[StarSlayer]

bold its the new capslock

[Ghostavo]

If you want to speak practically, why not be a nihilist? Just because you can't find a reference point to compare your morals to does not mean that A) there isn't one or B) there's no true morals. Thousands of years ago, I doubt people would have been able to count the number of atoms, most people probably couldn't fathom such things.

True, but that also doesn't necessarily mean there is one. I do agree that there are arguments for both ways.

[karajorma]

Trashman, you simply cherry picked the ones you felt like answering and completely ignored the ones that backed up my point the strongest. Come on then Trashman. Prove how

2 Thessalonians 1:8-9
    In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction.

Isn't saying that anyone who doesn't obey the Gospel is going to hell. Unless you want to claim it was telling Christians to burn non-believers. While you're at it....

Mark 16:16
 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

21:8  But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

Well Hindus are going to fail on at least the bolded two for a start. Are you trying to tell me that there are no good Hindus?

[Scotty]

Back on topic: The article is full of ****.

Matthew 15
    11What goes into a man's mouth does not make him 'unclean,' but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him 'unclean.' "

Seriously.  It doesn't matter. 

@Trashman:

Isn't saying that anyone who doesn't obey the Gospel is going to hell. Unless you want to claim it was telling Christians to burn non-believers. While you're at it....

Yes, that is exactly what it is saying.  Fortunately for everyone else, that was Paul talking, not Jesus.  Paul could be wrong.

Mark 16:16
 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

I disagree with the general translation of this verse.  I much prefer the NIV interpretation:

Mark 16:16 (NIV)
 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

I take this to mean those that have heard the message and do not believe.

Last one:  Which book?  It helps to know where the verse comes from the examine the context.

This is just what I can see below the 'post reply' box.  If I'm missing an argument, let me know.

[karajorma]

I take this to mean those that have heard the message and do not believe.

Okay, that takes care of people living in the jungled of Papua New Guinea who killed and ate missionaries but in this day and age most people of other religions have heard the message and don't believe. Either cause they are atheists or cause they have a religion already.

If you're saying that they all go to hell you're either saying that good people do go to hell for believing in the wrong religion. Which is the exact opposite to what Trashman was claiming.

[iamzack]

You have to be careful. In the biggest religions, following the wrong sect of that religion will send you to hell, or even having not yet completed some ritual of that sect.

Example: in The Poisonwood Bible, the southern Baptist preacher father believes his five year old daughter went to hell when she died because he hadn't yet baptized her. he hadn't yet baptized her because he thought she wasn't yet old enough to understand what it meant. sad.

[TrashMan]

Trashman, you simply cherry picked the ones you felt like answering and completely ignored the ones that backed up my point the strongest.

Read my last sentance in the lat post.

Come on then Trashman. Prove how

2 Thessalonians 1:8-9
    In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction.

Isn't saying that anyone who doesn't obey the Gospel is going to hell. Unless you want to claim it was telling Christians to burn non-believers. While you're at it....

People can obey the word of God without knowing it or realizing it. Everyone who is kind, compassionate and good to others is following the teachings of Christ.
To know God is to know mercy, love and compassion. To not know God is in essence equal to being a vile, sinfull person.
Belief was very much the same thing as action back then (and is very much considered so even today).

One has to be very careful with these quotes, since the english bible you're quoting from is a translation of a translation, and there were quite a few synonims in both greek, latin and hebrew.
In essence, it's difficult to determine the meaning, since the terms and phrases not only reflect the manner of speaking and meaning of that time, but one also has to factor in the possible mistakes due to translation. But I believe this one quote illustrates the issue quite nicely.

[Charismatic]

I have much better uses for my table than a religion as retarded as Christianity. >.<

That is offensive. You call it retarted but I doubt you have any idea what your talking about. Why is it retarted?

And now we can all go to hell for not eating the right salt.

Because of this threads uninformed comments i read the whole newspost. They not once said anything about going to hell for not using their salt. The salt was blessed and is a marketing thing, thats all. They said that. Its to help charities and fund raising organizations.
They never said it had anything to do with salvation or the faith.

BIG EDIT: Read the whole thread now.

[The bit about believing in ghosts]

Ghosts are demons. You are either in heavon or hell when you die, unless your an angle or demon. I have recently heard that some souls of men who die can remain on the earth for some time first, in some cases. But i have not read into that yet.

[Good men go to hell?]

I belive if you do not believe that Jesus is the son of god who came to take away the sins of the world, you go to hell. If you dont believe in him and in that, you do not receive that gift of forgiveness.
But I know God is merciful and gracious, at other times strict. I think the passage about those that Hear the message of salvation, and do not believe are held accountable. Those that dont hear about Jesus i dont think are accountable.
So im unsure of the specifics. its up to god.
Does that buddist GF of yours go to hell? If she heard of Jesus and does not believe by the second she dies, then yes.

