Punishment contradictions

[RankStranger]

1 minute ago, Casualfanboy16 said:

As of right now, the Bible is something I do plan on reading some time later to go back through and kind of dissect and compare/contrast between other religions. I find it interesting from a historical perspective and find it like a look into the world back then. Again, I don't believe it's divinely inspired and rather man-made; but it's something I do plan on revisiting when I feel comfortable enough to even pick one up again. Religious trauma doesn't really help. Neither does my past experiences and my current ones either. I'm trying to dive into other perspectives and philosophies and all that jazz before I return to reading that thing. It's done too much damage for me to want to even lay eyes on it right now.

 

IMO one thing that really helps with religious trauma is to read up on other religious ideas, practices, etc.  It's hard to be re-traumatized by ideas when you know that (insert biblical contradiction, injustice, brutality, existential question, etc) is just one view among many.

 

It's also helpful to look into Christian history and practices in other parts of the world.  American Christianity often (not always) requires a pathologically narrow view of the world.  I don't see any reason why that's a rule I have to follow though.

 

 

[Casualfanboy16]

30 minutes ago, RankStranger said:

 

IMO one thing that really helps with religious trauma is to read up on other religious ideas, practices, etc.  It's hard to be re-traumatized by ideas when you know that (insert biblical contradiction, injustice, brutality, existential question, etc) is just one view among many.

 

It's also helpful to look into Christian history and practices in other parts of the world.  American Christianity often (not always) requires a pathologically narrow view of the world.  I don't see any reason why that's a rule I have to follow though.

 

 

Oh wow I didn't expect that response. Sorry if that sounds a bit rude. Most Christians I come across (especially my family as of late) kind of add to my trauma rather than provide me with advice and stuff to help me get out of it and overcome it. So, thanks dude. We may disagree on things, but I appreciate the help.

[Wertbag]

5 hours ago, RankStranger said:

How much should contradictions matter to a Christian who isn't a fundamentalist?

There are some claimed contradictions which are so minor that I find them not even worth mentioning, things like a number off by 1 digit or a slightly different word used but could easily mean the same thing.  The contradictions I've mentioned above are more differences in the ideas and quite likely show a change in attitude over time, rather than just being purely textual criticism.  Things like ancient people having less value to life and more laws with death penalties, but more modern groups finding such teachings immoral, so they move to a less harsh legal system.

But even then, if the person takes the entire bible as metaphor/moral stories, then the content is of little importance.  I do think the majority of Christians take a more middle road approach, a kind of cherry picking of the pieces that they like and want to hold to and ignoring of the pieces that they don't like.  Many will read the gospels only and ignore the entire OT (it's old convenant, ya know?), some will keep the 10 commandments and ignore the rest, others will say everything in the gospels is literal truth but everything in Genesis is metaphor, thereby keeping all of the stories of Jesus but avoiding the harder questions around how Genesis can make any literal sense.  In such cases pointing out the contradictions in the crucifixion story can be more interesting (what were Jesus's last words?  What was written on the cross?  etc) but again only a segment of Christianity will care, with many just hand waving it away.

 

4 hours ago, RankStranger said:

Yes, I believe that the Bible is divinely inspired.

Which bible?  With dozens of books of difference between Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant etc.  Once you pick a version, then there are 60+ translations, and then decide on an interpretation.  In such a state, what does divinely inspired even mean?  Does God protect His word?  Is there one version which is what God wanted to tell us, but the others are incorrect?  How do you tell which is which when divinely inspired books look indistinguishable from works which are not?  

Divinely inspired in this situation seems to mean "I like it" rather than anything deeper.

 

6 hours ago, RankStranger said:

Are there other/better ancient sacred texts of similar size and scope to the Bible, that aren't riddled with contradictions if read in a literal manner?

I am also a beginner when it comes to knowledge of the entire range of holy books.  From my understanding all are very clearly man-made works, with such contradictions, impossible claims and questions over literal vs metaphor being common.  To my mind this makes the bible one of many, rather than being elevated above other such works.  As you say it was written, translated and selected by men, just as were the others.  With this in mind, what makes the bible special while the others can be dismissed?  It seems to be more which you are taught to believe is God's word, rather than anything leading people to that answer.  Belief comes first, then the bible can be read to match those beliefs.

[◊ Weezer ◊]

6 hours ago, Wertbag said:

 

In such a state, what does divinely inspired even mean?

