Guest r3alchild Posted April 23, 2013 Share Posted April 23, 2013 So get this, I am talking on the phone with this christian and after a while I bring up the issue of hell and how unjust hell is. I describe all the problems with the theory of hell, one of the things I said was that hell is a place that pain is forced onto you by god. She says that hell is not a place god sends you but a place your sin nature separates you from god and therefore you suffer. To which I replied, but doesnt the bible says that hell is a lake of fire that torments you, thats not just inner sin separating you from god thats god casting you into a place that causes pain. Revelation 20v14(KJV) 14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. 15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. Then what came next was priceless, so she thinks about it for like a few seconds and says, oh chris its not real flames you see, its metaphorical, its just describing the inner torment of sin and separation from god. Then only one thought entered my mind. BULLSHIT! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBluegrassSkeptic Posted April 23, 2013 Share Posted April 23, 2013 Yeah, I think not. Now she's just lying. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shia Posted April 23, 2013 Share Posted April 23, 2013 They try to justify all the negative aspects of scripture that don't hold with the brainwashing message that they are trying to teach. What about the part where worms are supposed to eat you alive while you are being burned by a fire that will not go out?? And of course you cant die because you are already dead and in hell. I was taught this literally you will go to hell and suffer for any wrongdoing of scripture! I was living in fear for years! And I couldn't understand why a loving, merciful and just god would do this! What about all those who never had a chance to hear the gospel?? christianity is as absurd as islam... I read the koran once and the book has Miriam the sister of moses as the mother of jesus. and hagar the mother of ismael who supposedly walked around the black stone in mecca or something and drank some holy water.. people will believe ANYTHING if taught to fear questions and brainwashed at a young age. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raoul Posted April 23, 2013 Share Posted April 23, 2013 You know what's funny about this? They always say we make up arguments to escape their allegedly stunning assertions but it's THEY who concoct some of the craziest crap to avoid our challenges. They never cease to amaze me on the bs they'll come up with! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midniterider Posted April 23, 2013 Share Posted April 23, 2013 So get this, I am talking on the phone with this christian and after a while I bring up the issue of hell and how unjust hell is. I describe all the problems with the theory of hell, one of the things I said was that hell is a place that pain is forced onto you by god. She said that hell is not a place god sends you but a place your sin nature separates you from god and therefore you suffer. To which I replied, but doesnt the bible says that hell is a lake of fire that torments you, thats not just inner sin separating you from god thats god casting you into a place that causes pain. Revelation 20v14(KJV) 14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. 15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. Then what came next was priceless, so she thinks about it for like a few seconds and says, oh chris its not real flames you see, its metaphorical, its just describing the inner torment of sin and separation from god. Then only one thought entered my mind. BULLSHIT! Well, if it's just inner torment, I can handle that without the need to commit my life to Jebus! :-) We all have inner torment sometimes. haha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stryper Posted April 23, 2013 Share Posted April 23, 2013 patronizing....as always. "oh <you poor deluded soul> that's not what <insert random ideology here> means. It means <something seemingly "less" evil>" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
◊ crazyguy123 ◊ Posted April 23, 2013 Share Posted April 23, 2013 Lmao, if separation from god was all that Hell was, then my afterlife would be just like my life is right now, pleasant, for the most part. Hell would probably be a little bit fun too. The things that I like which happen to be sins according to the book of wholly babble are things that don't hurt anyone else and if those things "living in me" were what Hell was, then I would probably enjoy Hell. Perhaps then it would be Heaven for me? Unless of course I have to suffer inner torment for the things that I like forever, that would suck! I don't care if there are no flames, it would still suck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellwood Posted April 23, 2013 Share Posted April 23, 2013 I asked a very bright christian where I work, "What about the 12 year old North Korean girl who dies of starvation after never having a chance to hear this complicated "get out of hell" formula? She thought for a moment and then offered that perhaps reincarnation does exist and that gawd allows them to return again and again until they have the chance to hear the salvation plan and make the correct decision. She said this all very seriously. I kid you not that this person is bright, married with grandchildren, a very hard worker who does a fantastic job where I work, attends a small country church weekly, and is at a higher level than myself. I do see most christians around me trying to figure out hell. Some of my close friends and family are trying to change their definition I think because they can't believe that, given their current one, it means that, myself, their long time good friend, dad, etc will be going there. I know my wife is working on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest r3alchild Posted April 23, 2013 Share Posted April 23, 2013 If you think about it, if her hell is real it would not be more painful in your sin nature there as it is here and besides I would be with billions of people like you. So no it does not sound so bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deva Posted April 24, 2013 Share Posted April 24, 2013 I asked a very bright christian where I work, "What about the 12 year old North Korean girl who dies of starvation after never having a chance to hear this complicated "get out of hell" formula? She thought for a moment and then offered that perhaps reincarnation does exist and that gawd allows them to return again and again until they have the chance to hear the salvation plan and make the correct decision. She said this all very seriously. I kid you not that this person is bright, married with grandchildren, a very hard worker who does a fantastic job where I work, attends a small country church weekly, and is at a higher level than myself. I do see most christians around me trying to figure out hell. Some of my close friends and family are trying to change their definition I think because they can't believe that, given their current one, it means that, myself, their long time good friend, dad, etc will be going there. I know my wife is working on it. Better not to hear it at all. But most of them can't see this fact so they have to twist things. Needless to say, the Bible has no second chances by reincarnation. LOL. The capacity for self-deception in this area is really amazing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deva Posted April 24, 2013 Share Posted April 24, 2013 Lmao, if separation from god was all that Hell was, then my afterlife would be just like my life is right now, pleasant, for the most part. Hell would probably be a little bit fun too. The things that I like which happen to be sins according to the book of wholly babble are things that don't hurt anyone else and if those things "living in me" were what Hell was, then I would probably enjoy Hell. Perhaps then it would be Heaven for me? Unless of course I have to suffer inner torment for the things that I like forever, that would suck! I don't care if there are no flames, it would still suck. Exactly. If I am "separated from God" now, since I don't believe now, things aren't really so darn bad. Hell sure must be more than that - a place where you are burning in flames but somehow your body continues to exist in some form. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StephanieA Posted April 26, 2013 Share Posted April 26, 2013 First time joining in, long time lurker. They also say that we're taking the scripture out of context. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
