I actually find that conversation quite interesting.
nossy Send a noteboard - 29/02/2012 08:18:35 PM
And there are quite a few things for us to disagree on in that too. 
I do agree that God doesn't "send people to hell." I don't really believe in hell as it was described during the dark ages. I don't believe that if a poor little man in India never heard of Christ/God, he is automatically doomed to burn in hell... unless a Mormon thinks of him and gets baptized in his honor, anyway.
I think we got a pretty raw deal if one woman once ate one apple and forever after we had to be careful to understand exactly what to believe, or our afterlives would be nothing but anguish. We do not believe in precisely the same God, imo.
I suppose I'll find out, if I end up in hell. But I do believe that the choices I make for myself are mine to make, and to mess up (or not) as I will. And if I'm wrong, God and I can talk about that when I get there.
(edit: I don't think Narg is suggesting casting aside my free will (see his "play ticket" comment to LL), but it does seem that the Mormon faith takes liberties that I find offensive, personally, and it does touch on free will.)
Thank you?

one of the biggest, rehash debates of this site (and especially its predecessor) and the perfect response to it.
The debate is regarding a loving God and "sending people to hell." I've always stated that its not God sending someone to hell, but instead it is the person who is sending themself to hell. Or seen from a different perspective, God chose everyone to be in heaven, but the only ones who will be in heaven are those who choose God.
I do agree that God doesn't "send people to hell." I don't really believe in hell as it was described during the dark ages. I don't believe that if a poor little man in India never heard of Christ/God, he is automatically doomed to burn in hell... unless a Mormon thinks of him and gets baptized in his honor, anyway.
I think we got a pretty raw deal if one woman once ate one apple and forever after we had to be careful to understand exactly what to believe, or our afterlives would be nothing but anguish. We do not believe in precisely the same God, imo.
So having that in mind, think about what you said. About how you would consider it, essentially, spiritual rape for someone to push aside your decision about what you believe, in order to supplant it with something else. It is offensive to you. It is casting aside your free will. Interestingly enough, God feels the same way in that you can make up your own mind, and He will respect that....even if it breaks His heart.
I suppose I'll find out, if I end up in hell. But I do believe that the choices I make for myself are mine to make, and to mess up (or not) as I will. And if I'm wrong, God and I can talk about that when I get there.
(edit: I don't think Narg is suggesting casting aside my free will (see his "play ticket" comment to LL), but it does seem that the Mormon faith takes liberties that I find offensive, personally, and it does touch on free will.)
Good post
Thank you?
This message last edited by nossy on 29/02/2012 at 08:23:12 PM
Do you know the best way to anger an atheist?
28/02/2012 07:10:57 PM
- 1948 Views
Or, you could baptize one of them, posthumously.
28/02/2012 07:32:48 PM
- 1286 Views
I can't think of any reason for an atheist to be annoyed by that.
28/02/2012 11:08:44 PM
- 1030 Views
Well, for starters, it's really effing rude.
28/02/2012 11:31:36 PM
- 1072 Views
It is an act of love.
29/02/2012 12:34:03 AM
- 1080 Views
Everyone does it for that reason? (edits for clarity)
29/02/2012 10:27:02 AM
- 975 Views
I have some disturbing news for you...
29/02/2012 06:42:41 PM
- 1016 Views
For anyone reading this: the guy above is wrong, and I am admitting that to you on his behalf, so
29/02/2012 07:15:38 PM
- 1048 Views
Maybe without realizing it, you have articulated....
29/02/2012 07:24:13 PM
- 874 Views
I actually find that conversation quite interesting.
29/02/2012 08:18:35 PM
- 997 Views
Re: I actually find that conversation quite interesting.
29/02/2012 09:07:06 PM
- 1054 Views
I cannot possibly agree more with these two paragraphs of yours...
29/02/2012 09:28:09 PM
- 1032 Views
I find the Fall perhaps the most interesting part.
02/03/2012 09:05:29 AM
- 1417 Views
Re: I find the Fall perhaps the most interesting part.
02/03/2012 06:26:06 PM
- 1185 Views
There are 3 critical distinctions: 1) Ability to sin, 2) Awareness of sin and 3) Appreciation of sin
05/03/2012 04:08:36 AM
- 970 Views
It is not an act of love to defy the beliefs of a loved one.
29/02/2012 02:32:45 PM
- 1124 Views
Rape? That is ridiculous.
29/02/2012 05:26:13 PM
- 1029 Views
It's a bit of hyperbole, but not too far from it, imo
29/02/2012 05:45:39 PM
- 1062 Views
"Spiritual rape" might be going a bit far, but otherwise that sounds about right.
02/03/2012 08:06:48 AM
- 1098 Views
Isn't religion different than faith, though?
28/02/2012 07:44:07 PM
- 1087 Views
Yeah that's pretty much what I said
28/02/2012 08:21:56 PM
- 872 Views

that won't work on Buddists
28/02/2012 09:21:48 PM
- 1017 Views
For some reason I always imagine Buddhists as the monk class on RPG games... *NM*
28/02/2012 10:13:27 PM
- 503 Views
That's always been my view of the issue. Half-assed non-religious types are just as obnoxious too.
28/02/2012 10:34:12 PM
- 1246 Views
Seems a got both a pat on the back and a scathing rebuke. I call that a good day
28/02/2012 11:57:45 PM
- 1303 Views
Best way to anger an atheist, by declaring all atheists are the same. *NM*
28/02/2012 10:38:51 PM
- 646 Views
Common error number 1: "Atheism isn't a lack of belief, but rather a belief that God doesn't exist."
28/02/2012 11:18:23 PM
- 1175 Views
Curiously, anger at statements of simple obvious facts is a hallmark of religious fundamentalism.
29/02/2012 10:27:29 AM
- 1103 Views

What you're doing there is defining "atheist" and "agnostic" in a way that suits you, but...
29/02/2012 11:50:27 AM
- 908 Views
What I am doing is using the terms as they were universally used until about the time I was born.
05/03/2012 01:11:21 AM
- 1035 Views
So what do you call this position?:
05/03/2012 08:43:20 AM
- 1003 Views
I call them both agnostic, but the former leans toward atheism while the latter has no lean.
05/03/2012 10:53:02 AM
- 1069 Views
See, there you go again, defining atheism in such a way as to make it sound ridiculous.
05/03/2012 11:21:17 AM
- 884 Views
Well, is unswerving belief a good thing, or not?
05/03/2012 11:57:05 AM
- 1103 Views
What's happening
05/03/2012 02:24:41 PM
- 1087 Views
Conversationally, DKs use of "atheism" at the start of this convo is the only practical definition.
07/03/2012 03:10:18 AM
- 1411 Views
Oh really? The guy who was doing it to annoy people?
07/03/2012 09:53:38 PM
- 990 Views
The guy who was doing it to annoy atheists based on the terms technical and popular meaning, yes.
11/03/2012 04:04:36 AM
- 878 Views
Whatever.
12/03/2012 12:39:24 AM
- 1343 Views
I understand that as "I completely agree."
13/03/2012 12:11:18 AM
- 1153 Views

I have known very few people who "believe" their religion from rearing and actually understand it.
29/02/2012 12:08:01 PM
- 1235 Views
I thought that was "best way to make an atheist roll his/her eyes at you"? *NM*
29/02/2012 11:05:21 PM
- 596 Views