Do only Christians go to heaven?

I'm asking you. Would you prefer to be a robot, unable to rebel against God, or would you prefer to have the freedom to rebel?
IOW, would you prefer brown oranges, or orange like god made them? And what I say again is, prove to me that god made oranges oranges, and we'll go from there. Or in your case, prove to me that there's a god who even cares about that shit first, then you'll have something to build on.
That's not the question. Would you prefer to have been made unable to choose for yourself or not?
Your assuming that your invisible guy is proven and only gives me two choices. No such being has been proven.
Which is irrelevant to the question.
Of course it is. Your invisible guy is the one I should be glad about that he didn't make me a robot. Which on its face, is absurd.
But for argument's sake, why would your invisible guy give me free choice and then punish me if I don't choose the way he wanted me to? Because that's not a real free choice, it's saying I'll give you a choice but if you don't choose my pick, I'll fucking roast you in a fire forever.
You warn your middle school aged children to stay out of the neighbor's yard because there's a dangerous dog that will attack them. Are you saying that they don't really have a choice to obey you, given that disobedience would result in being maimed and possibly killed?

A choice is still a choice, even if the consequences are severe. In this case, you're continually ignoring the fact that God provided a way to avoid the punishment altogether. Your problem is not that God punishes sin, it is that you do not like His remedy.
 
But Hadit, the most clear cut ignored rule is not to follow leaders and teachers who were political prisoners. STAYING OUT OF THE YARD IS ABOUT STAYING AWAY FROM RAVENING DOGS MADDENED BY THEIR BOUND CHAINS.
The Dead Sea Scrolls
(4Q266 -7 fr 5) warned us of a rule they had back then about not listening to leaders/teachers who had been politically imprisoned as we see why through history, if only we had obeyed the simple rule.
List of Political prisoners who came out with a lust for blood and hate for humanity as they turned into psychopathic murderers who caused attrocities and were the cause of wars and more murders: the 3 christs used to make the image Jesus,
Paul of Tarsus,
Julius Caesar, Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin,
Pol Pot, Saddam, Arafat, Zarquawi, Turkey's tyrant Erodagan and I think that Islamic radical guy in Africa Mokhtar Belmokhtar who started many wars and attrocities there (the guy with one eye) might have been a political prisoner.

Idi Amin might be another qualifying for that list: he had similarities to Saddam: Deserted by his father at an early age, he was brought up by his mother like Saddam and came from a small Islamic tribe.
President Obote put Amin under house arrest so technically he was also a political prisoner before he declared himself president and did a number on the people mainly ' hunting down Obote's supporters' much like Saddam hunted down kurds and Shiites, & his opposition supporters.

In conclusion the sign warning Danger, "vicious dogs" is not adhered to and humanity has continued to enter at their own risk losing arm and limbs in doing so.
 
IOW, would you prefer brown oranges, or orange like god made them? And what I say again is, prove to me that god made oranges oranges, and we'll go from there. Or in your case, prove to me that there's a god who even cares about that shit first, then you'll have something to build on.
That's not the question. Would you prefer to have been made unable to choose for yourself or not?
Your assuming that your invisible guy is proven and only gives me two choices. No such being has been proven.
Which is irrelevant to the question.
Of course it is. Your invisible guy is the one I should be glad about that he didn't make me a robot. Which on its face, is absurd.
But for argument's sake, why would your invisible guy give me free choice and then punish me if I don't choose the way he wanted me to? Because that's not a real free choice, it's saying I'll give you a choice but if you don't choose my pick, I'll fucking roast you in a fire forever.
You warn your middle school aged children to stay out of the neighbor's yard because there's a dangerous dog that will attack them. Are you saying that they don't really have a choice to obey you, given that disobedience would result in being maimed and possibly killed?

A choice is still a choice, even if the consequences are severe. In this case, you're continually ignoring the fact that God provided a way to avoid the punishment altogether. Your problem is not that God punishes sin, it is that you do not like His remedy.
The only way to avoid god's punishment is to obey him. That's not a choice, that's a threat: obey me or burn. Because there's only one choice, really.
 
