• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Nonbelievers to Hell!

Dan4reason

Facts not Faith
Dan4reason-

Where is the mistake that you mention?

Mary's father was Heli.
So it was not uncommon in records for the Son-in-Law to also be considered as son.

I have never seen anything in the bible that says that Mary is the daughter of Heli. Could you provide me with the verse?

In Luke 3:23 the bible says that Joseph was the son of Heli. So according to you, are Mary and Joseph siblings?
 
I don't know how much validation there is for this but someone was telling me the other day is that the reason you offer the other cheek is indeed an aggressive act:

there were a lot of beliefs about which hand you used back then; namely that using the left hand was shameful.

So if someone strikes you, and you turn your other cheek, it means that now they have to backhand you (and shame themselves) or use their left arm to strike you again (and shame themselves.)

Again, don't know how true that is, but thought it was interesting.

the same goes for the cloak giving (for you to be naked is not shameful, for someone to see you naked is shameful) and the extra-mile-going (roman soldiers could be flogged for 'over exploiting' the jews beyond the law and nobody would ever believe them that the jew in question had asked to go the extra mile). jesus used a lot of tricky wording that a lot of people didn't catch on to. because most of them have no concept of context.
 

Midnight Pete

Well-Known Member
CONTD---



Modern science has shown that there are genetic limits to evolution or biological change in nature. Again, all biological variations, whether they are beneficial to survival or not, are possible only within the genetic potential and limits of a biological kind such as the varieties among dogs, cats, horses, cows, etc.


Variations across biological kinds such as humans evolving from ape-like creatures and apes, in turn, evolving from dog-like creatures and so on, as Darwinian evolutionary theory teaches, are not possible unless Nature has the capability of performing genetic engineering.
Biological variations are determined by the DNA or genetic code of species. The DNA molecule is actually a molecular string of various nucleic acids which are arranged in a sequence just like the letters in a sentence. It is this sequence in DNA that tells cells in the body how to construct various tissues and organs.


The common belief among evolutionists is that random mutations in the genetic code over time will produce entirely new sequences for new traits and characteristics which natural selection can then act upon resulting in entirely new species. Evolutionists consider mutations to be a form of natural genetic engineering.


However, the very nature of mutations precludes such a possibility. Mutations are accidental changes in the sequential structure of the genetic code caused by various random environmental forces such as radiation and toxic chemicals.


Almost all true mutations are harmful, which is what one would normally expect from accidents. Even if a good mutation occurred for every good one there will be thousands of harmful ones with the net result over time being disastrous for the species.
Most biological variations, however, are the result of new combinations of previously existing genes - not because of mutations.


Furthermore, mutations simply produce new varieties of already existing traits. For example, mutations in the gene for human hair may change the gene so that another type of human hair develops, but the mutations won't change the gene so that feathers or wings develop.
Sometimes mutations may trigger the duplication of already existing traits (i.e. an extra finger, toe, or even an entire head, even in another area of the body!). But mutations have no ability to produce entirely new traits or characteristics.
Young people, and even adults, often wonder how all the varieties and races of people could have descended from Adam and Eve as the Bible teaches.


Well, in principle, that's no different than asking how children with different color hair (i.e., blond, brunette, brown, red ) can come from the same parents who both have black hair.
Just as some individuals today carry genes to produce descendants with different color hair and eyes, our first parents, Adam and Eve, possessed genes to produce all the varieties and races of men. You and I today may not carry the genes to produce every variety or race of humans, but Adam and Eve did possess such genes.


All varieties of humans carry the genes for the same basic traits, but not all humans carry every possible variation of those genes. For example, one person may be carrying several variations of the gene for eye color (i.e., brown, green, blue) , but someone else may be carrying only one variation of the gene for eye color (i.e., brown). Thus, both will have different abilities to affect the eye color of their offspring.


Science cannot yet prove we're here by creation, but neither can science prove we're here by chance or macro-evolution. No one has observed either. They are both accepted on faith. The issue is which faith, Darwinian macro-evolutionary theory or creation, has better scientific support.


What we believe about life's origins does influence our philosophy and value of life as well as our view of ourselves and others. This is no small issue!


Just because the laws of science can explain how life and the universe operate and work doesn't mean there is no Maker. Would it be rational to believe that there's no designer behind airplanes because the laws of science can explain how airplanes operate and work?


Natural laws are adequate to explain how the order in life, the universe, and even a microwave oven operates, but mere undirected natural laws can never fully explain the origin of such order.


The law of entropy in science shows that the universe does not have the ability to have sustained itself from all eternity. In other words, the universe cannot be eternal and requires a beginning.


