It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Why is salvation important and why do people care or don't care about morality

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 19 2016 @ 09:30 AM

originally posted by: MinangATS
a reply to: dfnj2015

So by your thinking, both Hitler and I have nothing to worry about since we have no children.

And I guess the same people who changed the Bible also changed the Quran.

6:164 Say, "Shall I seek other than God as a Lord when He is the Lord of everything?" Every person earns what is for it, and none will bear the burden of another. Then to your Lord is your return and He will inform you regarding your disputes.*

You not being able to forgive Hitler says more about your lack of love. And God being able to forgive Hitler says more about the strength of God's love. Being vindictive and hateful is not exactly the high moral ground.

posted on Nov, 19 2016 @ 09:38 AM

originally posted by: namelesss

originally posted by: LittleByLittle
a reply to: namelesss

Objective morality exists

No, it does not, other than as the meaningless words in your unsupportable assertion.

Moral relativism leads to blindness and less awareness of ones part of suffering making excuses for the ego when it behaves insanely.

All 'morality' is relative to conditions, in the eye of the beholder!
Morality is a matter of Perspective, and "for every Perspective, there is an equal and opposite Perspective!" - First Law of Soul Dynamics.

Philosopher Karl Popper defined the paradox in 1945 in The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1.[1] "Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them."

Sounds like he's advocating the attempt to extinguish fire by the addition of gasoline!
And he's not much of a philosopher.
The 'superior' (in their own ego), 'tolerates' the 'inferior' (in the insanity of their ego).

Absolute morality leads logically to absolute intolerance.
-Michael Shermer (The Science of Good and Evil)

Tolerance as related to morality, remains insanity!
You are not 'superior' to anyone, other than in the vanity of your own imagination/thoughts/ego!

"Thus judgment and punishment has never produced the desired results. That is why judgment and punishment is insanity!"

Removing a rapist who cannot control himself/herself from society putting them in insane asylum/prison is reducing suffering to the whole making society free of insane souls giving the insane time to evolve to something more stable.

One can 'remove' a predator from the ability to predate on others without torture and insanity.
Perhaps healing, rather than punishment, for something over which he has no choice might be better for us all?!
You must have missed that part, or is 'revenge' so deeply ingrained (more insanity) that you cannot conceive of any options?

Absolutely terrific post! Good pun right?

posted on Nov, 19 2016 @ 10:11 AM

originally posted by: Kandinsky
At the same time, I do not believe in stepping aside when others are being predatory and damaging people, groups and/or societies.

What if it's equal damage in terms of doing something or not doing something. Either choice is morally and ethically unacceptable.

This has been a really good thread. It's very easy to get diverted and talk about tangents. I'm still resonating with the original question I posed. Absolute morality versus relative morality is a good discussion. Contemplating whether God is inherently good or evil for allowing unnecessary evil is a good discussion too. I was hoping to explore any possible insight into a way of thinking that would justify why having morality or ethics is important.

The golden rule is a good basis for moral thought. But there are so many psychopaths in society who have no empathy. For them the golden rule doesn't exist.

My thinking lately about morality and ethics is that they are neither absolute nor relative. My thinking lately is morality and ethics are a man-made perspective. And from God's perspective, it doesn't matter. From God's perspective, everyone is allowed to enter the gates of heaven to experience eternal heavenly bliss regardless of our earthly sins or how we practiced, or not practiced, our religion. I think people who object to this idea are just seeking vengeance or can't stand the idea that someone could get away with murder. "It's just not fair" is just a perspective.

I think people who are moral probably would be that way regardless of any philosophy or religious thoughts. And the same for evil people. But still, would be nice to formulate a perspective of why being a moral person is important that would be compelling to most people who would otherwise not be moral. Maybe a compelling perspective doesn't exist.

What would be really interesting is if you could find a way to measure the success of a moral perspective so you could try out different ones to see which ones are the most effective. Maybe different people require a different moral perspective to be convinced or compelled to see why morality is important.

If religion were easy to create everyone would do it. But there sure a lot of religions in the world so it can't be too hard. As they say, one man's religion is another man's cult.

edit on 19-11-2016 by dfnj2015 because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-11-2016 by dfnj2015 because: typos

posted on Nov, 19 2016 @ 10:37 AM
Morality is walking right with God. Immorality is rebelling against Him.