That's not the question. Would you prefer to have been made unable to choose for yourself or not?
Your assuming that your invisible guy is proven and only gives me two choices. No such being has been proven.
Which is irrelevant to the question.
Of course it is. Your invisible guy is the one I should be glad about that he didn't make me a robot. Which on its face, is absurd.
But for argument's sake, why would your invisible guy give me free choice and then punish me if I don't choose the way he wanted me to? Because that's not a real free choice, it's saying I'll give you a choice but if you don't choose my pick, I'll fucking roast you in a fire forever.
You warn your middle school aged children to stay out of the neighbor's yard because there's a dangerous dog that will attack them. Are you saying that they don't really have a choice to obey you, given that disobedience would result in being maimed and possibly killed?

A choice is still a choice, even if the consequences are severe. In this case, you're continually ignoring the fact that God provided a way to avoid the punishment altogether. Your problem is not that God punishes sin, it is that you do not like His remedy.
The only way to avoid god's punishment is to obey him. That's not a choice, that's a threat: obey me or burn. Because there's only one choice, really.
You tell your children to stay out of the neighbor's yard because they will be attacked by a dog if they go in there. Obey or die. Do they really have a choice?
 
You tell your children to stay out of the neighbor's yard because they will be attacked by a dog if they go in there. Obey or die. Do they really have a choice?
No they don't. That what I've been saying all along. :lol:
 
That's not the question. Would you prefer to have been made unable to choose for yourself or not?
Your assuming that your invisible guy is proven and only gives me two choices. No such being has been proven.
Which is irrelevant to the question.
Of course it is. Your invisible guy is the one I should be glad about that he didn't make me a robot. Which on its face, is absurd.
But for argument's sake, why would your invisible guy give me free choice and then punish me if I don't choose the way he wanted me to? Because that's not a real free choice, it's saying I'll give you a choice but if you don't choose my pick, I'll fucking roast you in a fire forever.
You warn your middle school aged children to stay out of the neighbor's yard because there's a dangerous dog that will attack them. Are you saying that they don't really have a choice to obey you, given that disobedience would result in being maimed and possibly killed?

A choice is still a choice, even if the consequences are severe. In this case, you're continually ignoring the fact that God provided a way to avoid the punishment altogether. Your problem is not that God punishes sin, it is that you do not like His remedy.
The only way to avoid god's punishment is to obey him. That's not a choice, that's a threat: obey me or burn. Because there's only one choice, really.
Maybe you should stop reading the Bible so literally. You are missing out on a wealth of wisdom on your way to confirming your bias.
 
Your assuming that your invisible guy is proven and only gives me two choices. No such being has been proven.
Which is irrelevant to the question.
Of course it is. Your invisible guy is the one I should be glad about that he didn't make me a robot. Which on its face, is absurd.
But for argument's sake, why would your invisible guy give me free choice and then punish me if I don't choose the way he wanted me to? Because that's not a real free choice, it's saying I'll give you a choice but if you don't choose my pick, I'll fucking roast you in a fire forever.
You warn your middle school aged children to stay out of the neighbor's yard because there's a dangerous dog that will attack them. Are you saying that they don't really have a choice to obey you, given that disobedience would result in being maimed and possibly killed?

A choice is still a choice, even if the consequences are severe. In this case, you're continually ignoring the fact that God provided a way to avoid the punishment altogether. Your problem is not that God punishes sin, it is that you do not like His remedy.
The only way to avoid god's punishment is to obey him. That's not a choice, that's a threat: obey me or burn. Because there's only one choice, really.
Maybe you should stop reading the Bible so literally. You are missing out on a wealth of wisdom on your way to confirming your bias.
Am I right or wrong, and if wrong, why?
 
Which is irrelevant to the question.
Of course it is. Your invisible guy is the one I should be glad about that he didn't make me a robot. Which on its face, is absurd.
But for argument's sake, why would your invisible guy give me free choice and then punish me if I don't choose the way he wanted me to? Because that's not a real free choice, it's saying I'll give you a choice but if you don't choose my pick, I'll fucking roast you in a fire forever.
You warn your middle school aged children to stay out of the neighbor's yard because there's a dangerous dog that will attack them. Are you saying that they don't really have a choice to obey you, given that disobedience would result in being maimed and possibly killed?

