[Closed] The First STW Religion Poll

You just have to believe and ask for forgiveness.

attendance = works?

OK, sorry, that was just off the top of my head.

Hebrews 10:24, 25 And let us consider one another so as to incite to love and fine works, [b]not forsaking our meeting together[/b], as some have the custom, but encouraging one another, and all the more so as you see the day drawing near.

Faith without works is dead.

Not necessarily. According to the Catechisms, faith is simply to believe in him. The first of the three theological virtues.

Hebrews 10:24, 25

Old Testament.

Doesn't count 😉

Are you by any chance seeking to convince by using a quote from an ancient (pre-elightenment) text, without evidence? According to molgrips, this never happens. Shocking.

Not necessarily.

Careful, this sort of disagreement can lead to wars.

Not necessarily. According to the Catechisms, faith is simply to believe in him. The first of the three theological virtues.

According to the Bible

James 2:14 Of what benefit is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but he does not have works? That faith cannot save him, can it?

Old Testament.

Doesn't count

Of course it does (Even though it is new testament)

2 Timothy 3:16 [b]All [/b]Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness

They weren't of any religion, they were just God's people.

So, Jewish then.

I had a conversation with somebody of part Jewish descent about birthdays. She said that they didn't really do birthdays. "So, no birthdays or Christmas? What's the point of being Jewish?", I tactfully asked. "God's chosen people", she replied. "What does that mean?" I countered. "It's like speedy boarding" she said.

So put me down for a 1. I'd like to be Jewish please. Was Adam circumcised? I know he didn't have a navel.

Hebrews 10:24, 25

Old Testament.

Doesn't count

Nope. New Testament.

Alas, I have been busy all day with no time to check in, and now that I do, find this thread has spiralled out of control. I can't even find a point on which I can get involved, although there are many, well-intentioned, inaccuracies being asserted.

Oh well. I might just have to open another thread.

Did you hear about Joe Cocker?

Ah. the OP returns SaxonRider - Can of worms I might add 🙂

Nope. New Testament.

So it is. My bad.

So attendance [i]is[/i] needed for eternal life?

Alas, I have been busy all day with no time to check in, and now that I do, find this thread has spiralled out of control. I can't even find a point on which I can get involved, although there are many, well-intentioned, inaccuracies being asserted.

Someone up there (further up the thread not, you know, [i]up there[/i]) tallied everything up, and we're about as Christian as you'd expect for a bunch of borderline-autistic, (relatively) young, mainly male, Brits. So, the thread did achieve something.

Someone up there (further up the thread not, you know, up there) tallied everything up, and we're about as Christian as you'd expect for a bunch of borderline-autistic, (relatively) young, mainly male, Brits. So, the thread did achieve something.

I'm converting you! My work here is done. (Joke) 😀

Are you by any chance seeking to convince by using a quote from an ancient (pre-elightenment) text, without evidence?

No! They are disagreeing about their own religion, don't think it has anything to do with you. Little bit paranoid there Wopster.

Oh well. I might just have to open another thread.

It might be interesting to start two similar to the one, but with a reasonably gap between:

The first using the current UK census question "What is your religion?" and the second with something more neutral like "Do you have a religion, and if so, which is it?" which is being suggested by some groups.

(Joke)

😉

SaxonRider - maybe you could comment on this?

What I don't really understand is how folk can believe that there is a god and heaven and hell and all that jazz, and yet not bother to attend mass / worship etc.

3

I have no idea at all how an intelligent human being could choose anything else; to believe is madness, not to be interested in something that has so profoundly shaped human history is beyond belief.

Interesting quote from "Herding Hemingway's Cats" by Kat Arney -

"There is no god. There is no free will. There is only DNA."

(On the function of which, presumably, there is no disagreement between scientists, I would assume).

DNA itself, of course, is not covered in the afore-quoted iron age proscriptive literature...