Salvation is the condition of correcting your walk to be right with God again and gaining forgiveness through grace.

posted on Nov, 19 2016 @ 11:27 AM
a reply to: ketsuko

I don't believe God interacts or provides morality but I can still arrive at morality that resembles Christian ideals from logic and reason alone. I think it comes as a survival mechanism in the social contract. You act according to an agreement in our case a constitution and expect others do the same. If you break the agreement the fabric of society freys apart. Nobody can be free in a society of nature because of the demand for immediate survival. Once man comes together to create society he has increased the amount of labor available for protection and food production and decreased the amount of time a single person has to do worrying about it. Which gives you time to think, philosophize and solve problems.

posted on Nov, 19 2016 @ 01:23 PM
a reply to: dfnj2015

Jesus never uses the word salvation in any Gospels except Luke a few times, and once in John it says ''salvation is from the Jews", a rather ambiguous statement.

Luke being the book to use salvation three times, not in the faith is salvation sense of the Pauline epistles but still used and not Mt. Mk. or in any significant sense in Jn. and once, the last written of the Gospels, tells a story.

Salvation in the next life was in following the words and examples of Christ, the concepts of being born again in the water, baptized by the Spirit, free from your sins and renewal to a state of righteousness, and the Kingdom of Heaven (on earth as...) and God is the aim.

Now if all you care about is your own salvation and run around telling people they are going to hell because they aren't salvationist Christians or "fundamental" Bible believing Christians you are a ¶©ucπe.

I think it is outrageous to believe the churches that teach faith in their doctrine of the cross that Jesus is God and the only means of salvation in the world of sin, he died for your sins.

What does his death have to do with going to Heaven?

Absolutely nothing. He never claimed to be God or a human sacrifice, that was a distortion of his teachings.

He only uses it twice in the Gospels (salvation) once it applies to one person and before his death, not related to his death whatsoever. Luke has him saying to Zacchaeus "Today salvation has come to this house, because he too. is a son of Abraham. For the Son of Man came to seek out and to save the lost."

That's a message saying all sons of Abraham have or can have salvation, the lost sounds like a reference to the Assyrian captured tribes, and Syria had a lot of Christians.

The other use is with the Samaritan woman after talking about the water of life he goes to say salvation is from the Jews.

Both times salvation is mentioned it's based on ancestry, Abraham and Judah. But his final message was to go to ''all nations, baptizing..." So it is not Jesus that is the source of salvation it's his Father and the Spirit who give him his power, not on his own, he admits his power is from the Father.

Now there is really no need for the Pauline epistles, they teach nothing and are full of hate, contradictions and complaints about people.

They teach nothing of any value whatsoever. They are not the same teachings because Paul didn't know Jesus or what he taught. His big pitch was the abolition of the Torah, a ''curse that is the Law."

And faith without works of Law, faith ALONE. Not in what Jesus said but what Paul invented. He added his own rules and ''prophecies" that make you want to puke or laugh that people buy this necromantic revelation story of Paul's.


Big mistake.

edit on 19-11-2016 by SethTsaddik because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 19 2016 @ 01:51 PM
3 times before Jesus speaks a word in Luke the word salvation is used, one a quote from Isaiah, Zechariah the father of John the Baptist prophecies himself that John will prepare the way "to give knowledge of salvation to his people."

Salvation in Hebrew is yesha, so "knowledge of yesha" is knowledge of Yeshua which also means salvation and is spelled the same in Hebrew, which has no vowels.

It's the same when he is presented as a baby in the Temple, Simeon says "for my eyes have seen salvation (yesha), another play on words because the Messiah was to save Israel from the Kittim. He ended up dying instead.

So his death has nothing to do with salvation, it's hard to call being ressurected as an immortal, even after a grueling death, a sacrifice.

He died because of what he spoke, because it was true and a threat to order as perceived by Rome at the instigation of the Sadducees who were worried his movement would absorb John's (it didn't) and become too predominant. They were paranoid psychopaths but the story has Jesus orchestrate his own death, he prophecies about it many times.