It is only fair that school students be exposed to the scientific arguments and evidence on both sides of the creation/evolution issue.

I agree! :yes:
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
Yes I too grew up in a city but not the projects, but nevertheless I had to go to school system for help because of taunts to lets see about turning the other cheek. I was slapped more than once both by minors and an adult.
Does being spit upon by an adult count as a 'slap'?
Then, I also had to reach out for help against that happening again.

Standing firm under such conditions for what the Bible really teaches brings a calm and peace over one for taking such a stand.

May your efforts to apply Jesus teachings be blessed.

Your experience is somewhat shallow.
And you have assumed the same of me.

shame on you!....slap your own face!
 

Caladan

Agnostic Pantheist
How about.....

God doesn't let everyone into heaven because Man is a creature that soils the nest?

Therefore some picking and choosing is required.

And why choose non-believers?
Funny, I was thinking the same thing about 'believers', as so many of them soil the nest, by messing up our politics, social norms, and on many levels human rights.
Klaufi, whether my aunt was nice or not, if I was told something like that by her I would humiliate her to the point of tears, but the real point is that I wouldnt even bring myself to this situation to begin with, I never ask these kind of questions from people who I already know to be brainwashed by medieval dogma.
 

AxisMundi

E Pluribus Unum!!!
One traces Jesus line through his maternal line of his mother Mary.
The other traces Jesus line through his paternal foster father Joseph.
One line shows Jesus has the 'legal' right to David's throne.
The other line shows Jesus has the 'fleshly' right.

Um, no, they both claim that it is the father of Joseph.

In Mathew he is named Jacob, in Luike he is names Eli.

None of the genology is the same either, and indeed the generations don't number the same either.
 

Meow Mix

Chatte Féministe
Just because the laws of science can explain how life and the universe operate and work doesn't mean there is no Maker. Would it be rational to believe that there's no designer behind airplanes because the laws of science can explain how airplanes operate and work?

Airplanes don't reproduce, mutate, and inherit mutations. Terrible analogy.

Natural laws are adequate to explain how the order in life, the universe, and even a microwave oven operates, but mere undirected natural laws can never fully explain the origin of such order.

Actually they can -- I get the privilege of toying with cosmology programs in the lab at school after hours if I'm waiting for a class because I'm chummy with the phsx department.

You'd be amazed how much order arises from extremely simple, undirected natural laws... one of my favorites is the stochastic nebulae/star birth simulator. So cool!


The law of entropy in science shows that the universe does not have the ability to have sustained itself from all eternity. In other words, the universe cannot be eternal and requires a beginning.

You don't understand entropy. A system in thermodynamic equilibrium can eternally have pockets of lower entropy by sheer probability -- this would indeed happen infinitely. The universe does not require a beginning whatsoever.


It is only fair that school students be exposed to the scientific arguments and evidence on both sides of the creation/evolution issue.

There is no science on the creation side.

Edit: To clarify, the universe does not require an ontological beginning. There was most certainly a beginning to its current state known as the big bang event.
 

Meow Mix

Chatte Féministe
The digression is increasing.

Any non-believers still looking for heaven?

The OP wasn't about nonbelievers getting to heaven. It was expressing that the concept of unbelievers being tortured forever simply because of nonbelief (and especially in justified nonbelief, in lack of evidence) is cruel, malevolent, and something that a just and merciful god wouldn't do.
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
The OP wasn't about nonbelievers getting to heaven. It was expressing that the concept of unbelievers being tortured forever simply because of nonbelief (and especially in justified nonbelief, in lack of evidence) is cruel, malevolent, and something that a just and merciful god wouldn't do.

And it's not about punishment or cruelty.

Entry into heaven without the proper frame of mind and heart?
Not likely.

And it's not God doing the cruelty.
Who do you think rules in hell?
 

Meow Mix

Chatte Féministe
And it's not about punishment or cruelty.

Entry into heaven without the proper frame of mind and heart?
Not likely.

And it's not God doing the cruelty.
Who do you think rules in hell?

Who allows satan to do the cruelty?

Your position isn't tenable; you can't simultaneously say God is merciful and just if people are allowed to suffer infinitely for mere nonbelief; especially when they're justified in nonbelief because there's a lack of evidence.
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
Who allows satan to do the cruelty?

Your position isn't tenable; you can't simultaneously say God is merciful and just if people are allowed to suffer infinitely for mere nonbelief; especially when they're justified in nonbelief because there's a lack of evidence.

God allows you to think and feel.
He is not controlling your mind.

