Ask a Christian!

[anonymous attributes]

stealthmongoose

anonymous attributes

stealthmongoose

anonymous attributes

stealthmongoose

Then in the realistic and existent perspective (since it is the most relevant), what is Heaven and Hell if not places of infinite reward/punishment respectively?

On your counter question, I would like to ask for it's relevance. My question was not one of the importance of a person's name or title, but on the soundness of said judgement. If it were a matter of justification, it wouldn't matter who was justifying or opposing it. So I would hope that you could answer the question as opposed to avoiding it.

Did you not ask me the following: ""Why is it justifiable to give someone paradise or eternal torment for their finite deeds in life?"" ?

If you do not understand the power that created heaven and hell how will you understand that spiritual thing that condemns or makes justifiable? Again, who is justifying and who is condemning? You answer my question.

Because justification is not restricted to matters of perceived spiritual significance. Individuals seek out justice for the sake of finding balance or reparation for deeds committed against them. The laws of the universe as we know them could give two shits about your or my beliefs and what we do directly impacts the world around us.

Therefore, it's not about who we are but what we do. You have no way of demonstrating that your talk of eternities or heavens or hells has any relevance or validity. That is why I ask about your view, and your understanding specifically on the subject of Christianity and presumably your defense of it's relevance. What reason should anyone else have to consider it?

You understand me when I posed my question about the WHO. But everything else you are in complete darkness. Who intrusts a work to a man if he believes not in the fruit there of?

Metaphor is tired. What reason should anyone have to believe in heaven or hell? Let alone a creator being responsible for it as well as this universe?

If its true, what will you say in the end? if its not, what will you say in the end? Answer me.

[stealthmongoose]

anonymous attributes

stealthmongoose

anonymous attributes

stealthmongoose

anonymous attributes

stealthmongoose

Then in the realistic and existent perspective (since it is the most relevant), what is Heaven and Hell if not places of infinite reward/punishment respectively?

On your counter question, I would like to ask for it's relevance. My question was not one of the importance of a person's name or title, but on the soundness of said judgement. If it were a matter of justification, it wouldn't matter who was justifying or opposing it. So I would hope that you could answer the question as opposed to avoiding it.

Did you not ask me the following: ""Why is it justifiable to give someone paradise or eternal torment for their finite deeds in life?"" ?

If you do not understand the power that created heaven and hell how will you understand that spiritual thing that condemns or makes justifiable? Again, who is justifying and who is condemning? You answer my question.

Because justification is not restricted to matters of perceived spiritual significance. Individuals seek out justice for the sake of finding balance or reparation for deeds committed against them. The laws of the universe as we know them could give two shits about your or my beliefs and what we do directly impacts the world around us.

Therefore, it's not about who we are but what we do. You have no way of demonstrating that your talk of eternities or heavens or hells has any relevance or validity. That is why I ask about your view, and your understanding specifically on the subject of Christianity and presumably your defense of it's relevance. What reason should anyone else have to consider it?

You understand me when I posed my question about the WHO. But everything else you are in complete darkness. Who intrusts a work to a man if he believes not in the fruit there of?

Metaphor is tired. What reason should anyone have to believe in heaven or hell? Let alone a creator being responsible for it as well as this universe?

If its true, what will you say in the end? if its not, what will you say in the end? Answer me.

This is reminiscent of the old man who lived in the hollowed out log in Dragon Age: Origins. You wouldn't happen to have an Acorn on you, would you?

I digress, your question can be easily answered by Pascal's wager. You wager that this is true, or that it is not true, where there are Billions of other options, each one with it's own mythos and speculation about what happens after one dies.

What I will say is nothing, no matter the outcome, because the dead do not speak, at least not in the way that anyone has been able to hear in anything more than flights of fancy.

Until it is proven that any of the things you propose exist, your notions on the idea are whimsy and without much due attention.

[anonymous attributes]

stealthmongoose

anonymous attributes

stealthmongoose

anonymous attributes

stealthmongoose

Because justification is not restricted to matters of perceived spiritual significance. Individuals seek out justice for the sake of finding balance or reparation for deeds committed against them. The laws of the universe as we know them could give two shits about your or my beliefs and what we do directly impacts the world around us.