A choice is still a choice, even if the consequences are severe. In this case, you're continually ignoring the fact that God provided a way to avoid the punishment altogether. Your problem is not that God punishes sin, it is that you do not like His remedy.
The only way to avoid god's punishment is to obey him. That's not a choice, that's a threat: obey me or burn. Because there's only one choice, really.
Maybe you should stop reading the Bible so literally. You are missing out on a wealth of wisdom on your way to confirming your bias.
Am I right or wrong, and if wrong, why?
You are both wrong and right. If someone is forced to do the right thing, them doing the right thing is not virtuous. So you are right about that. Where you are wrong is that it is more like a journey than a discrete event. There was work done in the 1950's, I think, by Dr. Lawerence Kohlberg, who scientifically proved that there are 6 stages in morality progression. He found that we go through these stages sequentially and can't skip stages. Basically, the first four stages show that we do the right thing either because we are made to do it or because we get something for doing it. In stage 5 we do the right thing because we genuinely like doing the right thing. In the 6th and final stage - which few people actually reach - we do the right thing regardless of the letter of the law or the consequences to ourselves.

My point here is that a standard exists (i.e. doing the right thing) just because people don't always do it or just because there are consequences when they don't, doesn't mean that we shouldn't strive to reach it.
 
Of course it is. Your invisible guy is the one I should be glad about that he didn't make me a robot. Which on its face, is absurd.
But for argument's sake, why would your invisible guy give me free choice and then punish me if I don't choose the way he wanted me to? Because that's not a real free choice, it's saying I'll give you a choice but if you don't choose my pick, I'll fucking roast you in a fire forever.
You warn your middle school aged children to stay out of the neighbor's yard because there's a dangerous dog that will attack them. Are you saying that they don't really have a choice to obey you, given that disobedience would result in being maimed and possibly killed?

A choice is still a choice, even if the consequences are severe. In this case, you're continually ignoring the fact that God provided a way to avoid the punishment altogether. Your problem is not that God punishes sin, it is that you do not like His remedy.
The only way to avoid god's punishment is to obey him. That's not a choice, that's a threat: obey me or burn. Because there's only one choice, really.
Maybe you should stop reading the Bible so literally. You are missing out on a wealth of wisdom on your way to confirming your bias.
Am I right or wrong, and if wrong, why?
You are both wrong and right. If someone is forced to do the right thing, them doing the right thing is not virtuous. So you are right about that. Where you are wrong is that it is more like a journey than a discrete event. There was work done in the 1950's, I think, by Dr. Lawerence Kohlberg, who scientifically proved that there are 6 stages in morality progression. He found that we go through these stages sequentially and can't skip stages. Basically, the first four stages show that we do the right thing either because we are made to do it or because we get something for doing it. In stage 5 we do the right thing because we genuinely like doing the right thing. In the 6th and final stage - which few people actually reach - we do the right thing regardless of the letter of the law or the consequences to ourselves.

My point here is that a standard exists (i.e. doing the right thing) just because people don't always do it or just because there are consequences when they don't, doesn't mean that we shouldn't strive to reach it.
You believe the bible is a bunch of made up stuff, good for you.
 
You warn your middle school aged children to stay out of the neighbor's yard because there's a dangerous dog that will attack them. Are you saying that they don't really have a choice to obey you, given that disobedience would result in being maimed and possibly killed?