That people suffer for what they believe...or not believe....
isn't the handiwork of God.
 

Meow Mix

Chatte Féministe
God allows you to think and feel.
He is not controlling your mind.

That people suffer for what they believe...or not believe....
isn't the handiwork of God.

God is negligent if he requires belief for heaven and then offers no evidence for rational belief.
 

Meow Mix

Chatte Féministe
Obviously the 'creator' concept doesn't work for you.

Is that a cop-out?

Not trying to be rude.

Is the statement "It is negligent for a creator to require belief in X for salvation but fail to provide a rational basis for belief in X to ensure the creation will believe it" true or false?

Let me give an analogy: is it negligent for me to put a minefield under your living room floor where only one path is safe; but I fail to provide you a rational basis for finding that path?

Is it downright evil for me to do so; even if I can claim you meandered into a mine by your own "free will?"
 

Vasilisa Jade

Formerly Saint Tigeress
I was talking to my very Christian Aunt, and I told her that I follow Asatru. Now she knows me very well and really feels that I am a genuinely kind and loving person. I asked her, based on her beliefs, that even though I am not a Christian, would I go to heaven when I died, if it existed. She said no, I would go to hell for eternity. Me, a kind and loving person, would go to Hell and burn for eternity, all because I didn't accept Jesus as my saviour. That's outrageous to me, and shows how intolerant the Christian god is, at least in my Aunt's interpretation. Now my Aunt is not the "religious" Christian, she says she is a "spiritual" Christian. One who feels that have a one-on-one relationship with God, and disagrees a lot with the Church. She says the only things you must do to get to Heaven is accept you are a sinner, and accept Jesus. She is very tolerant however, it seems as if her god is not. Her loving god who shows her the way, the truth, and the light, and cares so much about her and guides her. This loving god sends another loving human to eternal Hellfire for not accepting him.

"I bring you damnation because you refuse to believe a child of God was born to a virgin, endowed with magick powers, and then became a zombie to save humanity from a previous judgment He Himself had made against humanity."

-Burnzorz


:drunk:

Lolololol! Sorry.
 

Wannabe Yogi

Well-Known Member
This loving god sends another loving human to eternal Hellfire for not accepting him.

One of the most Importent Myths of Hinduism one of the heros refuses to go to heaven due to the fact he can't take along a dog who was depending on him. Good behavior even comes before the joys of heaven,
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
Is that a cop-out?

Not trying to be rude.

Is the statement "It is negligent for a creator to require belief in X for salvation but fail to provide a rational basis for belief in X to ensure the creation will believe it" true or false?

Let me give an analogy: is it negligent for me to put a minefield under your living room floor where only one path is safe; but I fail to provide you a rational basis for finding that path?

Is it downright evil for me to do so; even if I can claim you meandered into a mine by your own "free will?"

Are you not being rude...... calling God negligent?
And I will attempt to refrain my own objection...and stand back....
as you stand before God and make that accusation to His face.
All in good time.

As for the creation.
All things remain at rest until 'something' moves them.
Is this not a basic law of physical reality?

What initiated the big bang?
I say... God did it.
 

Kriya Yogi

Dharma and Love for God
One of the most Importent Myths of Hinduism one of the heros refuses to go to heaven due to the fact he can't take along a dog who was depending on him. Good behavior even comes before the joys of heaven,

Yes I've heard this story before. Its a story about the eldest Pandava Yudhisthira. I love this story! Yudhisthira always tried to follow the path of Dharma. He befriended a dog and this dog followed him whereever he went. The dog and him were in a very loyal and loving relationship together. I looked up the story and here's what happens according to the Mahabharata.

On the mountain peak, Indra, King of Gods, arrived to take Yudhisthira to heaven in his Golden Chariot. As Yudhisthira was about to step into the Chariot, the Deva told him to leave behind his companion dog, a creature not worthy of heaven to Indra. Yudhisthira stepped back, refusing to leave behind the creature who he had taken under his protection. Indra wondered at him - "You can leave your brothers behind, not arranging proper cremations for them...and you refuse to leave behind a stray dog! who was none other than Dharma himself in that form. Knowing that Yudhistra refused to leave Dharma in the form of dog. This is very obvious because he cannot enter Heaven without his self."

Yudhisthira replied, "Draupadi and my brothers have left me, not I [who left them]", and refused to go to heaven without the dog. At that moment the dog changed into the God Dharma, which was none other than himself in another Amsha, who was testing him...and Yudhisthira had passed with distinction. Yudhisthira was carried away on Indra's chariot to heaven.
 
Top