But it is not for the salvation of man, his death, his life was, what he spoke and did. Ressurection is a concept of self improvement as well as Ascension and Baptism of water, Spirit and as John says fire.

His life is a roadmap to sainthood, his death too.

But his teachings have lost their meaning and been replaced by Pauline theology because it has more rules to control people while claiming less.

posted on Nov, 19 2016 @ 02:19 PM
Salvation means deliverance. The meaning of the Hebrew word Yahoshua(a transliteration) is Yahweh( which means I will be what I will be) is deliverance/salvation.The creator God deliverance is from Hades(translated Greek word from the Hebrew word Sheol) which means the realm of death(the grave) and imperception (religion).That is what Yahoshua proclaimed by statement(preached).

”The Spirit of the Lord is on Me,because He has anointed[christ] me to preach good news to the poor.He has sent Me to proclaim deliverance to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind,to release the oppressed,to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor”.

In other words it is the GOOD news of deliverance for ALL of mankind not just the self chosen many(Christianity).The Christian doctrine of salvation is a doctrine of men formed by religious belief and not what Yahoshua proclaimed.Yahoshua very clearly stated to the religious” by your doctrines of men you have made void the word of the living God”.

This deliverance of the creator God (Yahoshua)is not according to acts of morality and ethics nor is it by belief through faith it is a GIFT of God BY grace(favor).In effect it is like the gift of life EVERYONE has been given.None earned it by moral and ethical merit or believed enough so they were conceived and “delivered” into this world.

It is the same with the GOOD news deliverance. ALL of creation is being conceived in the womb of the physical universe.When they are ready to be delivered they will be born into LIFE(spirit) however it will NOT be in the physical realm which is the valley of the shadows of death that EVERYTHING that lives in it will die including the womb itself.

The bottom line it is futile to try and earn deliverance’ salvation because ALL will receive it.In the meantime everyone will act according to their nature (religious) and character(their name). Human nature does not change only a persons character does and EVERYTHING they do is according to their character.A persons name changes as their character does.

That is why Yahoshua told the disciples(and the disciples only) to do things IN his name(according to his nature and characther) which was ..deliver/save.What Christianity cannot perceive is they co-opted what was spoken to the disciples and acted as if it were them when it is very obviously NOT them because they do not act according to the name of Yahoshua.He warned the disciples about the religious:

“Do not be deceived for MANY will come in my name and “say” they are christ [annointed] and will deceive many”.

Yahoshua was speaking of the coming of the many of Christianity which the roots began in the disciples lifetime and have grown to be the tree that bears bad fruit.John called them “anitchrists” which means in place of the anointing.They preach”another” gospel that is not Good news but BAD news(the doctrines of men) for everyone except themselves.

The Good news is ALL of mankind “will” be delivered from Hades realm of death (the grave)and the realm of imperception(religion) and enter the Kingdom(righteous rulership by authority) of their heavens(mind) into LIFE of the Kingdom of the creator God.That is salvation.

edit on 19-11-2016 by Rex282 because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 19 2016 @ 02:32 PM
a reply to: Rex282

The word for salvation is yesha, I think that is Hebrew and/or Aramaic.

Salvation was his NAME. Deliverance is a good synonym though.

But Jesus is not about salvation, righteousness on earth, as though it's Heaven. I don't want to get into a debate about salvation but what Churches teach today is nothing like what Jesus taught.

I am not saying that the Law of Moses applies to Christians, it doesn't unless it is the right thing to do, but Jesus never forced obedience to 613 commandments, Just 2, then the 4 of the Spirit at the Jerusalem Council so 6 rules in total and a series of moral teachings to ponder.

I recommend the Gospel of Thomas, do you need a link?

posted on Nov, 19 2016 @ 02:35 PM
a reply to: Rex282

Oh and that other gospel is the Pauline theology, as Paul himself admits it is his own and not related to the 12 apostles who he was not in sync with, at odds with actually.

"Faith without works is dead."

posted on Nov, 19 2016 @ 02:44 PM
a reply to: dfnj2015

You're right, it has been a good thread with plenty of insightful replies and honest questions. Nice one

What would be really interesting is if you could find a way to measure the success of a moral perspective so you could try out different ones to see which ones are the most effective. Maybe different people require a different moral perspective to be convinced or compelled to see why morality is important.