 

I have the same question.

[RankStranger]

So do I.

[RankStranger]

8 hours ago, Wertbag said:

There are some claimed contradictions which are so minor that I find them not even worth mentioning, things like a number off by 1 digit or a slightly different word used but could easily mean the same thing.  The contradictions I've mentioned above are more differences in the ideas and quite likely show a change in attitude over time, rather than just being purely textual criticism.  Things like ancient people having less value to life and more laws with death penalties, but more modern groups finding such teachings immoral, so they move to a less harsh legal system.

But even then, if the person takes the entire bible as metaphor/moral stories, then the content is of little importance.  I do think the majority of Christians take a more middle road approach, a kind of cherry picking of the pieces that they like and want to hold to and ignoring of the pieces that they don't like.  Many will read the gospels only and ignore the entire OT (it's old convenant, ya know?), some will keep the 10 commandments and ignore the rest, others will say everything in the gospels is literal truth but everything in Genesis is metaphor, thereby keeping all of the stories of Jesus but avoiding the harder questions around how Genesis can make any literal sense.  In such cases pointing out the contradictions in the crucifixion story can be more interesting (what were Jesus's last words?  What was written on the cross?  etc) but again only a segment of Christianity will care, with many just hand waving it away.

 

Which bible?  With dozens of books of difference between Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant etc.  Once you pick a version, then there are 60+ translations, and then decide on an interpretation.  In such a state, what does divinely inspired even mean?  Does God protect His word?  Is there one version which is what God wanted to tell us, but the others are incorrect?  How do you tell which is which when divinely inspired books look indistinguishable from works which are not?  

Divinely inspired in this situation seems to mean "I like it" rather than anything deeper.

 

I am also a beginner when it comes to knowledge of the entire range of holy books.  From my understanding all are very clearly man-made works, with such contradictions, impossible claims and questions over literal vs metaphor being common.  To my mind this makes the bible one of many, rather than being elevated above other such works.  As you say it was written, translated and selected by men, just as were the others.  With this in mind, what makes the bible special while the others can be dismissed?  It seems to be more which you are taught to believe is God's word, rather than anything leading people to that answer.  Belief comes first, then the bible can be read to match those beliefs.

 

 

The books were written by a bunch of different people., thousands of years apart, in several different languages... and with different languages come different cultures.  Of course there are contradictions.  Of course different cultures at different times had different values.  This may reveal a bit of my heresy, but the way I see it, that was their vision and understanding of God in their place and time.  Or what we have left of it.

 

People were brutal back in Old Testament times.  I think they had to be under those conditions.  Their version of God reflected that.

 

Which bible?  I dunno.  Whichever one speaks to you.  I like the King James Version for sentimental reasons.

 

I don't know what to do with the contradictions, or the theology, or the existential questions.  But what one does with those, it reveals things about their character. 

 

Another bit of heresy:  Ultimately all books have to be divinely inspired one way or another.  Just as God formed the light and created darkness... just as He makes peace and creates evil, God created all the critters who wrote all the books.  

 

I don't know exactly why the Bible is special.  But if you want to know more about that, I'd recommend that you pray on it and find out.  If you're a Authentic Atheist Believer*, prayer will have no effect on you.  Well, that's what I thought 

 

 

*Not accusing you of Atheism.  This time.  It just had a nice ring to it.

 

[TABA]

5 hours ago, RankStranger said:

The books were written by a bunch of different people., thousands of years apart, in several different languages... and with different languages come different cultures.  Of course there are contradictions.  Of course different cultures at different times had different values.  This may reveal a bit of my heresy, but the way I see it, that was their vision and understanding of God in their place and time.  Or what we have left of it.

 

People were brutal back in Old Testament times.  I think they had to be under those conditions.  Their version of God reflected that.

I agree completely, as would most of us here, I imagine.  So why should anybody believe they are inspired by a deity?  It would have to be a deity who didn’t care much what theology people held.  That’s the ten thousand foot view you get when you take it as a whole.  But when you read individual chapters, it seems to matter a great deal what you believe, what you sacrifice with, whether you are baptized, who you have sex with.  It matters profoundly.  Which is why countless numbers of people have killed and been killed over the interpretation of scripture.  Is this what god was aiming for when he inspired these 66 (or 72) books?  If it’s not, how did it go so badly wrong?  
 

