The Morality Of Saving People From Hell

Originally posted by Frira
Elaborate? Sure. Easy. The answer to your two LEADING questions were in the part of my post that you chose not to include.

Personal interpretation that question is LEADING.

"Like an atheist?" The opposite. That is, as was clear my post, that whoever came into power may not be any more amiable-- just trading one problem for another.

Atheist opposite of what? I do not see logic - - as a problem in any way.

So Atheism - - is a concern of yours.

"Or do you have Islam phobia?" Nope, no phobias at all. So why ask a leading question like that, when I have written nothing to suggest that to be so?

"whoever came into power may not be any more amiable-- just trading one problem for another."

An act forcing a person to do what you see as right, threatening them with eternal damnation if they don't comply, what do you think, is it moral or not?

I wasn’t going to post on this thread again, but now I can’t stop myself.
This thread has got out of hand. As I read all the post here it seems many of you (but not all) have truly lost sight of what the ATS website is all about.
ATS is here to be a place for thought provoking conversation, to share ideas and theories in a forum that you can feel safe in to do so.
Instead, I see a lot of people here verbally attacking one other and showing a total lack of respect for your fellow ATS members.
Yes, I know that the subject matter on this thread can be a touchy for some. But closed minded pointless bickering is not the way to go.
Arguing with one another and feeling like you have to defend yourself is not thought provoking. Nor does it make you feel like you’re in a safe place to let your thoughts and ideas be heard.
That only feeds the very ignorance we are supposed to be denying.
This brings me back to my original post. I’m not going to hit the little “QUOTE” button to quote myself. That would be too self-serving for my taste. I feel it fits in this post quite well.
But let it be said again……….
If we could have learned much earlier in history to be more tolerant of others beliefs and not try to force them on one another. The world (and this thread) would be a better place today.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer

You have let to learn how outdated and simple the concept of morals are?

Come on. Sympathy - Empathy - It's a connection to yourself, your own brain and how you benefit.

Things are more complicated than you realize, STOP this black and white BS.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Frira

Atheists organizations, like Christian organizations, use power to influence where they believe it is needed.

So, count yourself into the group of those who have become the very thing they hate.

Atheism is not a belief. It is lack of a belief in a deity. That is all it is. Government must be free of all and any religious dogma. What one does personally is up to them.

I never claimed otherwise.

Maybe you associated the word "believe" from the phrase, "use power to influence where they believe it is needed"-- in which usage the words "believe it is needed" has no relation to faith. I could of used "reckon" but it sounds too folksy.

What is hell? Is it a place where you burn for eternity(impossible) or just a hole in the ground. One place is made up and one place is reality. One place is a figment of the imagination and one place you can touch. So trying to sell someone the fairy tale thinking in your mind it is saving them is commendable, but what worth is it.Purgatory a place the catholic church made up to get money from people thinking they are saving their dead relatives from hell.The translation from the hebrew meant grave. No where does it say pitch forks and the devil tormenting you.

Originally posted by celticdog
What is hell? Is it a place where you burn for eternity(impossible) or just a hole in the ground. One place is made up and one place is reality. One place is a figment of the imagination and one place you can touch. So trying to sell someone the fairy tale thinking in your mind it is saving them is commendable, but what worth is it.Purgatory a place the catholic church made up to get money from people thinking they are saving their dead relatives from hell.The translation from the hebrew meant grave. No where does it say pitch forks and the devil tormenting you.

Are there, in the universe, any circumscribed places set apart for the joys and sorrows of spirits, according to their merits?

"We have already answered this question. The joys and sorrows of spirits are inherent in the degree of perfection at which they have arrived. Each spirit finds in himself the principle of his happiness or unhappiness; and, as spirits are everywhere, no enclosed or circumscribed place is set apart for either the One or the other. As for incarnated spirits, they are more or less happy or unhappy, according as the world they inhabit is more or less advanced."

-- "Heaven" and "hell," then, as men have imagined them, have no existence?

"They are only symbols; there are happy and unhappy spirits everywhere. Nevertheless, as we have also told you, spirits of the same order are brought together by sympathy; but, when they are perfect, they can meet together wherever they will."

The localization of rewards and punishments in fixed places exists only in man's imagination; it proceeds from his' tendency to materialize and to circumscribe the things of which he cannot comprehend the essential infinitude.

What is to be understood by Purgatory?

"Physical and moral suffering; the period of expiation. It is almost always upon the earth that you are made by God to undergo your purgatory, and to expiate your wrong-doing."