Could be. I see empathy as a significant ingredient for morality and have read about pharmaceuticals which increase levels. Should we dose societies with them to reduce violence and crime?

Then there's experience as a great teacher and the way we can have morality enforced by being on the wrong end of immorality and/or amorality. It's a given that bullies create bullies, but many a young bully has been 'cured' by a dose of their own treatment.

Aye, morality is hard to pin down.

posted on Nov, 19 2016 @ 05:13 PM
a reply to: dfnj2015

.What if the original message

What is the original message? We are not referencing the Bible, right?

were the way you achieve salvation for your children is by living a good moral life. Would people act differently?

Many non-secular people are already doing their best to lead a moral life. Largely for their children.

I'm not sure the threat of Hell and eternal damnation is really motivating for most people.

If it is the sole motivator then that's quite telling! Take away religion and those same people would be immoral?? Hmmmm.

Why is morality important?

It's crucial if we want to live in a healthy society that flourishes.

How bad can Hell actually be?

Eternal torment? lol Well, what could be worse?

posted on Nov, 19 2016 @ 05:16 PM
a reply to: namelesss

No, it does not, other than as the meaningless words in your unsupportable assertion

Before you say that you should have watched the video that was linked in that post as it makes a fairly strong case for objective morality. From Sam Harris. It's about 20 mins. It's rather good.

posted on Nov, 19 2016 @ 05:19 PM
a reply to: ketsuko

Morality is walking right with God. Immorality is rebelling against Him.

Which is a roundabout way of saying non-religous people are immoral. Is it not?

posted on Nov, 19 2016 @ 07:04 PM
a reply to: dfnj2015

I have a general conspiracy theory that the teachings of Jesus were rewritten to serve the purpose of perpetuating the legitimacy of government by monarchy. I generally think the Bible was written by men in order to preserve the power of the monarchy. So I don't trust the Bible. I think evil is always where you least expect it.

Evidence of this rewriting? Without that it is just you making unfounded claims.

So with that premise, I want to propose a question. What if instead the original message of salvation was not an individual's eternal damnation, but a person's children. What if the original message were the way you achieve salvation for your children is by living a good moral life. Would people act differently?

Christianity doesn't teach that the way to achieve salvation is thru good works. Christianity attempts to get you to look at ourselves in relation to moral perfection, rather than in relation to our neighbor. When this becomes your standard of what it means to be good, you quickly realize that we as humans fall short of that standard on a daily basis. Christianity also teaches us that our thoughts can be immoral as well and good people don't think immoral thoughts. The standard Christianity sets in order to gain salvation is moral perfection, and because no human can do this, one of the three of the trinity decided to take on human form to be an expression of God's love for mankind. Jesus is our kinsman redeemer.

Four things were required in order for a kinsman to redeem:

He must be near of kin. (Leviticus 25:48; 25:25 Ruth 3:12–13)
He must be able to redeem (Ruth 4:4–6). He must be free of any calamity or need of redemption himself.
He must be willing to redeem (Ruth 4:6ff)
Redemption was completed when the price was completely paid (Leviticus 25:27; Ruth 4:7-11).

Jesus is my nearest kinsman through the incarnation."For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh" (Romans 8:3). He was like us in every way except that He never experienced sin. "Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people" (Hebrews 2:17). In order to identify Himself with us He "emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men" (Philippians 2:7). "For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin" (Hebrews 4:15). "Jesus you are my kinsman redeemer. You had the right to redeem me." Thank God, He has the right to redeem all that I have lost.

Jesus has the power to redeem me. "For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though He was rich, yet for your sake He became poor, so that you through His poverty might become rich" (2 Corinthians 8:9). He assumed our debt and paid it with His life. Cf. Hebrews 1:2–3).

Jesus is willing to redeem me. Jesus Christ "gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed, and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds" (Titus 2:14; cf. 1 John 1:7; 2:2; Hebrews 10:12; 4:16; 2:17). Jesus said, "For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many" (Mark 10:45). Jesus is referring to His voluntary, sacrificial, vicarious, and obedient payment to effect the release of slaves or captives from bondage. "For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life so that I may take it again. No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This commandment I received from My Father" (John 10:17-18).