5 hours ago, RankStranger said:

I don't know what to do with the contradictions, or the theology, or the existential questions.  But what one does with those, it reveals things about their character.

Could you elaborate on this?  
 

5 hours ago, RankStranger said:

 

I don't know exactly why the Bible is special.  But if you want to know more about that, I'd recommend that you pray on it and find out.  If you're a Authentic Atheist Believer*, prayer will have no effect on you.  Well, that's what I thought 

I disagree that praying is a means of finding out what is true.  It could be a very good way of making what you wish to be true, seem true.  That’s why I don’t deny the power of prayer.  Prayer acts on the mind of the person doing the prayer.  It can be very beneficial, I am sure.  
 

Before I deconverted, I read apologists because I wanted there to be a benevolent god.  I started listening to debates between christians and atheists.  At some point, I stopped wanting christianity to be true, or not true.  I just wanted to know WHETHER it was true.  At that point I stopped praying, because I knew that praying to the christian deity - or any god - would make it SEEM true, or FEEL true, especially given how I had been immersed in christianity and theism for most of my life.  So I disagree with you in this.  By all means, pray to the deity of your choice - or to no god in particular - if you want to feel less alone, or if you want a sense of peace, perhaps.   But a way of determining what is true?  It is not.  
 

Just my opinion.  Your mileage clearly varies.  

[RankStranger]

2 hours ago, TABA said:

I agree completely, as would most of us here, I imagine.  So why should anybody believe they are inspired by a deity?  It would have to be a deity who didn’t care much what theology people held.  That’s the ten thousand foot view you get when you take it as a whole.  But when you read individual chapters, it seems to matter a great deal what you believe, what you sacrifice with, whether you are baptized, who you have sex with.  It matters profoundly.  Which is why countless numbers of people have killed and been killed over the interpretation of scripture.  Is this what god was aiming for when he inspired these 66 (or 72) books?  If it’s not, how did it go so badly wrong?  

 

 

I don't know- I'm not God and I didn't write the Bible either.  I'm neither a scholar nor a former preacher unlike some around here.

 

I'd recommend checking out other religions and see if you can find one that's a better fit.  I don't think you will... but some people do.

 

 

Quote

Could you elaborate on this?  

 

Sure.  Remember Westboro Baptist?  They had a certain way of expressing their theology, which includes takes on existential questions and contradictions.  Everybody can see their Calvinist Character shining through in their 'god hates fags' message.

 

It looks to me like each church and each denomination has a certain character.  Their 'take' on the bible determines a lot of that.  How they resolve difficult questions... it ends up kinda dictating how they behave.

 

For instance at my original Holiness church:  Based on their theology and the way it was preached and practiced... an awful lot of people in that church had no certainty at all that they were in fact saved.  This is a church that definitely does not believe 'once saved always saved'.  They desperately wanted to be saved, and desperately tried to be saved, but they were never quite sure.  This has a real effect on how people think and behave IMO.

 

The Methodists I'm hanging out with these days aren't all that concerned about biblical contradictions and the like.  They compare and contrast contradictions.  They talk about historical context.  They don't claim to have all the answers, but they're not hiding the questions behind bullshit and bluster.  They understand personal salvation and talk about it from time to time, but it's not the singular focus of every sermon.  Actually it hasn't been specifically the subject of any sermon I've heard from them.  As a result, I've never met a Methodist who went through life tied in knots over whether or not they were actually 'saved'.

 

 

 

Quote

I disagree that praying is a means of finding out what is true.  It could be a very good way of making what you wish to be true, seem true.  That’s why I don’t deny the power of prayer.  Prayer acts on the mind of the person doing the prayer.  It can be very beneficial, I am sure.  
 

Before I deconverted, I read apologists because I wanted there to be a benevolent god.  I started listening to debates between christians and atheists.  At some point, I stopped wanting christianity to be true, or not true.  I just wanted to know WHETHER it was true.  At that point I stopped praying, because I knew that praying to the christian deity - or any god - would make it SEEM true, or FEEL true, especially given how I had been immersed in christianity and theism for most of my life.  So I disagree with you in this.  By all means, pray to the deity of your choice - or to no god in particular - if you want to feel less alone, or if you want a sense of peace, perhaps.   But a way of determining what is true?  It is not.  
 

