are all non-christians going to hell?"

i'm like most others, i dont like to think those ppl that lived good moral lives would go to hell, however the bible clearly states if we dont accept Jesus as lord and savior as our lives and if we do not confess him before men on earth, he will likewise not confess us before his father in heaven (that can be found in Matt. 10)

if we could live good moral lives and live by mans views of righteousness, then most all of us would be able to make it to heaven, however the OT tells us that our righteousness is like filthy rags in the eyes of God, so then what makes us saved?....GRACE/Love!

the fact is if a person who never accepted Jesus as savior in there life makes it to heaven just on being a good moral person, then the whole concept of Jesus and why he came would be made false!

the reason Jesus came was so that he could die on the cross, be the ultimate sacrafice and that all could have away back to him and the father and be with them in heaven on day!

so if a good moral person was able to make it to heaven without being saved or a christian when they die, i really dont see how they could, by just being a good moral person

if

You answered your own question; the only way to get to Heaven is by accepting Christ.

_________________

Sorry about my prolonged absence - I've been very busy over the summer. A few coupla-page-old points to address here:



See, there seems to be some confusion here about the nature of Hell. You would apparently have me believe that the only difference between Heaven and Hell is that God is in Heaven but not in Hell. If this is true, and they are otherwise identical, then what's all the fuss about? Surely if the two are as indistinguishable as you make them out to be, there's no incentive for anyone to reach Hell instead of Heaven.



The same as above: you're making Hell seem attractive. Is Hell really preferable to me simply because God isn't there? It's like saying that the inside of a volcano would be preferable to someone who likes hot weather, ignoring the other factors.

Bottom line: if Hell really would be preferable to me, then that's fine and dandy; surely I won't mind going there at all. If it's not, then there's some factor you're neglecting to mention.



So? The Qur'an is just as... but you're right, this ground has been covered jillions of times.



The last sentence there explains fully why this method is failproof - failproof, that is, for the evangelists who preach it. If the nonbeliever "feels" the Holy Spirit, then you can celebrate that another soul has been saved. If not, there's an easy way out: you can simply tell the infidel that their heart is not yet sufficiently "humble, willing and sincere". You could fit such a method around "discovering" the Invisible Pink Unicorn without being proven wrong.



You think I haven't done this? Heck, it was devoting myself to reading the Word that put me off Christianity in the first place.



I've done this too. Did I ever get the slightest response? Of course not. But that doesn't matter, does it? Because you can just dismiss my earnest attempt to connect with God by telling me my heart's not humble.



I particularly like the way that this method preys on gut feelings. If the praying atheist suddenly feels his heart rate quicken, is it down to the Holy Spirit? Perhaps, but there are plenty of more reasonable explanations. The circumstance of making this prayer, the final step on the "journey", is an exciting one in itself. The unsure nonbeliever may feel nervous about having his belief system destroyed, hence the excitement. The believer who wants it to be true will naturally feel excited - if he feels the Holy Ghost, he'll be saved! Isn't that a good reason to be excited? In this case, the desire for the feeling causes the feeling itself, which is falsely attributed to a divine source.

If there was ever a truly wishy-washy way to make your presence known, it is through this sort of vague "feeling". Why shouldn't it be a voice? Why shouldn't the hard work and scholarly activity be rewarded with a certainty? I know why: because the devisor of this method had insufficient faith to take that extra step and actually make a tangible guarantee. Not only is there a way out in case the objective is not achieved, the objective itself is made so vague that it may be unclear even to me whether or not I've achieved it.



How ironic that you set me a method that requires possibly months of work and intellectual challenge, that requires me to be open-minded, and then you use a phrase like "I will not budge." What sort of example are you setting? If I refuse to take on your challenge, you can hardly tell me off for it, since you are clearly at least as set in your ways as I am.

And now, a final thought:



I want to know why it's called "the good news", since practically every Christian here seems genuinely saddened by the notion of God sending people to Hell. I think a better term would be "unimaginably terrible news, with a teeny-tiny consolation".

_________________
"You get the Most Annoying Transsexual I've Ever Spoken To award." -The Zephyr Song

The Good News is that we no longer should have to spend eternity in Hell. God loves us so much that He sent Himself in the form of Christ to save us!

_________________

Okay, this threat seems to have gotten stalled.... So Ian, I'm going to have to galvanize us. *poke*

You say Christ saved us, but what about Jewish people, or people of many other faiths similar to Christianity in it's heritage? Are they going to hell because they think he was a great man, but not the messiah? Does that mean they're going to burn in hell for all eternity?

_________________

Exactly, Digs. Jews are already condemned because they were not convinced that Jesus was the Messiah, & crucified Him. And yes, it does mean they are going to hell. Sorry.

_________________

Correction, Ian. Not all Jews. Only those who continue to reject him. Ever heard of an organization called Apple of His Eye Missions? It's a group of Jewish people who believe in Jesus.

_________________

Never heard of them.

Oy, Toast paint!

_________________