More edits to follow.

EDIT2:

Quote
Mark 3:29
 But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation.
- you might want to inquire what exactly is "blasphemy against the Holy Ghost". To put it simply, those are grevious sins for which someone would generally get life of death penalty.

I asked about this once. Im not exactly sure what it is right now. But im 100% sure its not "put it simply, those are grevious sins for which someone would generally get life of death penalty".

[No one takes the bible literally, even pastors]

I believe much of the bible is literal. I know a pastor who does not beleive that when God said Noah was a man and God saved him in the arch, that it was a real historical event. Well if God says Noah lived, then Noah lived. The pastor told me it was just a 'story' to give the lesson of Gods Covenant.
I say it was real and the covenent is a message\was real as well.

Please stop asking Catholics questions and bringing their crap here. For the majority of Christians.. according to me or my 'circles', we dont believe Cahtolics are christians. Hell, even several of catholics i know, asked me if their christian. Its rediculous.

[You must obey every thing in the bible or you go to hell]

No the one thing that gets you into heavon is Jesus. Belief in him. Baptism and everything else is extra, and required for a personal relationship and walk with God\Jesus. You can't live in sin and not want or try to change and expect to really be saved. If you believe in God and .... the next class is about to start, g2g, ill finish this later.

[Polpolion]

[No one takes the bible literally, even pastors]

I believe much of the bible is literal. I know a pastor who does not beleive that when God said Noah was a man and God saved him in the arch, that it was a real historical event. Well if God says Noah lived, then Noah lived. The pastor told me it was just a 'story' to give the lesson of Gods Covenant.
I say it was real and the covenent is a message\was real as well.

Please stop asking Catholics questions and bringing their crap here. For the majority of Christians.. according to me or my 'circles', we dont believe Cahtolics are christians. Hell, even several of catholics i know, asked me if their christian. Its rediculous.

Catholics are indeed Christian. If you believe that Jesus Christ is the Messiah, then you are a Christan. Catholics believe that Jesus Christ is the Messiah, therefore they are Christians. Acting like they're not is like acting like Ford is not really an automobile company because you don't like the stuff they make.

Short history lesson: Up until about the 11th century, there was really only one major denomination for Christianity. Then there was the schism, and the Eastern Orthodoxy split off, leaving "Roman Catholicism" and the Pope to do their stuff. Then in the 16th Century, there was another schism, where protestantism started. If you look at who broke off from who, Catholicism is technically the closest to original Christianity, mainly because of the Pope.

Also, I've noted that you said "much" of the bible is acceptable literally. This statement has no significance given how you can pick and choose lines of the bible to take literally. Passages that you can take literally literally can range from things describing things that someone did (ie things like Jesus ate some food) all the way to the ridiculous (ie things like it's okay to have slaves).

[Scotty]

Catholics are indeed Christian.

Dang, beat me to it.

Ghosts are demons.

According to what?  Your own interpretation?  Does that make the Holy Ghost a demon?  I claim (how do you do the 'citation needed' thing?).

But im 100% sure its not "put it simply, those are grevious sins for which someone would generally get life of death penalty".

And you are 100% correct  .  Blasphemy, according to Wikipedia (I'll get a better source next time):

"Blasphemy" may be used by extension to describe any display of gross irreverence towards any person or thing deemed worthy of exalted esteem.

Please stop asking Catholics questions and bringing their crap here.

Please don't say stuff like this.  It takes away from the spirit of the argument.  I can not agree with someone and still respect opinions.  (See: Epicurius Quote thread)

[The E]

/*snip*/

You know, as an atheist, I'm much more comfortable with the interpretation that says "Wether or not you believe in the existence of Christ, or the factual accuracy of the Bible, is irrelevant. As long as you act according to the moral standards as laid down in the Bible, you'll be right in the eyes of God."
Because, after all, not only does your interpretation condemn everyone who has had the bad fortune to be born more than, say, 3000 years ago, to hell, but also all the genuinely good people around today who happen to be Muslims, Buddhists, Shintoists or Atheists. And all that because they do not believe in the same version of the Saviour as you? I'm sorry, but your world doesn't seem to be a particularly happy place to live in.

I claim (how do you do the 'citation needed' thing?).

Just a simple application of the color and sup tags.

[Scotty]

You know, as an atheist, I'm much more comfortable with the interpretation that says "Wether or not you believe in the existence of Christ, or the factual accuracy of the Bible, is irrelevant. As long as you act according to the moral standards as laid down in the Bible, you'll be right in the eyes of God."

All of which is irrelevant if you are an atheist  .  Also, as much as I would like to agree with you, several passages from the Bible directly refute that idea.

 

And everyone who calls
      on the name of the Lord will be saved.'

Although not direct refutation, it does say that calling on the name of the lord (believing) works.

The disciples were even more amazed, and said to each other, "Who then can be saved?"

 Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God."