Just my opinion.  Your mileage clearly varies.  

 

This is interesting.  A non-believer who doesn't deny the power of prayer.  I'm not sure I've come across that before, but I get what you're saying.

 

Personally I still don't think much of Christian apologists.  I like Bart Ehrman better, though we don't always agree.

 

You speak of 'truth', and I understand why that's important to you.  But we both understand that I can't 'prove' anything in the Bible to you.  We're both working with more or less the same set of facts here.  It's what we do with those facts that's different.

[TABA]

14 minutes ago, RankStranger said:

I'd recommend checking out other religions and see if you can find one that's a better fit.  I don't think you will... but some people do.

 

I find having a non-theistic view to be a better fit, along with as little dogma as possible.  That does not constitute a religion, IMO.  I find aspects of Stoicism, Epicureanism and Buddhism interesting and appealing.  I think of it as converging on a philosophy now, rather than a religion.  But the lines between those two terms can be quite blurry, for sure.

 

7 hours ago, RankStranger said:

I don't know what to do with the contradictions, or the theology, or the existential questions.  But what one does with those, it reveals things about their character. 

 

2 hours ago, TABA said:

Could you elaborate on this?

 

14 minutes ago, RankStranger said:

It looks to me like each church and each denomination has a certain character.  Their 'take' on the bible determines a lot of that.  How they resolve difficult questions... it ends up kinda dictating how they behave.

 

OK, I thought maybe you were comparing yourself favorably to those of us who have remained non-believers.

 

 

14 minutes ago, RankStranger said:

This is interesting.  A non-believer who doesn't deny the power of prayer.  I'm not sure I've come across that before

 

"Power" can mean different things.  And you've come across it at least once before, when you started praying again even while you were still an atheist, unless I misunderstood something.  Seems to me it's widely accepted that the act of praying can be beneficial.  Likewise knowing that one is being prayed for.  This does not imply the existence of any deity at the other end of the prayer.

[RankStranger]

You may have missed my stealth-edit above.  I added the following comment:

 

Quote

The Methodists I'm hanging out with these days aren't all that concerned about biblical contradictions and the like.  They compare and contrast contradictions.  They talk about historical context.  They don't claim to have all the answers, but they're not hiding the questions behind bullshit and bluster.  They understand personal salvation and talk about it from time to time, but it's not the singular focus of every sermon.  Actually it hasn't been specifically the subject of any sermon I've heard from them.  As a result, I've never met a Methodist who went through life tied in knots over whether or not they were actually 'saved'.

 

[RankStranger]

2 minutes ago, TABA said:

OK, I thought maybe you were comparing yourself favorably to those of us who have remained non-believers.

 

No.  I don't mind throwing shade at the nastier versions of Calvinism, but that wasn't a comment about non-believers at all.  I think everybody on this site is a better Christian than the Westboro Baptists.

 

 

Quote

"Power" can mean different things.  And you've come across it at least once before, when you started praying again even while you were still an atheist, unless I misunderstood something.  Seems to me it's widely accepted that the act of praying can be beneficial.  Likewise knowing that one is being prayed for.  This does not imply the existence of any deity at the other end of the prayer.

 

Yep.

[TABA]

3 minutes ago, RankStranger said:

I think everybody on this site is a better Christian than the Westboro Baptists.

 

I'm still confused about you referring to us as "Good Christians".  I've taken it to mean that, now that you've reconverted, you think we're as religious and dogmatic as we ever were, which is not a compliment in these parts.  I didn't think you intended it as a compliment.  Most of us just want to better people.  Of course being better than the Westboro Baptists is a very low standard.

 

 

[RankStranger]

20 hours ago, TABA said:

We agree on a fair bit then.  As a Christian, you may be less keen on the Epicureans, but I value their perspective too.  I’ve been reading “Death is Nothing to Fear” by Haris Dimitriadis.  I think it’s especially useful to those of us who expect no afterlife, but even a believer might find it profitable.  
 

I do my best.  I’m satisfied to be non-theistic.  
 

 

 

After a little quality Youtube time, I somewhat have an opinion on Epicureanism.  It looks a lot like Buddhism to me.  Buddhism focuses on reducing suffering.  Epicureanism focuses on reducing suffering, in part by focusing on positive feelings.  

 

I don't really see a problem here.  It looks to me like a different framing of ideas than a Christian would typically use.  But I don't see why that's a problem.