"No! They are disagreeing about their own religion, don't think it has anything to do with you. Little bit paranoid there Wopster."

So... they're not trying to convince (whoever) by quoting from ancient texts without evidence, then...

PH - i did say "not necessarily". Of course, i quoted the RC version.

Your notion is supported by the Quakers who believe

Quakers believe our faith is[b] lived through action[/b]. We work positively and creatively with others to build a more just and peaceful world.

So... they're not trying to convince (whoever) by quoting from [ancient] texts without evidence, then..

Errr

"There is no god. There is no free will. There is only DNA."

(On the function of which, presumably, there is no disagreement between scientists, I would assume).

So... they're not trying to convince (whoever) by quoting from ancient texts without evidence, then...

They're arguing with each other about whether or not you need to go to church to get into heaven.

Argument between two believers is NOT trying to convert anyone to their own religion.

On the function of which, presumably, there is no disagreement between scientists, I would assume

Have you seriously not heard of the nature vs nurture debate?

Of course, lots of good works ([i]sic[/i]) are done without any "faith". It would seem that the belief in unicorns isn't a prerequisite.

Have you seriously not heard of the nature vs nurture debate?

That's psychology, not [i]science[/i].

😉

teamhurtmore - But the Bible clearly states that it is. I was just pointing this out. So, wouldn't you agree, that if you wanted to follow The God of the Bible, you would follow that scripture?

Of course, lots of good works (sic) are done without any "faith". It would seem that the belief in unicorns isn't a prerequisite.

They're not arguing that faith is needed to do works, but that works are needed for faith.

the Bible clearly states

This is rarely the case.

Argument between two believers is NOT trying to convert anyone to their own religion.

Split hair. They are trying to convince each other of their own [i]version[/i] of a religion.

Huggy - re works what if you were a crime fighting methodist ninja but all the late saturday nights meant you never got to church on the Sunday?

This is rarely the case.

re works what if you were a crime fighting Methodist ninja but all the late Saturday nights meant you never got to church on the Sunday?

Many of my Brothers have left jobs because it has stopped them from attending their meetings. Also, my work are fully aware of the meetings I attend and that I am not available to work on a Tuesday evening or a Sunday.

My point being, if your faith is that strong, surely it would come before any job?

teamhurtmore - But the Bible clearly states that it is. I was just pointing this out. So, wouldn't you agree, that if you wanted to follow The God of the Bible, you would follow that scripture?

I dont know - I am happy to dig in and out of different religions for guidance and am not dogmatic about any one - but given that Bibles have been translated/mis-translated, changed and adjusted over time, I find little sympathy with the over analysis of individual verses or chapters or in the idea that there is "one absolute scripture' to follow. As atheists are only too happy to point out, there are many apparent/obvious contradictions in the Bible.

In the bookshelf in front of me now there are books from five religions/strands of religion which I enjoy dipping into - theist and non-theist - as well as other sources of wisdom and guidance that are not in any way religious. They are all helpful.

Split hair. They are trying to convince each other of their own version of a religion.

Wrong on all counts - who mentioned facts eh?

This is rarely the case.

Was the scripture I quoted not clear enough?

No, that was unusually clear.

But, generally, the Bible is less clear, hence people disagreeing on issues because of it.

Weighing the relative value of 'works'.

i.e. it's probably quite easy to call yourself devout, attend church, sing a song, chuck a couple of quid on the collection plate, probably harder to organise a youth club/charity collections etc that might compromise your ability to attend to church but that has greater social impact. According to your assumption it'd have less spiritual capital.

teamhurtmore - I like the way you work.

But, generally, the Bible is less clear, hence people disagreeing on issues because of it.

Take me for example, I used to hate studying at school. I have the memory of a goldfish but I get the Bible. Did I mention I have the memory of a Goldfish?

Do you think God would inspire a book for people who couldn't understand it?

do you think God would inspire a book for people who couldn't understand it?