Therefore, it's not about who we are but what we do. You have no way of demonstrating that your talk of eternities or heavens or hells has any relevance or validity. That is why I ask about your view, and your understanding specifically on the subject of Christianity and presumably your defense of it's relevance. What reason should anyone else have to consider it?

You understand me when I posed my question about the WHO. But everything else you are in complete darkness. Who intrusts a work to a man if he believes not in the fruit there of?

Metaphor is tired. What reason should anyone have to believe in heaven or hell? Let alone a creator being responsible for it as well as this universe?

If its true, what will you say in the end? if its not, what will you say in the end? Answer me.

This is reminiscent of the old man who lived in the hollowed out log in Dragon Age: Origins. You wouldn't happen to have an Acorn on you, would you?

I digress, your question can be easily answered by Pascal's wager. You wager that this is true, or that it is not true, where there are Billions of other options, each one with it's own mythos and speculation about what happens after one dies.

What I will say is nothing, no matter the outcome, because the dead do not speak, at least not in the way that anyone has been able to hear in anything more than flights of fancy.

Until it is proven that any of the things you propose exist, your notions on the idea are whimsy and without much due attention.

You are a witness that there is more than one answer. You have your own answer out of of the billions. But have you been dead before, and heard the testimony of the dead?

"What I will say is nothing, no matter the outcome." You are therefore a witness to your own religious belief, and your faith will allow you to go no where but where it leads. Death.

Does the vermin ask the dove anything because they understand each other? No, they do not.

[stealthmongoose]

anonymous attributes

stealthmongoose

anonymous attributes

stealthmongoose

anonymous attributes

stealthmongoose

Because justification is not restricted to matters of perceived spiritual significance. Individuals seek out justice for the sake of finding balance or reparation for deeds committed against them. The laws of the universe as we know them could give two shits about your or my beliefs and what we do directly impacts the world around us.

Therefore, it's not about who we are but what we do. You have no way of demonstrating that your talk of eternities or heavens or hells has any relevance or validity. That is why I ask about your view, and your understanding specifically on the subject of Christianity and presumably your defense of it's relevance. What reason should anyone else have to consider it?

You understand me when I posed my question about the WHO. But everything else you are in complete darkness. Who intrusts a work to a man if he believes not in the fruit there of?

Metaphor is tired. What reason should anyone have to believe in heaven or hell? Let alone a creator being responsible for it as well as this universe?

If its true, what will you say in the end? if its not, what will you say in the end? Answer me.

This is reminiscent of the old man who lived in the hollowed out log in Dragon Age: Origins. You wouldn't happen to have an Acorn on you, would you?

I digress, your question can be easily answered by Pascal's wager. You wager that this is true, or that it is not true, where there are Billions of other options, each one with it's own mythos and speculation about what happens after one dies.

What I will say is nothing, no matter the outcome, because the dead do not speak, at least not in the way that anyone has been able to hear in anything more than flights of fancy.

Until it is proven that any of the things you propose exist, your notions on the idea are whimsy and without much due attention.

You are a witness that there is more than one answer. You have your own answer out of of the billions. But have you been dead before, and heard the testimony of the dead?

"What I will say is nothing, no matter the outcome." You are therefore a witness to your own religious belief, and your faith will allow you to go no where but where it leads. Death.

Does the vermin ask the dove anything because they understand each other? No, they do not.

I am a witness that there are Billions of beliefs and no evidence for what occurs after death aside from the brain's personal generation of Near Death Experiences, which indicate through synapses firing that consciousness and even perceived supernatural events are contained within the cognitive range of the one experiencing the event.

Therefore, evidence does indicate, regardless of my beliefs or lack thereof, that supernatural events are the product of confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance, if not the intervention of some substance or hysteria.

And on the contrary, my mind is always open to new evidence should such evidence present itself. The trouble with you and billions of others like yourself is that you can provide no evidence of these supernatural claims even though these claims come from a book that claims other such ideas which can be tested in reality.