 

To me, Epicureanism is closer to Buddhism, where other Stoics are closer to Taoism.  The latter speak to me more than the former... but that doesn't mean I have a problem with the former.

[TABA]

15 minutes ago, RankStranger said:

To me, Epicureanism is closer to Buddhism, where other Stoics are closer to Taoism.

 

And then of course, there's Pyrrhonism, which I understand has much in common with Buddhism, and which I've seen recommended to Westerners who are attracted to Buddhism but without the Woo.  In other words, a philosophy rather than a religion.

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

23 hours ago, RankStranger said:

I'm not satisfied of anything like that.  But to convince you of anything I'd first have to have a solid grasp of who/what God is, and what the term means.  I have neither.

And you won't get it with the Bible. The questions that TABA raises are important and should be important to any Christian whether it is a fundamentalist, liberal, or whatever you and Ed are. (Christianish religious people?) Even Liberal Christians will agree on certain points. Atleast in their denomimation. 

 

So yes a basic understanding of what is required for salvation should be considered important to even the most liberal Christians. As it is a very big issue. The difference between heaven and hell. Salvation and damnation. 

 

Again, for any believer the specifics of what it takes to get to heaven should be a priority for understanding. 

 

DB

[RankStranger]

2 hours ago, TABA said:

 

I'm still confused about you referring to us as "Good Christians".  I've taken it to mean that, now that you've reconverted, you think we're as religious and dogmatic as we ever were, which is not a compliment in these parts.  I didn't think you intended it as a compliment.  Most of us just want to better people.  Of course being better than the Westboro Baptists is a very low standard.

 

 

 

I guess what I mean will depend on the context when I make a comment like that.  In this case I was saying that all of you X-C's are doing a much better job of living by Jesus's example than the Westboro Baptists.

 

And in general, X-Christians read and discuss the same bible as Christians.  They share most of the same cultural norms and values.  They behave in the same ways with regards to 'in group' and 'out group' people.  X-Christians like DB above even have basically the same opinions as Christians on what Christians ought to believe and find important.

[RankStranger]

20 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

And you won't get it with the Bible. The questions that TABA raises are important and should be important to any Christian whether it is a fundamentalist, liberal, or whatever you and Ed are. (Christianish religious people?) Even Liberal Christians will agree on certain points. Atleast in their denomimation. 

 

So yes a basic understanding of what is required for salvation should be considered important to even the most liberal Christians. As it is a very big issue. The difference between heaven and hell. Salvation and damnation. 

 

Again, for any believer the specifics of what it takes to get to heaven should be a priority for understanding. 

 

DB

 

That's a lot of 'shoulds' for a guy who allegedly doesn't believe.

 

I prefer leaving 'shoulds' up to the individual.  We can all read.

[walterpthefirst]

But is there an actual universal truth about salvation out there?

 

One that applies to all of us?

 

You wrote this...

 

In my case (arguably in all cases), only a merciful God could possibly love a sinner like myself.  So I don't really worry about the prospect of a cruel, vengeful God.  If that's what we have, I have zero chance at avoiding hell anyway- I've made damn sure of that.  The only God I have left is a merciful God.

 

So, on what basis has god had mercy upon you?  A universal basis that applies to everyone or one that's specific only to you?

 

Aren't the details important?

 

If you don't know and understand this, then aren't you in the same boat as those from your original Holiness church who could never really be sure that they were saved?

 

 

I'm not seeking to challenge you here, Rank.  But if you could explain I think that the DarkBishop, myself and others would appreciate it.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[TABA]

1 hour ago, DarkBishop said:

The questions that TABA raises are important and should be important to any Christian whether it is a fundamentalist, liberal, or whatever you and Ed are.

 

1 hour ago, DarkBishop said:

So yes a basic understanding of what is required for salvation should be considered important to even the most liberal Christians.

 

1 hour ago, RankStranger said:

That's a lot of 'shoulds' for a guy who allegedly doesn't believe.

 

I prefer leaving 'shoulds' up to the individual.  We can all read.

 

OK: I will try to avoid use of the word “should” here, except to say that you should be less annoying about this.  
 

The concept of salvation that @DarkBishop mentioned is central to christian doctrine, is it not?  What does salvation save us from?  Hell? Annihilation?  Cable News?  There is something that christianity teaches we need to be saved from.  And if it’s important to be saved from something, unless Universalism is true and we are all saved from whatever-it-is by Jesus death etc, then it seems important to know how we can be saved from it.  Because if we get it wrong, then whatever-it-is happens to us and that might be bad.  Unless, again, we are all either Chosen or Not Chosen by God and it doesn’t matter what we believe or what we do. 

[RankStranger]

15 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

But is there an actual universal truth about salvation out there?

 

One that applies to all of us?

 

You wrote this...

 

In my case (arguably in all cases), only a merciful God could possibly love a sinner like myself.  So I don't really worry about the prospect of a cruel, vengeful God.  If that's what we have, I have zero chance at avoiding hell anyway- I've made damn sure of that.  The only God I have left is a merciful God.

 

So, on what basis has god had mercy upon you?  A universal basis that applies to everyone or one that's specific only to you?

 

Aren't the details important?

 

If you don't know and understand this, then aren't you in the same boat as those from your original Holiness church who could never really be sure that they were saved?

 

 

I'm not seeking to challenge you here, Rank.  But if you could explain I think that the DarkBishop, myself and others would appreciate it.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

In reply to the bolded (not interested in the rest):

 

In a sense, yes.  I have no way of knowing that I'm 'saved' any more than any other Christian does.  But I'm not tying myself in knots over it, because I don't think it's as simple as believing or doing precisely the correct things (unlike my Holiness brethren).  And I don't go to a church where every sermon revolves around 'personal salvation'. 

[RankStranger]

4 minutes ago, TABA said:

 

 

 

OK: I will try to avoid use of the word “should” here, except to say that you should be less annoying about this.  
 

The concept of salvation that @DarkBishop mentioned is central to christian doctrine, is it not?  What does salvation save us from?  Hell? Annihilation?  Cable News?  There is something that christianity teaches we need to be saved from.  And if it’s important to be saved from something, unless Universalism is true and we are all saved from whatever-it-is by Jesus death etc, then it seems important to know how we can be saved from it.  Because if we get it wrong, then whatever-it-is happens to us and that might be bad.  Unless, again, we are all either Chosen or Not Chosen by God and it doesn’t matter what we believe or what we do. 

 

You're demanding quite a bit more certainty than I have.  I don't have definitive answers for you.  

[RankStranger]

Where does that demand for certainty come from?

 

I think we all know 

[TABA]

5 minutes ago, RankStranger said:

Where does that demand for certainty come from?

 

I think we all know 

 

I don't expect certainty.  Because I don't believe in Salvation, Sin, Heaven or Hell, so it matters not to me how "salvation" is attained.  But if salvation is important to somebody, I'd expect them to think it mattered somewhat.  But that's just how it looks to me.  

[RankStranger]

18 minutes ago, TABA said:

 

I don't expect certainty.  Because I don't believe in Salvation, Sin, Heaven or Hell, so it matters not to me how "salvation" is attained.  But if salvation is important to somebody, I'd expect them to think it mattered somewhat.  But that's just how it looks to me.  

 

If the details matter to the extent that you seem to suggest, then the vast majority of Christians are hell-bound anyway.  Seeings how there are thousands of different denominations, many disagreeing entirely on the details you're asking about.  I don't think God is vengeful and legalistic in that way.  I could be wrong.  And what would it matter if I am?  

 

 

Case 1:  I believe in God, and God isn't vengeful and legalistic because Jesus.

Result:  Heaven 

 

Case 2:  I believe in God, but God is vengeful and legalistic.

Result:  Hell

 

Case 3:  I don't believe in God, but God isn't vengeful and legalistic.

Result:  ????

 

Case 4:  I don't believe in God, and God is vengeful and legalistic.

Result:  Hell

 

 

So as I've explained previously, I have no chance whatsoever if God is vengeful and legalistic.  In the case of a vengeful and legalistic God, it truly doesn't matter whether I believe or not... I'll go to hell either way.  Therefore the only God I have left is a merciful and forgiving God.

[TABA]

3 minutes ago, RankStranger said:

If the details matter to the extent that you seem to suggest, then the vast majority of Christians are hell-bound anyway.  Seeings how there are thousands of different denominations, many disagreeing entirely on the details you're asking about. 

 

Thank you, thank you, thank you!!!!

 

Because I've been looking for an opportunity to use this favorite for a while now...