Looking at the arguments over the centuries, that does appear to be what's happened!

Looking at the arguments over the centuries, that does appear to be what's happened!

"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God--not by works, so that no one can boast," (Eph. 2:8-9, NIV).

Faith, not works...

But, generally, the Bible is less clear, hence people disagreeing on issues because of it.

That's the thing, it is pretty clear. All the way through. There might be a few scriptures that need a little more looking into but that's all.

What does the Bible clearly say on remarriage after divorce, homosexuality, and women Bishops?

miketually - Now you're going down a path where I may write something that could offend somebody. This is the territory I mentioned earlier and is best done on a one-to-one basis. Also, I think you already know the answers 🙂

Eph. 2:8-9

The entire provision for salvation is an expression of God’s undeserved kindness. There is no way that a descendant of Adam can gain salvation on his own, no matter how noble his works are. Salvation is a gift from God given to those who put faith in the sin-atoning value of the sacrifice of his Son.

I do so love the way the christians [ and molly] argue its not really clear what the bible means when it basically says things they know are totally false- creation for example.

In reality the bible is both. In some places its a bit vague and unclear in other places its as clear as clear can be.

There really is no wriggle room in it's an abomination put them to death

There really is no wriggle room

Sorry, Archbishop your holiness. Didn't realise you were the ultimate expert. If only you could've been around 1500 years ago a lot could've been cleared up.

slowoldman - Member

You just have to believe and ask for forgiveness.

How long does the belief have to have existed? I mean, if I do turn up in purgatory awaiting "assignment" is it OK to say "OK, now I see it, I believe" and ask for forgiveness, or will that be too little, too late?

Sorry Slowoldman chap that will be too late.

Why do you have to worry? If you want to know if you have done anything severe that warrant purgatory then consider your actions in this life.

Have you harm someone or life intentionally? Mentality, physically and economically? If you have then there will be some form or purgatory waiting ...

If you have arrived at purgatory there is no one that can help you (not even God/god etc - you might postpone the matter but you Shall pay one day regardless as it must be paid), so do your time and take it like a "man" for you have done what you have done and you cannot turn back the clock.

Most people will have to undergo some form of being judged but not all have to undergo "punishment" unless you have done heinous act.

What are those heinous act? (cannot remember the exact order now)

1. Matricide
2. Patricide
3. Killing the non-sinful
4. Killing the one who has turn a new leaf and repent
5. Killing the one that goes forth

If you have done any of the above then this shall be your last present to enjoy life. You will Not do so (be human) again for a very long time.

However, if I am in charged then I might lessen whatever comes your way out of compassion ...

SaxonRider - maybe you could comment on this?

"What I don't really understand is how folk can believe that there is a god and heaven and hell and all that jazz, and yet not bother to attend mass / worship etc."

I can try.

The difficulty here is the same difficulty that presents across this entire thread: that somehow formal religion is simply a construct made up of a proposition (God), sacred text (s) (the Bible; the Qu'ran; the Pentateuch), and a series of rules, and that each of those features constitutes a category of 'thing' that is debatable in rational/empirical terms.

I think that [i]all[/i] things should be open to debate, of course - and religious tenets are no different - but if we are to be the liberal, enlightened human beings we purport to be, we also need to recognise that there are, and always have been, different categories of thought and experience that human beings have needed to deal with in different ways.

That is why we have poetry and art. Why, for example, did Degas paint so many images of the ballet, when he could have just told his audience to go down to the theatre and watch a ballet themselves? Or he could have just painted a hyper-realistic portrait of what he saw. But he didn't. His experience transcended rational, empirical categories, and he felt the need to express this [i]artistically[/i].