What men call purgatory is also a figure of speech, that should be understood as signifying, not any determinate place, but the state of imperfect spirits who have to expiate their faults until they have attained the complete purification that will raise them to the state of perfect blessedness. As this purification is effected by means of various incarnations, purgatory consists in the trials of corporeal life.


www.spiritwritings.com...

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Frira
Elaborate? Sure. Easy. The answer to your two LEADING questions were in the part of my post that you chose not to include.

Personal interpretation that question is LEADING.

No. Not personal interpretation.

Those are textbook examples of leading questions, objectively so. Defined as "a question that suggests the answer."

"Like what?" is open.
"Like an atheist?" is leading.

"Or, do you fear other groups, religious or otherwise?" is open.
"Or do you have Islam phobia?" is leading.

"Like an atheist?" The opposite. That is, as was clear my post, that whoever came into power may not be any more amiable-- just trading one problem for another.

Atheist opposite of what? I do not see logic - - as a problem in any way.

Your answer suggested I meant an atheist. I meant the opposite of that. I meant any authority which is anything other than an atheist.

Let's review:

At the suggestion of the comment by someone (was that you?) that atheist organizations sought to remove power from religious groups, I answered that in doing so, whoever took the power after the religious no longer had it may not be any better for the atheists. The only group any of us can ever have the least bit of trust in is one in which we are a member.

Like it or not, someone or some group will appear to pick up the moral banner and rush it to the political platform. The fear of anarchy will be their cry, and that will be enough, and their first target may be the atheists-- it may be the Christians-- but everyone will pay the price.

As an analogy: A Ron Paul supporter may want to take down Rick Perry, but instead of Ron Paul being nominated, it may be Herman Cain. From the point of view of the Ron Paul supporter, the important differences desired did not come about-- the Ron Paul supporter was still "out."

Which reminds me of the question asked of Michelle Bachmann-- something about since her faith was expressed by her so often, what sort of decision making ability would she have since she is bound by the Bible to obey her husband!

I could have hit that ball out of the park (theologically speaking), but she could only bunt. I don't want any leader, political or religious, touting their faith as a reason to elect them-- especially if they have manifest such a shallow apprehension of the faith they claim to hold.

Rick Perry's asking for a day of fasting! Ha! He chose a major Feast Day of the Church! Hardly anyone noticed. But I exercised my piety happily munching on red meat and chocolate and washed it down with a cold beer-- in honor of the Feast of the Transfiguration. You hate those kind of Christians? I can understand that. I don't like them and I sure do not respect them.

I want the power hungry sort of Christians out of my government, too. I think creationism is a horrible replacement for science (not to mention bad theology). I am old enough to remember when we had school prayer-- a daily diatribe over the PA asking God to restrain the students and protect the teachers-- as if the students were the enemy.

So Atheism - - is a concern of yours.

There you ago again! You put words in my mouth. I did not say that and did not imply that.

If it was intended as a question, it was leading.
If it was intended as a statement, it was a non sequitur.

"Or do you have Islam phobia?" Nope, no phobias at all. So why ask a leading question like that, when I have written nothing to suggest that to be so?

"whoever came into power may not be any more amiable-- just trading one problem for another."

edit on 1-10-2011 by Annee because: (no reason given)

First, you quote me from something I wrote after you had already asked the question-- so failed to explain what I had written to cause you to suspect "Islam-phobia."

Second, what you quoted of me does not include a reference to Islam-- it does not even suggest the thought. The word was "whoever."

So I will ask my question again, but this time in a form of which you will surely approve:

Did you ask me a leading question like that so as to make a thinly veiled accusation rather than simply concede that the Christian has a good point?

I would like to think that is not your intent, but the leading questions (three!) suggest a lot of conclusion-jumping on your part and it comes off as very judgmental, because the suggested answer in your question are as unflattering as they are false.

Originally posted by Frira

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Frira
Elaborate? Sure. Easy. The answer to your two LEADING questions were in the part of my post that you chose not to include.

Personal interpretation that question is LEADING.

No. Not personal interpretation.

There is no inflection or emotion transmitted via electronic blogs.

Any interpretation of meaning - - comes from the reader - - YOU.