In the book of genesis and other segments of the Bible, for example, God's character attempts poorly to describe the reasons that animals like cattle are born with different patterns. Some rot about feeding them in front of striped trees or otherwise. Such claims can be tested, have been, and are fraudulent due to their lack of basis in reality.

Making an even more ridiculous claim such as the existence of Heaven or Hell without any demonstrable proof is no different. Asserting that people deserve to go there based on their decisions in life is even more absurd. Therefore, in the absence of verifiable evidence, there is no need to believe it.

What reason is there to believe it, and why should people live their lives accordingly?

[anonymous attributes]

stealthmongoose

anonymous attributes

stealthmongoose

anonymous attributes

stealthmongoose

Metaphor is tired. What reason should anyone have to believe in heaven or hell? Let alone a creator being responsible for it as well as this universe?

If its true, what will you say in the end? if its not, what will you say in the end? Answer me.

This is reminiscent of the old man who lived in the hollowed out log in Dragon Age: Origins. You wouldn't happen to have an Acorn on you, would you?

I digress, your question can be easily answered by Pascal's wager. You wager that this is true, or that it is not true, where there are Billions of other options, each one with it's own mythos and speculation about what happens after one dies.

What I will say is nothing, no matter the outcome, because the dead do not speak, at least not in the way that anyone has been able to hear in anything more than flights of fancy.

Until it is proven that any of the things you propose exist, your notions on the idea are whimsy and without much due attention.

You are a witness that there is more than one answer. You have your own answer out of of the billions. But have you been dead before, and heard the testimony of the dead?

"What I will say is nothing, no matter the outcome." You are therefore a witness to your own religious belief, and your faith will allow you to go no where but where it leads. Death.

Does the vermin ask the dove anything because they understand each other? No, they do not.

I am a witness that there are Billions of beliefs and no evidence for what occurs after death aside from the brain's personal generation of Near Death Experiences, which indicate through synapses firing that consciousness and even perceived supernatural events are contained within the cognitive range of the one experiencing the event.

Therefore, evidence does indicate, regardless of my beliefs or lack thereof, that supernatural events are the product of confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance, if not the intervention of some substance or hysteria.

And on the contrary, my mind is always open to new evidence should such evidence present itself. The trouble with you and billions of others like yourself is that you can provide no evidence of these supernatural claims even though these claims come from a book that claims other such ideas which can be tested in reality.

In the book of genesis and other segments of the Bible, for example, God's character attempts poorly to describe the reasons that animals like cattle are born with different patterns. Some rot about feeding them in front of striped trees or otherwise. Such claims can be tested, have been, and are fraudulent due to their lack of basis in reality.

Making an even more ridiculous claim such as the existence of Heaven or Hell without any demonstrable proof is no different. Asserting that people deserve to go there based on their decisions in life is even more absurd. Therefore, in the absence of verifiable evidence, there is no need to believe it.

What reason is there to believe it, and why should people live their lives accordingly?

What reason do I have to try and continue with you if you arent paying attention.

The only thing think I should answer is your assumption about Jacob and the sheep. Since you don't really answer my questions or understand anything I say, and instead make red herrings, even though you somewhat went back to your original question, its still a red herring because you just want to stump me on unrelated topics that you bring in.. but I respond now for the newborn. I will start off firstly by asking rhetorically, if God was involved, how is it a problem? if He wants He can make them rainbow colored, but if God was not, how can you fault his character by your assumption? even so, I think you are wrong.

In a paper by Dr. Joshua Backon, who teaches at the Hebrew University of Medicine cites study of Epigenetics which is a study of how prenatal nutrition can affect the Agouti gene that can affect fur color in both sheep and mice. The study demonstrates that fungi that resides in the bark of the three specific types of branches listed in Genesis 30 do provide the chemicals the comprise the exact amino acid to create alterations in the color of fur without having any direct affect on the DNA.

“Dr. Josh Klein, a plant pathologist and expert on plant fungi at the Volcani Research Institute of the Israeli Ministry of Agriculture, suggested that there are fungi as filaments under the bark of these trees that would contain these specific amino acids. He stated that these fungi are very host-specific. Peeling the bark could make these fungi available for water extraction of their components."
___________

Unless one is born again, they cannot see the Kingdom of God.