Jesus has paid the price in full and I have received my redemption. "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life" (John 3:16). The invitation is still open. Jesus is the sinner's nearest kinsman. It is our responsibility to lie at the feel of our Goel, and say, "Cover me with your blood and grace" (cf. Ruth 3:9). "For this reason I also suffer these things, but I am not ashamed; for I know whom I have believed and I am convinced that He is able to guard what I have entrusted to Him until that day" (2 Timothy 1:12). "I have believed," is in the perfect tense in the Greek text. Paul is saying, "I have believed and my faith is a firmly settled conviction." God is keeping guard over him. "Persuaded" is also in perfect tense, therefore Paul had come to a settled persuasion regarding the matter and was fixed in an permanent position. You could not move him. There are some things of which I am absolutely sure.

Read More:

I'm not sure the threat of Hell and eternal damnation is really motivating for most people. It may have the opposite affect. The threat of eternal damnation makes people behave even worse out of defiance to authority. But if your behavior determined other people's salvation then maybe people would take morality seriously.

I find this whole post a gross misrepresentation of what Christianity actually teaches. You've changed far more than just making it about someone else's well being.

Why is morality important? What is the best way of thinking about it so people are motivated to behave morally? I don't think the threat of eternal damnation is really working anymore. How bad can Hell actually be? It can't be worse than living in New Jersey.

I think the better question would be, is morality important? You seem to take that for granted. The Bible doesn't say be good or go to hell. The Bible says you owe a debt, and you are unable to pay it. You need a kinsman redeemer, and that is Christ friend. You've completely misrepresented the message of Christianity.

posted on Nov, 19 2016 @ 07:11 PM
a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

Before you say that you should have watched the video that was linked in that post as it makes a fairly strong case for objective morality. From Sam Harris. It's about 20 mins. It's rather good.

I am sorry to say that Sam Harris's case for "objective" morality is completely subjective lol. He arbitrarily assigns human flourishing as what is Good. What if someone were to come along and say "No, Sam! The Good is that which increases human suffering and the Evil is that which increase human flourishing! You've got it all wrong!" Maybe the person arbitrarily assigns what increases their flourishing as the Good, and what decreases their flourishing as Evil. Sam's objectivity is not very objective.

posted on Nov, 19 2016 @ 08:18 PM
His case for objective morality does have a presupposition built in, but it's hardly arbitrary.

Relevant bit from the Ted Talk transcript:

Why is it that we don't have ethical obligations toward rocks? Why don't we feel compassion for rocks? It's because we don't think rocks can suffer. And if we're more concerned about our fellow primates than we are about insects, as indeed we are, it's because we think they're exposed to a greater range of potential happiness and suffering. Now, the crucial thing to notice here is that this is a factual claim...

...there's no notion, no version of human morality and human values that I've ever come across that is not at some point reducible to a concern about conscious experience and its possible changes. Even if you get your values from religion, even if you think that good and evil ultimately relate to conditions after death -- either to an eternity of happiness with God or an eternity of suffering in hell -- you are still concerned about consciousness and its changes.

Maybe the person arbitrarily assigns what increases their flourishing as the Good,.

You might need to read the transcript to see how this is pertinent:

Well yeah, modulo one obvious fact, that you can love someone in the context of a truly delusional belief system. So, you can say like, "Because I knew my gay son was going to go to hell if he found a boyfriend, I chopped his head off. And that was the most compassionate thing I could do." If you get all those parts aligned, yes I think you could probably be feeling the emotion of love. But again, then we have to talk about well-being in a larger context. It's all of us in this together, not one man feeling ecstasy and then blowing himself up on a bus.

Here is the full transcript of his Ted Talk if anyone wants to read it instead of watching:

Sam Harris: Science Can Answer Moral Questions
edit on 19-11-2016 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 19 2016 @ 09:10 PM
Being born thousands of years too late makes it a matter of trust. Trust that ethics, government, politics, and demands... amount to you and the inspiration of preserving the great work.

posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 03:23 AM

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: namelesss

No, it does not, other than as the meaningless words in your unsupportable assertion

Before you say that you should have watched the video that was linked in that post as it makes a fairly strong case for objective morality. From Sam Harris. It's about 20 mins. It's rather good.

