Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Aleister Crowley whom you admire enough to use as your user name, is probably burning in hell. And all those who admire him will probably not long be joining him.
Wow, who are you to say who's probably burning in hell? Isn't that just a little presumptuous of you?
I'm not a Christian so to Christians I won't be granted eternal life since I don't accept the sacrifice Jesus allegedly made for me, I wanted to ask is that really fair? Do all people who reject Jesus just suffer for eternity?
How can and why should we accept the sacrifice Jesus made when in reality all it does is keep us out of hell? Why does hell need to exist? How can we trust books that were written thousands of years ago?
Why should I accept any religion when I'm only picking it as a card to get me out of hell, and even then I might pick the wrong one
Well ... that's why universalism is your answer.
Universalism (in it's various forms) allows folks like yourself not to worry because like you said ..... it's not fair.
Wow, who are you to say who's probably burning in hell? Isn't that just a little presumptuous of you?
Well... in sentential logic the word "probably" is a nice safe word, just as "some" as opposed to "all" is.
I can speculate some birds are probably carrying a disease, and get myself in less "trouble" so to speak than declaring all birds are carrying a disease.
So, yes, if hell exists then there is a logical probability Aleister Crowley is in hell, and a logical probability his followers will join him there. In fact, the person that goes by the user name Aleister Crowley implied as much about Christians. So, I see you choose your battles as to who you want to accuse of being presumptuous.
But all that meaningless PC stuff about the unrepentant wicked is meaningless to me. His heroin addiction, and messing around with "spiritualism" combined with his bisexualism and creation of his own religion almost certainly led to him opening the doors to hell and it's demonic angels.
Well... in sentential logic the word "probably" is a nice safe word, just as "some" as opposed to "all" is.
It sounds like you've worked through the red tape. Yeah, "probably" might be a "nice safe word," but I still have a hard time getting my brain around the mindset of people who feel "nice and safe" weighing in on anybody else's eternal destiny. But to each his own. I know a lot of people are pretty sure I'll "probably" burn in hell, too. I'm just so looking forward to going up to them in heaven and saying, "Hey! It's me -- Katzpur from City-Data! Fancy meeting you here."
I'm not a Christian so to Christians I won't be granted eternal life since I don't accept the sacrifice Jesus allegedly made for me, I wanted to ask is that really fair? Do all people who reject Jesus just suffer for eternity?
How can and why should we accept the sacrifice Jesus made when in reality all it does is keep us out of hell? Why does hell need to exist? How can we trust books that were written thousands of years ago?
Why should I accept any religion when I'm only picking it as a card to get me out of hell, and even then I might pick the wrong one
The better questions is why don't you want to go to Heaven? Ask yourself that.
I can see where Dawkins is coming from. In part I agree with him. I know a number of people abused as kids and most of them have went on to have as good, happy, lives as anyone else. And tell some young child their best or very good friend is now roasting in hell is just pure emotional and psychological abuse.
But with respects to "reason" there arises another issue. Is it better to think hell does not exist, that fondling or having sex with prepubescent children as an adult will result in eternity in heaven like any other path taken in life, and you die and find out you are wrong? Or is it better to believe in hell, fear hell, and though you have a great desire to molest children, you through prayer and might, restrain yourself, due in large part to fear of hell, then you die, and you find out you are wrong that hell does not exist?
Which one would you rather be wrong about based upon pure "reasoning"?
I think I agree with Dawkins on that one, it's more common than people think. On the last part of your question, all kinds of people are child molesters, even religious ones who know that deed alone could throw them into hell and they still do it, then you have the ones who don't believe in hell, of course both should be punished, but my issue is not with that, it's with the thought of people suffering for eternity just because they picked or were brought up in the wrong religion
The better questions is why don't you want to go to Heaven? Ask yourself that.
Religious delusion like this makes it look so easy and simple to get into heaven ; What happens if I die as a Christian & I end up burning in hell because Christianity is false & Islam is true?
That is just a risk I will end up having to take so I can become so sure of my salvation
With luck, you may be wiser than when you started.
To the dust?...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
