That’s not quite what I said. I have two points of clarification. When God is said to be eternal, it doesn’t only mean existing for infinite time, it means also that He is unchanging. As for physical things, or anything that is composed in some way, they can have existed for infinite time in the past and infinite time in the future. But they are not intrinsically necessary and still require a cause. So there is no contradiction between what I said previously (that something [say, the universe, or series of universes] could exist for infinite time but would be ontologically dependent on some cause) and the idea of living in a glorified body forever.
People have retreated too far from the idea of God’s punishment, in my opinion. It is doctrine that people who go to Hell have rejected God, but God can’t be removed as not sending them to Hell for punishment. Where society has gone wrong is not seeing just punishment as good and a balance to evil done, and limiting themselves to thinking punishment can only be just if rehabilitative.
First of all, that’s impossible.
However, in answer to your hypothetical question:
- For Catholics it would differ, depending on the person. It would take scientists a long time to prove to me that the evidence really is true.
- The Church, I’m guessing, would probably have to accept it if there is absolutely no scientific errors in their proof.
The issue with proving God doesn’t exist is that, by the same token, you’d be undermining the scientific method itself. So if the scientific method led you to conclude the scientific method couldn’t be trusted, it’d be rather silly to accept the conclusions from that same method.
Really? an informed choice requires knowledge of what the consequences are if you do or do not do a certain action.
And you think that just because there are different religions means that every single one is a lie?
I’m sorry, how many times does God have to come into this world to tell people who is the way the truth and has life? Honestly, you act as though Christ never came!
Hear this and hear it well because I am tired of repeating it
It is the people who send themselves to hell by rejecting God
Highlight rejecting please.
Look at the Church’s teachings at least before raving on about how unfair God is in terms of salvation.
and this on why hell is just
But, how can one assert any certainty, if the expression of knowledge is merely an assertion of a current level of belief?
That’s a rather tenuous epistemology you’ve got, there!
You act as though God didn’t recite his perfect word through the prophet Mohamed.
No heave=no hell=no sanity=war and chose issues
Then humanity becomes primate
and has to climb the ladder all over again.
Also, I have no problem with evolution.
Somewhere at some time, God embued His Holy Spirit
into the hearts and minds of His Creation. Hey, that’s us!
The Pope has no problem with evolution.
I am 100% sure that you will never, ever
find the answer to your thought experiment
How appropriate,I was going to reply
and a load of pigs flew by…on the road to market.
(Happens every Wednesday )
Muhammad claimed that God did that. Christ at least showed who he really was and what he claimed.
Though I do understand what you are getting at. My point was that if Christianity’s claims are true then Jesus Christ who is God already set the record straight. People just have to listen
Thank you for that reply.
If you believe that finite sins over a short amount warrant eternal burning, and that eternal burning with no redemption is not pure torture, then I respectfully hope that you are not in any way involved with criminal justice. I feel like your view is more in line with the traditional view, and comes off as a very man made God.
Thought experiment. What if it was one day proven 200% there’s no God?
I have been having a hard time imagining a world where such a proof is at all possible.
It is not a question of imagining the consequences of proof there is no God, it is the imagining a world in which something spiritual can be proven one way or the other.
What type of science is this? What other illogical conclusions has it brought about?
The error is in holding that the sins are finite. A choice is made at death by the soul. Those that do go to Hell will enmity with God, and continue to do so. The punishment is not just for the finite sins, but for their continued attachment to evil things and malice even after death. They are permitted to continue to desire what they desire.
As for criminal justice, that’s a matter of how humans should deal with other humans, which is a separate subject.
Repeat it all you want it doesn’t make it true or even logical. I don’t believe in God. It’s not that I don’t want to I just don’t, not a choice. I’m telling you right now that I don’t want to go to hell. I choose not to go to hell right now. If I die unbelieving and God sends me to hell I DID NOT CHOOSE IT. You can’t present someone with a false dichotomy and then blame them. It is literally the same as a burglar saying give me all your money or he will kill you. In your view it’s the victims fault. I mean they “chose to get shot” the robber can’t be convicted of murder. I didn’t choose to be born. I didn’t choose to be born in to a world with thousands of religions and a silent God who I can’t force myself to believe in. I’m not choosing hell. It’s as simple as that. If I go to hell God will have to throw me in kicking and screaming I promise you I’m not voluntarily walking into eternal flames. The notion is so ridiculous it’s not even funny.
Let me ask you this, can a soul in hell change it’s mind and then get into heaven?
If you were more specific and provide examples maybe someone would believe you.
I agree. If Christianity is true then Christianity is true.
Well most people love their sins more than God…
This notion is something your not understanding. You still have not grasped what I have said.
If you want. Lets go with a little dialog, perhaps that is what I should have done in the first place. My question is this:
Is it reasonable to inflict a greater punishment on an individual for striking the president of the United States than for striking a fellow citizen in a bar brawl?”
Keep in mind that I never said you were going to hell. Did you read that first document I sent you?
It explains salvation in the Christian sense
Perhaps the reason why you do not understand what lands one in hell is because you didn’t do the research on the topic and therefore there is a miscommunication
Indeed this is like when people say ‘you sent yourself to jail’ to someone convicted of a crime. It’s a metaphor not literal. If it were literal then it would mean society was doing nothing to deter criminals. Except going back to my analogy above when someone’s convicted of a crime, the crime was unambiguous and there was only one law book and a jury of the defendants peers is allowed to ignore the law in a particularly unjust situation to prevent unquestionable judges.