In any case, there are certainly rules among some Christian communities that stress the importance of attending services (e.g. the Roman Catholic expression 'Day of Obligation' being an example of this), but even where this is expected, it would be understood that the reason for it is to engender a faithful response in the worshipper to what the community understands as the 'divine'. This is an inherently paternalistic practice, and NOT something to be found in every tradition. Indeed, even similar Christian communities, such as the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, would approach it differently. (A joke among the Orthodox towards Catholics runs along the lines of, 'Oh, you go to Mass because you're [i]obliged[/i]? I go to Liturgy because I love God.)

The point of this is to say that, at least from a Christian perspective, it is always desirable that a person chooses to engage in worship. The existential states of individual people, however, means that this is not always going to happen. Reminding people to worship may be done by various means in various traditions, such as using language like 'Feast Day of Obligation', but I am afraid that, as much as we all might like clear cut categories, there is no coercion, and no expectation that attendance at worship is always going to happen.

The Paschal Sermon by St John Chrysostom, which is read aloud at the service of Matins every Pascha (Easter) in the Orthodox Churches pretty much sums up what I am trying to describe. Attendance is desirable; non-attendance is no obstacle.

From the sermon:

If anyone is devout and a lover of God, let them enjoy this beautiful and radiant festival.
If anyone is a grateful servant, let them, rejoicing, enter into the joy of his Lord.
If anyone has wearied themselves in fasting, let them now receive recompense.
If anyone has labored from the first hour, let them today receive the just reward.
If anyone has come at the third hour, with thanksgiving let them feast.
If anyone has arrived at the sixth hour, let them have no misgivings; for they shall suffer no loss.
If anyone has delayed until the ninth hour, let them draw near without hesitation.
If anyone has arrived even at the eleventh hour, let them not fear on account of tardiness.
For the Master is gracious and receives the last even as the first; He gives rest to him that comes at the eleventh hour, just as to him who has labored from the first.
He has mercy upon the last and cares for the first; to the one He gives, and to the other He is gracious.
He both honors the work and praises the intention.

Also, I think you already know the answers

I made some assumptions about your beliefs earlier in the thread, yes.

Interesting that people can read the same texts and come up with completely different positions. I suspect my friend (a divorced-and-remarried, female, Anglican vicar) would have rather different opinions on what the Bible says to you.

well... [b]princehuggy[/b] actually... perhaps it isn't?

We really do have to judge [i]religions [/i] by their public pronouncements and actions on such subjects, and by the way they interpret the bible. A selective approach, with choosing some OT bits as (literally) written in stone, and other bits as just flaky irrelevancies, also smacks of spin and obfuscation.

The truth about what many more sincerely religious people believe is that it is not necessarily very nice to others, and tends, despite the evident example of tolerance set by Jesus, to be rather sadly judgemental... as shown by many churches' attitudes to divorce, women and LGBT issues...

And even Jesus was pretty straight speaking... "No one comes to the Father except through me." - which Christian friends interpret to me as - "It's accept Christ or Burn in Hell - and preferably do it through the correct Christian sect"...

Luckily, most people who claim belief seem to ignore the dogma and doctrine, eg, the Irish popular vote legalising Gay marriage, and the Italians having the lowest birthrate in Europe.

So is what the pragmatic believers actually practice true faith in your eyes? Or are they lost?

I do so love the way the christians [ and molly] argue its not really clear what the bible means when it basically says things they know are totally false- creation for example.

In reality the bible is both. In some places its a bit vague and unclear in other places its as clear as clear can be.

There really is no wriggle room in it's an abomination put them to death

But Junkyard, I have tried to explain this before in direct response to your, quite legitimate, queries regarding how it is both the Jewish and Christian communities would traditionally interpret their texts.

I understand that you may not believe or accept my explanations, but I hardly think it's right to assert precisely the same things about biblical interpretation as if you have never been presented with a counter-point.

I'm always happy to engage in these sorts of questions, but I have to feel like if I type something, it at least has had [i]some[/i] effect. 🙁

Good post, and thanks.

So do you always have to be at a church service in order to worship? Presumably if you are a Catholic then you do?