More direct, it is impossible for man to save himself, it must be through God.

"If it is hard for the righteous to be saved,
      what will become of the ungodly and the sinner?"

This verse may in fact work for your case.  Notice it only says that it is hard for the righteous to be saved, not impossible.  However, this was written by Peter, not Christ, as was said in the prior verse.

and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.

Mostly the second part of the verse.

Because, after all, not only does your interpretation condemn everyone who has had the bad fortune to be born more than, say, 3000 years ago
*snip*

To which I answer:

who has saved us and called us to a holy life—not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time

Before Christ, those people who had heard of and worshipped God, and most likely those who had not but led good lives (speculation alert) were saved.  However, since Christ has come, it is imperative to accept his gift of salvation from Him to be saved (see: above verses).

EDIT:

Just a simple application of the color and sup tags.

Thanks.

[The E]

What I wrote was more directed at Charismatic, really. Anyway, I said it was the interpretation I was comfortable with, not that it was true or the only possible interpretation. In fact, this was an answer that my Pater (catholic priest, are they called that in english?) gave me when we had a discussion about the subject. I tend to believe his sincerity on the subject.
The interpretation you described is much more, for lack of a better word, fanatic and less inclusive. Which, in my book, is a bad thing. Your mileage may vary, of course.

[karajorma]

For the most part I tend to agree with you there Scotty. The Bible does pretty much flat out say that only those who believe in Jesus are going to heaven and everyone else is going to hell or just simply die (Well apart from that bit where it says that only the Jews are getting in to heaven but only the Jehovah's Witnesses believe that anyway).

You know, as an atheist, I'm much more comfortable with the interpretation that says "Wether or not you believe in the existence of Christ, or the factual accuracy of the Bible, is irrelevant.

As an atheist why would you care? As far as I'm concerned it has the same relevance as whether or not Father Christmas thinks I've been a bad boy this year.

[Scotty]

Less inclusive?  Only by choice of person wondering.  Fanatic?  Well, just like beauty, that's in the eye of the beholder.  

it was the interpretation I was comfortable with

I know what you mean.  Sometimes, I don't feel comfortable with some parts, mostly letters written by Paul and Peter and guys who WEREN'T Jesus, telling us what to believe.  One of these days, I'm going to go through the gospels and find what Jesus actually teaches, and not all the fluff these guys add.

EDIT:

For the most part I tend to agree with you there Scotty.

OH S***, IT'S THE END OF THE WORLD!

More Seriously: I challenge anyone to find a mention of the horrors of Hell that aren't written by someone who could have gotten it completely wrong (i.e. Paul)

[The E]

You know, as an atheist, I'm much more comfortable with the interpretation that says "Wether or not you believe in the existence of Christ, or the factual accuracy of the Bible, is irrelevant.

As an atheist why would you care? As far as I'm concerned it has the same relevance as whether or not Father Christmas thinks I've been a bad boy this year.

There's that. I also like to cover myself in case I'm wrong And I'd like to deal with people who are able to accept my beliefs (or lack of them) without getting preachy about me needing to convert to their particular branch of religion.

[Scotty]

I also like to cover myself in case I'm wrong

By only half believing?   

Introducing for the argument of all (drum roll):  Pascal's Wager!!  Yay!

[The E]

I'm with Dawkins on this one: "Suppose we grant that there is indeed some small chance that God exists. Nevertheless, it could be said that you will lead a better, fuller life if you bet on his not existing, than if you bet on his existing and therefore squander your precious time on worshipping him, sacrificing to him, fighting and dying for him, etc."

However, since living according to the ten commandments has worked so far, I see no reason to stop.

[Scotty]

I intensely dislike Dawkins.  (See, once again:  Epicurius Quote thread)  He knows nothing of how many religions work.  There are no 'sacrifices' in my religion.  Granted that may or may not be true for others, it isn't for what he is talking about.  Fighting and dying for him is a matter of circumstance, not a dedication.  Yes it could be said that you will lead a better, fuller life if you bet on His not existing.  Then again, it could be said that we will all die in the next ten minutes because of a gigantic meteor.  Saying it in no way makes it true.

I apologize if I seem preachy.  This guy pisses me off.

EDIT:

However, since living according to the ten commandments has worked so far, I see no reason to stop.

It's impossible to know if it's worked until the end.  And what makes taking that extra little faith in Christ so difficult? (legitimate question, not trying to convert anyone)

[Polpolion]

I'm with Dawkins on this one: "Suppose we grant that there is indeed some small chance that God exists. Nevertheless, it could be said that you will lead a better, fuller life if you bet on his not existing, than if you bet on his existing and therefore squander your precious time on worshipping him, sacrificing to him, fighting and dying for him, etc."

However, since living according to the ten commandments has worked so far, I see no reason to stop.

You know, it's possible to believe in God but not worship/sacrifice/fight/die for him.