Originally posted by mikemck1976
I wasn’t going to post on this thread again, but now I can’t stop myself.
This thread has got out of hand. As I read all the post here it seems many of you (but not all) have truly lost sight of what the ATS website is all about.
ATS is here to be a place for thought provoking conversation, to share ideas and theories in a forum that you can feel safe in to do so.
Instead, I see a lot of people here verbally attacking one other and showing a total lack of respect for your fellow ATS members.
Yes, I know that the subject matter on this thread can be a touchy for some. But closed minded pointless bickering is not the way to go.
Arguing with one another and feeling like you have to defend yourself is not thought provoking. Nor does it make you feel like you’re in a safe place to let your thoughts and ideas be heard.
That only feeds the very ignorance we are supposed to be denying.
This brings me back to my original post. I’m not going to hit the little “QUOTE” button to quote myself. That would be too self-serving for my taste. I feel it fits in this post quite well.
But let it be said again……….
If we could have learned much earlier in history to be more tolerant of others beliefs and not try to force them on one another. The world (and this thread) would be a better place today.

Here is where they put the truth my friend.

Well said!

I salute you.

With Love,

Your Brother

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Sure, and some people might believe that Blue Puffies will drown you in the bathtub unless they "save" you. That is their problem, not mine, and I am certainly allowed the authority to judge their righteousness.

Judge another's righteousness then. In doing so, yours will be put to judgement.

The vicious cycle will never end this way.

When you are judging another, you are placing yourself above them. You do not like it done to you, so do not do it to others.

If you want to be King, be King, but allow others to also.

But then, you do what your own conscience tells you to do. I am only telling you the consequence which is unavoidable.

With Love,

Your Brother

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Frira

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Frira
Elaborate? Sure. Easy. The answer to your two LEADING questions were in the part of my post that you chose not to include.

Personal interpretation that question is LEADING.

No. Not personal interpretation.

There is no inflection or emotion transmitted via electronic blogs.

Any interpretation of meaning - - comes from the reader - - YOU.

I'm having Southpark episode flashbacks.

I am going to go check and see if Kenny is alright.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


It is an UN-ethical action..!!

Why....?

Because each person has the right to control their own lives, walk their own paths and judge their own morality..!!

It is no body elses business.

Converting someone to your religion or dogging them until they do, is an invasion of anthers rights to choose for themselves what path they wish to take in life.

A person can choose to live a good and productive life without having to become a christian. In fact I am sure that God dose not judge people by their religions and rather by their actions.

Christians should leave it at that and stop meddling..!!

Same with Jews and Muslims alike..!!

reply to post by Ironclad


What about angry internet atheists? They do nothing but troll and try to get people to believe as they do. Are they also unethical?

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Are those people in your life who try to convert you to save you from Hell moral and correct in their actions?

If one sincerely believes in Hell and cares about you enough to try to save you from it, they must be a moral and caring person acting in the right, otherwise to let you perish would make them an amoral sociopath.

However, the more someone tries to save you, the more of an undesirable creep they are perceived to be. Religious conversion is often unwanted.

Is the attempt to save others from Hell a moral action or is it an unethical action?

It's not the attempt but the persistance which is the problem.

reply to post by IAMIAM


Reply to Mr. IAMIAM.

But if there's one guy; just one guy
Who'd lay down his life for you and I
I hate to say it.
I hate to say it.
But it's probably me...

-Sting

reply to post by TravisT


Christians do not go door to door you got the religions mixed up man, thats mormons and pentacostols I believe, its always the people dressed nice giving u a pamplet and talking to you, I have never heard of a christian doing that. Yes athetists do shove their beliefs on us...ATS is a big example. You have christians on here talking about how God is real with all these examples and you guys cry that we are stupid and need to stop shoving our beliefs down your throats. Then atheists come on here and try to prove God doesnt exist with all these examples. So tell me whats the difference?

reply to post by TravisT


Who cares what christians do with their free time, just because atheists dont do it that leaves them out then i guess right? lol

Originally posted by headb
reply to post by IAMIAM

 

Reply to Mr. IAMIAM.

But if there's one guy; just one guy
Who'd lay down his life for you and I
I hate to say it.
I hate to say it.
But it's probably me...

-Sting

With Love,

Your Brother

Originally posted by Evanzsayz
reply to post by TravisT

 

Christians do not go door to door you got the religions mixed up man, thats mormons and pentacostols I believe, its always the people dressed nice giving u a pamplet and talking to you, I have never heard of a christian doing that.

There were Christians at my door today with pamphlets. I would say you are right and it just started today but it was exactly like the Christians who came last year, the year before, the year before that. Maybe they never came to your door but Pentacostals have never been to me door and Mormons once when I lived somewhere else 10 years ago.

When I go downtown, there are "street preachers" that are very confrontational, mean, and ugly inside that approach me to tell me why I am going to hell. These people are Christian. It sounds nice where you live. The Mormons never bothered me, were very polite, and knew what "I am not interested" meant.