Nameless have created an idea that the middle way is to have all perspective between duality extremes and that all are equally valid.

He is trying to rewrite Buddha with unconditional love (no only love for a souls potential but acceptance of their behavior). His arguments are all over the spectrum and there is no real logic when you look behind the words.

'Thought' = ego! If you think that you cannot 'trust' the bible, it is so much more sane to never 'believe' what you think! Your thoughts will always, eventually, lead you astray! It is your 'thoughts' that is often portrayed as the little red devil perched on your shoulder, whispering sweet and hellish nothings into your ever ready and straining ear! Thoughts come and go, let 'em! *__-

He defines unconditional Love=Enlightenment!

I do not define it this way since I believe extra awareness abilities can exists without accepting or loving the suffering all souls cause. An example is Emapths that can access the information of another body in their body.

Luke 14:26 is very insightful on the love/hate relationship that occur since some souls are not yet measuring up in action. Love the potential of that soul.

"If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters--yes, even their own life--such a person cannot be my disciple."

At the same time we have Rumi talking about the field where duality separation do not exist. But from my point of view the souls there are already so connected there that predatory ideas are impossible.

edit on 20-11-2016 by LittleByLittle because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 07:19 AM

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: dfnj2015

.What if the original message

What is the original message? We are not referencing the Bible, right?

I am troubled by the writings of King James. I'm not sure the Bible has not been altered to serve his political purposes. I find the idea of the divine rights of kings to be very disturbing. Also the Bible seems way to pro-slavery for my liking. And then combine that with the Bible is word of God mantra which seems to me to be weak in that the words in the Bible require to be defended to such a degree. It seems to me the Bible is not so much about salvation or living a moral life but more about teaching people how to worship monarchy. It just seems to me an omnipotent God needs nothing from us. An omnipotent all-loving God would be more about giving each of us our own power and not about getting us to bend our knee to the king. It's actually kind of strange to think of all the types governments that exist and that you could have that the Bible, God, and the Universe have exactly the same type of governance as medieval monarchy. It doesn't seem right to me and I guess it's just a personal axe I grind when it comes to the Bible.

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy

Why is morality important?

It's crucial if we want to live in a healthy society that flourishes.

A pretty good answer. It seems to me most people in positions of power don't seem to really care about morality. I was asking the question not from a secular point of view. But from the idea that our lives and how we live them have some kind of divine implications. As I said, the threat of Hell does not seem very motivating to most people who behave immorally.

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy

How bad can Hell actually be?

Eternal torment? lol Well, what could be worse?

What would be worse is brief moments of torment following by ecstasy so you can get the full depth of the difference.

When I was young in my 20s I used to be an atheist. I had a really big fight with a born again Christian once. You know when you really get a born-again mad they start talking about where your soul is going to go when you die. I knew I got the guy really angry so I wanted to extend olive branch to him. So we started talking about the metaphysics of Hell. I said if the suffering repeated then you would eventually get used to it and it would not have any affect. So I said the suffering in Hell must be like an irrational number. It never repeats and it's never the same kind of suffer twice. I always remember the look in his eye and his excitement and says, "yeah that's right." I always felt there was something really deeply wrong with any way of thinking where you take so much joy in other people's suffering. He was really happy thinking I would suffer for all eternity. The look in his eyes was just not what I would consider a spiritual way of being.

There was another amazing part of that exchange. When arguing at one point I said to the born-again, "I don't believe in anyone preaching from the pulpit as not being corrupt. I believe absolute authority comes from within." At which point he said to me "who told you that?" And it occurred to me that there really are some people who just incapable of thinking for themselves. They must be told what to think by someone they consider to be a worthy authority figure.

Then, six months later I was walking on a street in a city and someone shoved a card in my face and said, "Have you taken Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior." I said immediately, "I believe absolute authority comes from within." At which point the stranger said, "Who told you that?" He had the exact same response! It was amazing.
edit on 20-11-2016 by dfnj2015 because: (no reason given)

<< 1    3 >>

log in