Also - the emphasis on mercy would imply (to me) that you are allowed a fair amount of wiggle room on some things..

but I have to feel like if I type something, it at least has had some effect.

😆

Pope Francis, to his credit, has not stopped going on about the centrality of mercy since he was first elected pope. But really, he is drawing for his insistence on mercy from the Eastern idea of 'economia'. That is, there is an objective framework within which things are meant to unfold, but this should be imagined as something more like a rubber band than a rigid fence.

1

i was raised in a very religious family so i grew up being quite religious to an extent...then i went to university and stopped being religious...i went the other way and stayed on that path for some time after uni.
a couple of life changing events then changed my perspective and forced me to take a look at myself and i made a decision to revert back to being a practising religious person
i now put my "wilderness years" as a voyage of discovery and experience...one that i no longer wish to re-visit

If you have arrived at purgatory there is no one that can help yo

6

SaxonRider - Member
Pope Francis, to his credit, has not stopped going on about the centrality of mercy since he was first elected pope. But really, he is drawing for his insistence on mercy from the Eastern idea of 'economia'. That is, there is an objective framework within which things are meant to unfold, but this should be imagined as something more like a rubber band than a rigid fence.

thats nice and im sure it fills his days, but what does it achieve? a few scholars such as yourself may pay attention but the rest of the flock?

abortion laws, homophobia, transgender descrimination etc remain unchanged, unless he comes out and says, god loves gay sex and abortions are great etc

things wont change for the millions oppressed by church derrived laws
[img] [/img]

legality of abortions: Blue > Brown > Orange> Red

flaky irrelevancies

People's views have changed, God's hasn't.

SaxonRider - been there many times. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink 🙂

gonzy - Good work. My wife travelled the same path and now she's back in the fold.

Nothing I read in the Bible is "flaky irrelevancies".

can you explain this lot then?

15. Numbers 31:32These were the spoils which remained of the plunder taken by the fighting men: 675,000 sheep, 72,000 cattle, 61,000 donkeys, and as for persons, 32,000 young women who had had no intercourse with a man.
14.Genesis 16:8And he said “Hagar, Sarai’s slave girl, where have you come from and where are you going?” She answered, “I’m running away from Sarai, my mistress.” The angel of the Lord said to her, “Go back to your mistress and submit to ill treatment at her hands.” [Pictured above]
13. Genesis 15:9The Lord answered, “Bring me a heifer three years old, a she-goat, three years old, a ram three years old, a turtle dove and a young pigeon.”
12. Deut. 25:11When two men are fighting and the wife of one of them intervenes to drag her husband clear of his opponent, if she puts out her hand and catches hold of the man by his privates, you must cut off her hand and show her no mercy.
11. Genesis 19:8“Look, I have two daughters, virgins both of them. Let me bring them out to you and you could do what you like with them. But do nothing to these men because they have come under the shelter of my roof.”

yeah
I know old testament patriarchal woman hating silliness , but wby what criteria do you say this stuff is good or this stuff is rubbish?

kimbers - Simply put, yes I can explain it all.

If I were to write my biography (auto-biography?) and I were to say "Everything went swimmingly well, no mistakes what so ever, all hunky dory" Would you believe me?

As for

patriarchal woman hating silliness

No women hating being taught in my congregation, in fact quite the opposite.

as if you have never been presented with a counter-point.
I'm always happy to engage in these sorts of questions, but I have to feel like if I type something, it at least has had some effect.

I would not worship your god even it it [ done to ascribe no gender] were true.

teamhurtmore

Split hair. They are trying to convince each other of their own version of a religion.

Wrong on all counts - who mentioned facts eh?

So, let's see.

I argued that religious people try and convince others of their case by using religious, non-evidence-based methods.

molgrips commented that the argument I was quoting was between religious people and not the same thing as if it was between religious and non-religious sides of an argument.