A choice is still a choice, even if the consequences are severe. In this case, you're continually ignoring the fact that God provided a way to avoid the punishment altogether. Your problem is not that God punishes sin, it is that you do not like His remedy.
The only way to avoid god's punishment is to obey him. That's not a choice, that's a threat: obey me or burn. Because there's only one choice, really.
Maybe you should stop reading the Bible so literally. You are missing out on a wealth of wisdom on your way to confirming your bias.
Am I right or wrong, and if wrong, why?
You are both wrong and right. If someone is forced to do the right thing, them doing the right thing is not virtuous. So you are right about that. Where you are wrong is that it is more like a journey than a discrete event. There was work done in the 1950's, I think, by Dr. Lawerence Kohlberg, who scientifically proved that there are 6 stages in morality progression. He found that we go through these stages sequentially and can't skip stages. Basically, the first four stages show that we do the right thing either because we are made to do it or because we get something for doing it. In stage 5 we do the right thing because we genuinely like doing the right thing. In the 6th and final stage - which few people actually reach - we do the right thing regardless of the letter of the law or the consequences to ourselves.

My point here is that a standard exists (i.e. doing the right thing) just because people don't always do it or just because there are consequences when they don't, doesn't mean that we shouldn't strive to reach it.
You believe the bible is a bunch of made up stuff, good for you.
I don't believe I wrote that. So, no. I believe that the Bible consists of several types of Books; historical, allegorical, poetic, prophetic, etc. The OT tells the account of a people who cycled between following and not following His ways and what happened to them. Basically it is a how to book. How to live and how not to live. In effect, the Bible tells us that successful behaviors will naturally lead to success and failed behaviors will naturally lead to failure. At any point in your life you are the sum of your choices. If you find yourself consistently blaming others for your failures, there is a good chance that you are practicing failed behaviors and not learning any lessons along the way.
 
The only way to avoid god's punishment is to obey him. That's not a choice, that's a threat: obey me or burn. Because there's only one choice, really.
Maybe you should stop reading the Bible so literally. You are missing out on a wealth of wisdom on your way to confirming your bias.
Am I right or wrong, and if wrong, why?
You are both wrong and right. If someone is forced to do the right thing, them doing the right thing is not virtuous. So you are right about that. Where you are wrong is that it is more like a journey than a discrete event. There was work done in the 1950's, I think, by Dr. Lawerence Kohlberg, who scientifically proved that there are 6 stages in morality progression. He found that we go through these stages sequentially and can't skip stages. Basically, the first four stages show that we do the right thing either because we are made to do it or because we get something for doing it. In stage 5 we do the right thing because we genuinely like doing the right thing. In the 6th and final stage - which few people actually reach - we do the right thing regardless of the letter of the law or the consequences to ourselves.

My point here is that a standard exists (i.e. doing the right thing) just because people don't always do it or just because there are consequences when they don't, doesn't mean that we shouldn't strive to reach it.
You believe the bible is a bunch of made up stuff, good for you.
I don't believe I wrote that. So, no. I believe that the Bible consists of several types of Books; historical, allegorical, poetic, prophetic, etc. The OT tells the account of a people who cycled between following and not following His ways and what happened to them. Basically it is a how to book. How to live and how not to live. In effect, the Bible tells us that successful behaviors will naturally lead to success and failed behaviors will naturally lead to failure. At any point in your life you are the sum of your choices. If you find yourself consistently blaming others for your failures, there is a good chance that you are practicing failed behaviors and not learning any lessons along the way.
So which part is historical? The Flood?
 
So which part is historical? The Flood?

Which parts are historical? Here is a short answer I pulled from an online source. The long answer is too long to provide, especially since we both know you aren't serious, right?

"Almost every OT book contains history. Some books of the Bible are grouped together and commonly referred to as the "History" (Joshua, Kings & Chronicles). These books tell us the history of the Jewish people from the time of the Judges through the Persian Empire. In the NT, Acts contains some of the history of the early church, and the Gospels also have History as Jesus' life is told as History. Even the Epistles have history as they chronicle events."

The "Flood" has been recorded by multiple cultures. The first known recording was 4500 years ago, where the account was told in the symbols of the early Chinese dynasties. Is the Bible's account of the flood a historical accounting? I don't know. I don't believe it is. I believe it is allegorical.
 
So which part is historical? The Flood?

Which parts are historical? Here is a short answer I pulled from an online source. The long answer is too long to provide, especially since we both know you aren't serious, right?