new2me Posted April 26, 2013 Share Posted April 26, 2013 Welcome StephanieA! I used to deceive myself in this same way. It's just painful now to hear others do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdelsolray Posted April 27, 2013 Share Posted April 27, 2013 So get this, I am talking on the phone with this christian and after a while I bring up the issue of hell and how unjust hell is. I describe all the problems with the theory of hell, one of the things I said was that hell is a place that pain is forced onto you by god. She says that hell is not a place god sends you but a place your sin nature separates you from god and therefore you suffer. To which I replied, but doesnt the bible says that hell is a lake of fire that torments you, thats not just inner sin separating you from god thats god casting you into a place that causes pain. Revelation 20v14(KJV) 14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. 15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. Then what came next was priceless, so she thinks about it for like a few seconds and says, oh chris its not real flames you see, its metaphorical, its just describing the inner torment of sin and separation from god. ... Yes, the Bible means what it says, except when it doesn't. How convenient. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RipVanWinkle Posted April 27, 2013 Share Posted April 27, 2013 As I have said before, the "context" they are referring to is the whole fundamentalist message they are trying to sell, not just the chapter from which the interpretation came. For example, I read in the NT somewhere (I'm not good at remembering chapter and verse) that a murderer could never go to heaven, At that time I was getting my Xtian misinformation from my brother who is and always will be a fundamentalist. I asked him if this wasn't inconsistent with, for example, John 3:16, where it says anyone who believes in Jesus will be saved. He said that it is not inconsistent because every other place in the bible says that everyone can be saved. SO, THEREFORE, IT CAN'T MEAN THAT NO MURDERER CANNOT GO TO HEAVEN. How do you like that logic? Unbelievable. bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raoul Posted April 28, 2013 Share Posted April 28, 2013 I spoke about this, taking things out of context, briefly in a video recently. Among other things I asked if someone like James really knew his one letter would be shared by churches in Corinth or Ephesis or other places whom Paul had written letters to and vice versa? Of course not! So the strawman about contextual interpretation was meaningless and merely served to explain away contradictions and discrepencies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riddick Posted April 29, 2013 Share Posted April 29, 2013 You know what's funny about this? They always say we make up arguments to escape their allegedly stunning assertions but it's THEY who concoct some of the craziest crap to avoid our challenges. They never cease to amaze me on the bs they'll come up with! I agree Raoul, the shit that comes out of their mouth just makes my head explode, but i think they just try to convince themselves. I don't know what would be worse, being in heaven with the likes of Ray Comfort or burning in the fires of hell... BRING ON HELL!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
par4dcourse Posted April 29, 2013 Share Posted April 29, 2013 When some tries the "out of context" bs, I counter with "ok, so what is the proper context for dashing babies on rocks or committing genocide"? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raoul Posted April 29, 2013 Share Posted April 29, 2013 Those are good ones Riddick and Par4dcourse especially Par's which I'm gonna incorporate into my arsenal. Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VacuumFlux Posted April 29, 2013 Share Posted April 29, 2013 When some tries the "out of context" bs, I counter with "ok, so what is the proper context for dashing babies on rocks or committing genocide"? Sadly, I've heard answers for these. The first one is basically "they started it!!!" where that's what a foreign army did to the Israelites, so the psalm is just asking for revenge/justice for the poor oppressed underdog. The second is "but they deserved it!" because god was so super patient and merciful that he kept letting the caananites murder their babies by sacraficing them to molec and hoping they'd stop some time, but eventually every single individual in the entire ethnic group ended up so evil that it was totally justified to slaughter them. (It amuses me how big of a deal some modern christians make of the Molec thing, despite the lack of historical evidence or even much mention of it in the bible as a reason for the killing. It also appeals to them because they think that painfully burning an infant to death is morally equivalent to abortion at any stage of pregnancy, so they can claim that pro-choice people deserve to be slaughtered just as much as the canaanites did.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
◊ crazyguy123 ◊ Posted April 29, 2013 Share Posted April 29, 2013 When some tries the "out of context" bs, I counter with "ok, so what is the proper context for dashing babies on rocks or committing genocide"? Sadly, I've heard answers for these. The first one is basically "they started it!!!" where that's what a foreign army did to the Israelites, so the psalm is just asking for revenge/justice for the poor oppressed underdog. The second is "but they deserved it!" because god was so super patient and merciful that he kept letting the caananites murder their babies by sacraficing them to molec and hoping they'd stop some time, but eventually every single individual in the entire ethnic group ended up so evil that it was totally justified to slaughter them. (It amuses me how big of a deal some modern christians make of the Molec thing, despite the lack of historical evidence or even much mention of it in the bible as a reason for the killing. It also appeals to them because they think that painfully burning an infant to death is morally equivalent to abortion at any stage of pregnancy, so they can claim that pro-choice people deserve to be slaughtered just as much as the canaanites did.) When the Canaanites in the story were slaughtered for sacrificing babies to Molec, weren't the children and infants that were still living among the Canaanites killed along with the adults? I do not remember for certain if that was the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts