Originally posted by daniel58That clearly depends upon your definition of sin. If one "sins" against society by breaking one of the established laws, one could reasonably expect to be punished within the standards of society.
No it's not, so you can sin as much as many times, as long and as bad as you want and not get punished is that just?
Not believing in God does not automatically make a person unjust. Even athiests have moral and ethical standards. Furthermore, social standards are imposed upon us if we want to continue to be accepted as part of society.
One could commit a "mortal sin", murder for example, and never be punished. Sadly this happens all the time. Perhaps this is unfortunate, but, inventing a hell and a God that will deliver these wrong doers to their eternal punishment is small comfort.
Given human nature, we can be assured that there are countless people suffering great injustice as I type this. I am often saddened and dismayed by the terrible things we do to each other. However, it is my opinion that we should be absolutely ruthless in our pursuit of delivering swift and earthly retrobution to people that commit terrible crimes.
Does that answer your question?
Originally posted by PalynkaI'm not sure what it is you're getting at here. Is it that religious people shouldn't enter into politics? Or that secularists should be alarmed that their religious beliefs underpin their viewpoint? I would point to the example of Martin Luther King, Jr. who, from a deep religious conviction, strove to build a better secular society. The ones who alarm me are the ones who, from a deep religious conviction, strive to undermine secular society and build a theocracy. It is my opinion that liberal Christians have more in common with liberal atheists than they do with conservative Christians.
I was one of the judges. 😵
How is that relevant to what I said? I know it's different, but how does that detract from the fact he's promoting political change via religious belief? With what else would you accept compromise?
Originally posted by Hand of Hecate1. Every sin will either be made up for, or it won't but it will be in hell that it won't.
That clearly depends upon your definition of sin. If one "sins" against society by breaking one of the established laws, one could reasonably expect to be punished within the standards of society.
Not believing in God does not automatically make a person unjust. Even athiests have moral and ethical standards. Furthermore, social standards are ...[text shortened]... arthly retrobution to people that commit terrible crimes.
Does that answer your question?
2. Nobody "invented God or hell, but God made people and hell.
3. So hell is ruthless so you don't believe in it, but we can be ruthless to people who commit crimes? I'm sorry but that doesn't add up.
1 edit
Originally posted by daniel58Are you even answering my post or just making up some question of your own to answer. Try to be marginally coherent please daniel.
1. Every sin will either be made up for, or it won't but it will be in hell that it won't.
2. Nobody "invented God or hell, but God made people and hell.
3. So hell is ruthless so you don't believe in it, but we can be ruthless to people who commit crimes? I'm sorry but that doesn't add up.
3. So hell is ruthless so you don't believe in it, but we can be ruthless to people who commit crimes? I'm sorry but that doesn't add up.
How did you make that conclussion? I don't believe in hell because it's an imaginary place not because it's ruthless. People need to be punished for crimes against society. This is a price we should all be willing to pay for living as part of society. I have no patience for murders, kidnappers, those that abuse children and commit other terrible crimes. I advocate a bullet in the brain for such individuals.
Originally posted by Hand of HecateBut how do you know hell doesn't exist?
Are you even answering my post or just making up some question of your own to answer. Try to be marginally coherent please daniel.
[b]3. So hell is ruthless so you don't believe in it, but we can be ruthless to people who commit crimes? I'm sorry but that doesn't add up.
How did you make that conclussion? I don't believe in hell because i ...[text shortened]... and commit other terrible crimes. I advocate a bullet in the brain for such individuals.[/b]
Originally posted by Hand of HecateWhat about their soul?
How do you know it does?
There's no evidence to demonstrate its existence. The concept of hell differs between all cultures/religions.
I've seen the life fade out of a persons eyes as they die. There's nothing there. They're gone.
Originally posted by rwingettYou don't see a difference between a Christian promoting his beliefs secularly, from one who argues that you should believe in something because Jesus did?
I'm not sure what it is you're getting at here. Is it that religious people shouldn't enter into politics? Or that secularists should be alarmed that their religious beliefs underpin their viewpoint? I would point to the example of Martin Luther King, Jr. who, from a deep religious conviction, strove to build a better secular society. The ones who alarm me ...[text shortened]... ristians have more in common with liberal atheists than they do with conservative Christians.
Originally posted by daniel58Gone. Slipped away with the end of their life. Gone with the last electrical discharge in their brain. Unfortunately, I've held too many hands, far too soon, as friends and family have left this life. The easiest are those that pass peacefully in their sleep, the worst, the worst by far the young that go wide awake knowing their end is upon them, their eyes wide and pleading, desperate for life. Seeing them ebb away and lose that battle further convinces me that there is no after life and you better live life like you mean it.
What about their soul?
Find what makes you happy daniel. Don't waste a moment. You just never know when the end will come.
Originally posted by PalynkaI'm an atheist and I feel that Jesus has some influence over me (although I don't believe Jesus said everything that is attributed to him). I don't think wanting to emulate Jesus is necessarily a bad thing. I don't necessarily think there is any conflict between a deep spirituality and living in a secular society. Roger Williams, the 17th century theologian and founder of Rhode Island, is a good example of this. A deeply religious man, he felt that state politics would have a corrupting influence on the church and that the two should be kept strictly separate. If Jesus said that we should feed the hungry, we ought to do it, not simply because Jesus said it, but because we can recognize that Jesus is articulating a course of action worthy of being followed. We do so because he makes a compelling case and not simply because he is an authority figure.
You don't see a difference between a Christian promoting his beliefs secularly, from one who argues that you should believe in something because Jesus did?