"Almost every OT book contains history. Some books of the Bible are grouped together and commonly referred to as the "History" (Joshua, Kings & Chronicles). These books tell us the history of the Jewish people from the time of the Judges through the Persian Empire. In the NT, Acts contains some of the history of the early church, and the Gospels also have History as Jesus' life is told as History. Even the Epistles have history as they chronicle events."

The "Flood" has been recorded by multiple cultures. The first known recording was 4500 years ago, where the account was told in the symbols of the early Chinese dynasties. Is the Bible's account of the flood a historical accounting? I don't know. I don't believe it is. I believe it is allegorical.
So what do you believe is true in the bible? Not whether a certain city existed or simple things like that, but the big events, the flood is out, Eden is out, ok, so what is true? God making the world in 7 days? ...
 
So which part is historical? The Flood?

Which parts are historical? Here is a short answer I pulled from an online source. The long answer is too long to provide, especially since we both know you aren't serious, right?

"Almost every OT book contains history. Some books of the Bible are grouped together and commonly referred to as the "History" (Joshua, Kings & Chronicles). These books tell us the history of the Jewish people from the time of the Judges through the Persian Empire. In the NT, Acts contains some of the history of the early church, and the Gospels also have History as Jesus' life is told as History. Even the Epistles have history as they chronicle events."

The "Flood" has been recorded by multiple cultures. The first known recording was 4500 years ago, where the account was told in the symbols of the early Chinese dynasties. Is the Bible's account of the flood a historical accounting? I don't know. I don't believe it is. I believe it is allegorical.

But do you not think that having all these different cultures with very similar old stories, give you some idea that maybe they happened?

The similarity between the flood, and legends around the world is striking.

Screen Shot 2016-10-29 at 11.53.53 AM.png

Now at some point, you have to admit so many coincidences, must mean something.
 
So what do you believe is true in the bible? Not whether a certain city existed or simple things like that, but the big events, the flood is out, Eden is out, ok, so what is true? God making the world in 7 days? ...
Stop being silly. I'm an engineer. I have forgotten more about science than you will ever know. Of course the world was not made in 7 days, but beings that know and create were predestined to exist by the laws of nature the moment that space and time came into existence.
 
But do you not think that having all these different cultures with very similar old stories, give you some idea that maybe they happened?

The similarity between the flood, and legends around the world is striking.

View attachment 95731
Now at some point, you have to admit so many coincidences, must mean something.
Yes. That's exactly what I would expect if it did happen. The Bible even mentions a people before He revealed Himself to the Jews.
 
The only way to avoid god's punishment is to obey him. That's not a choice, that's a threat: obey me or burn. Because there's only one choice, really.
Maybe you should stop reading the Bible so literally. You are missing out on a wealth of wisdom on your way to confirming your bias.
Am I right or wrong, and if wrong, why?
You are both wrong and right. If someone is forced to do the right thing, them doing the right thing is not virtuous. So you are right about that. Where you are wrong is that it is more like a journey than a discrete event. There was work done in the 1950's, I think, by Dr. Lawerence Kohlberg, who scientifically proved that there are 6 stages in morality progression. He found that we go through these stages sequentially and can't skip stages. Basically, the first four stages show that we do the right thing either because we are made to do it or because we get something for doing it. In stage 5 we do the right thing because we genuinely like doing the right thing. In the 6th and final stage - which few people actually reach - we do the right thing regardless of the letter of the law or the consequences to ourselves.

My point here is that a standard exists (i.e. doing the right thing) just because people don't always do it or just because there are consequences when they don't, doesn't mean that we shouldn't strive to reach it.
You believe the bible is a bunch of made up stuff, good for you.
I don't believe I wrote that. So, no. I believe that the Bible consists of several types of Books; historical, allegorical, poetic, prophetic, etc. The OT tells the account of a people who cycled between following and not following His ways and what happened to them. Basically it is a how to book. How to live and how not to live. In effect, the Bible tells us that successful behaviors will naturally lead to success and failed behaviors will naturally lead to failure. At any point in your life you are the sum of your choices. If you find yourself consistently blaming others for your failures, there is a good chance that you are practicing failed behaviors and not learning any lessons along the way.

Very well put. I agree.
 

Forum List

Back
Top