I then said this was splitting hairs, because the argument was between two versions of a religion - in essence the same scenario. Both were using non-evidence-based arguments to try and convince the other of the veracity of their version of a religion.

You think I've got this all wrong.

I think you're not focusing very well.

Hey-ho.

What's in the bible isn't 'gods word' is series of translations of texts written by people of which there are contemporanious versions with contradictions/inconsistencies and which have been deliberately manipulated by the translators over the centuries. Which bits are the direct word of god and which bits are the work of the early catholic church/hampton court conference/Aramaic scholars/points of view of the apostles........

I then said this was splitting hairs, because the argument was between two versions of a religion - [b]in essence the same scenario[/b]

Nonsense.

I think you're on a windup now.

there is no interpretation required of abomination put them to death

Well in the OT there is.

I left this thread but have reappeared. 🙂
Saxon Rider- I also thought of St John Chrysostom in answer the the question you replied to above.

In response to the various comments about purgatory and burning in hell, they are things I've never heard said in Church or by any priest I've known. I don't know which denomination teaches that, but my understanding of "hell" is absence from God. Nothing to do with burning in fire or terrible things happening to unbaptised babies.

Bit late but I am a 3 going on 4. But I find the current conversation fascinating and I don't think the conflict's quite been addressed.

The question isn't whether the bible (you can substitute other texts, I'm using the bible as an example here) is the literal word of god, or not. Of course it's not- because there are variations. That doesn't undermine the bible. It's also not whether you have to follow every last notion in it, to be a proper christian- see above. That's just not an idea that survives contact with the reality of holy texts and the evolution of faiths.

But there are people who both pick and choose, and [i]also[/i] insist that other parts are the literal and undeniable word of god because it's in the bible. That's the internal contradiction which fascinates me.

I totally buy that you can be a christian and pick and choose but I [i]don't[/i] understand how you can pick and choose but still do the appeal to authority. The bible says [i]your[/i] sin is terrible and I demand that you be punished. But I'll ignore what it says about [i]my[/i] sin.

by what criteria do you say this stuff is good or this stuff is rubbish?

1. Decide on the stance you want to take
2. Decide whether what the Bible says is literal/allegorical/whatever to back up your position

For example, take [url= http://www.affirmingbaptists.org.uk/steve-chalke-calls-new-christian-understanding-homosexual-relationships/ ]Steve Chalke's change of stance on homosexuality[/url] and [url= http://thinktheology.co.uk/blog/article/the_jesus_lens_or_the_jesus_tea_strainer ]some[/url] [url= https://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/articles/scriptural-faithfulness-inclusion-and-truth-in-pastoral-care-a-response-to-steve-chalke/ ]of[/url] [url= http://creationtoday.org/the-hermeneutics-of-sin/ ]the[/url] responses

What's in the bible isn't 'gods word'

2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is [b]inspired [/b]of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness

Inspired being the biggest word in that sentence.

And if you knew your Hebrew and ancient Greek, you could see the original scrolls (that still exist) and read them yourself. They'd still say the same thing they did, when they were originally written between 2000 and 5000 years ago.

my understanding of "hell" is absence from God. Nothing to do with burning in fire

I've heard hell described as where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched. Do you disagree?

molgrips - Member
I then said this was splitting hairs, because the argument was between two versions of a religion - in essence the same scenario
Nonsense.

I think you're on a windup now.

It doesn't look like nonsense to me. The only difference is in the replacement of a non-theist by a theist of a particular (presumably theosophical) viewpoint. Each of the respondents is arguing a case for a version of a religion from a standpoint of a non-evidence based approach.

Something which you said doesn't happen.

I'd struggle to make myself clearer. I don't understand why you don't understand me.

I've heard hell described as where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched. Do you disagree?

In its original languages, the Bible uses the Hebrew word she?ohl? and its Greek equivalent hai?des more than 70 times. Both words are related to death. Some Bible translations render them as “grave,” “hell,” or “pit.” However, in most languages there are no words that convey the precise sense of these Hebrew and Greek words.

The only difference is in the replacement of a non-theist by a theist of a particular (presumably theosophical) viewpoint.

The difference is that both sides are Christians. That's a huge difference, in practical human terms, to trying to convert someone to Christianity.

Something which you said doesn't happen.

I said that people trying to convert me to Christianity hardly ever happens. It is my experience that most Christians do not try and convert others.

I didn't say that Christians never argue theological points between themselves. That happens, clearly quite a lot. However it's no business of yours, so I don't see why you would be upset about it?

Miketually- I'm sorry I don't understand what you're asking me. I was just explaining my understanding of "hell" from what I had been taught in the Orthodox Church. Furthermore, confusion has arisen on this from various translations into English.

Yeah but they'd be slightly different to the interpretations and alterations that have been since.

Dead sea scrolls for example contain a lot of what's in the bible and a lot more besides that was not included in the hebrew scriptures after the secon temple period, it's just the 'editors' at the time that decided what to put in and what to leave out. I assume you'll profess that there hand was guided by God.

Well in the OT there is.

It is my experience that most Christians do not try and convert others.

The OT is a collection of academic writings on the subject of God and being Jewish by many authors. It varies, as you would expect it to.

The NT includes accounts of what Jesus said by four different people, and they vary too. As you would expect.

Not seeing a problem with interpreting it as such.

Again where in your physics degree did this come up my most learned scholarly theological friend ?

What the hell does that have to do with anything? It was 20 years ago.

I can read you know.

Above, I should have said "separation" from God, rather than "absence".

[b]princehuggy[/b] I do admire the way you do seem stick to the word. Less equivocation. The trouble is that means you will end up believing somethings which are pretty offensive and considered deserving of criticism by most people.

[b]vickypea[/b] if you haven't heard prople talking about the fires of hell you have managed to avoid those from the more evangelical side of Christianity, both in the UK and US.

The range of different views and beliefs of different sects, religions and flocks, usually held with absolute certainty that [b][i]they[/b][/i] are the ones who have it right, is perhaps the best proof that they are [b][i]all [/i][/b]wrong...

Miketually- I'm sorry I don't understand what you're asking me. I was just explaining my understanding of "hell" from what I had been taught in the Orthodox Church. Furthermore, confusion has arisen on this from various translations into English.

Just your understanding of Hell differs from other descriptions, is all. Words like "Fire and brimstone, Furnace of fire, Judgement by fire, Fiery oven, Lake of fire, Eternal punishment, Pits of darkness, Flames of fire, Burning wind, Unquenchable fire, Judgement by fire" are often used.

the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur.

As one of the unbelieving, that doesn't sound very nice.

IBoth were using non-evidence-based arguments to try and convince the other of the veracity of their version of a religion. [b]You think I've got this all wrong[/b]

Indeed yes. You got this all wrong on both counts and twice too. I think you're not focusing very well.

Simply put I am neither a RC or a Quaker, so given that neither are "my religion" it would be tricky to be convincing (if that was indeed what I was doing) anyone of my version wouldn't it. You not what you keep saying about facts and evidence?

I said that people trying to convert me to Christianity hardly ever happens.

Ah. In which case, I surrender the point.

However it's no business of yours, so I don't see why you would be upset about it?

Well, it is my "business" if I feel it's interesting enough to discuss, like just about anything else, really.

I'm not upset.

Junkyard, are you referring to molgrips' physics degree because you want to point out that he's a scientist, and you think scientists should be anti-religion? Or have I misunderstood?

Above, I should have said "separation" from God, rather than "absence".

Indeed since hell is defined at least by the RCs as Vicky describes and since atheists don't believe in god, why the angst? The religious are saying that you will be simply separated from something that you believe doesn't exist.

Relax- you might as well worry about being separated from Santa which is more relevant given the preferred worship of consumerism and consumption/