No Hell and everyone gets saved

First topic message reminder :

The Bible does not really teach of any burning HELL as the word in the Bible only means the grave or garbage dump where they use to throw dead bodies.

Many religions beside Christianity has taught people this wrong barbaric idea as their religious doctrine, but it is not real.

1) Any God that burns people for any reason is not only a monster but a criminal and a sinner and an evil entity.

2) Burning people is not "forgiveness" as it is rather the opposite of forgiving.

3) Burning people is not "love" as it is rather the opposite of love.

4) Putting any person into a Hell, link, is not justice and such an evil idea can not be justice.

5) To "love" means no pain and no more hurting for anyone, as per: "And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away." KJV. Revelation 21:4.

God is love, link here = 1 John 4:8, and God does not hurt people, and that means no one ever goes to any hell.

Everyone is a sinner at various degrees and depth, and there is no one as righteous.

Nobody goes to some fire and torment of any hell, and the saying of "Hell on earth" in this lifetime now is far more accurate.

In the end everyone gets saved and not even one sinner nor one evil sheep gets lost or left out because salvation is for all of mankind.

Jesus said "Love thy enemies" just as God loves His enemies, Matthew 5:43-48, so love does not burn people and love does not hurt people, and that means not even those that are sinners and enemies.

See 1 Corinthians 3:15 "If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire." So the person is being "SAVED" by the "FIRE" and not hurt by it.

The plan is to have a great salvation, and it would not be great if some people were excluded.

Just FYI.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:You are creating a double standard of evidence.

You demand evidence of a claim that there is a God, which you should, then say that the denial of that  claim, saying  that there is no God "does not require (absolute) certainty".

No I have created no double standard since I apply the same standard to all claims, nor have I denied a deity exists, I no more need to do this than I you need to deny an invisible unicorn that cannot be detected in any empirical way exists and is standing next to you. Both claims are unfalisifiable so demanding evidence a deity doesn't exist has the same logical validity to my demanding evidence for the non-existence of my theoretical unicorn.

That is a clear double standard of evidence to the two statements.

No it isn't I'm afraid, as I asked and you have yet to answer, do you think a claim for my theoretical unicorn carries the same burden of proof as a denial of it's existence? Do you think a denial that someone has been beamed aboard an alien spacecraft and met aliens requires proof?

If you demand evidence for the positive claim, then the same demand can be made of you for the negative claim.

No it doesn't, again that is logically and epistemologically fallacious, or do you think my invisible unicorn might be real until it is disproved?

Reciprocity is fair play. Play fair.

I don't know what that means, but I didn't create logic, or philosophical epistemology. The only double standard is the the way this obviously fallacious dodge to shift the burden of proof is used by religious apologetics, who then reject it for all else.  



Regards
DL

You said
"I apply the same standard to all claims,".

Then you asked.
"as I asked and you have yet to answer, do you think a claim for my theoretical unicorn carries the same burden of proof as a denial of it's existence?

I agree with you that both claims carry the same burden of proof.

Therefore. My statement below.

You demand evidence of a claim that there is a God, which you should, then say that the denial of that  claim, saying  that there is no God "does not require (absolute) certainty".

---- shows you flipping from one standard to another. At least in the way I read English.

Do remember that I am French if I did not read you right and accept my apology.

Perhaps others here can opine on the language as well.

Doc. As an aside and not to discuss this, but your "The behaviour of physical laws is evidence they exist" may be argued against by the fact that science is now saying that gravity is not real and what we observe is magnetic forces at work. I have absolutely no ideas on this issue and just wanted to bring you up to date in case you would like to look into it.

Regards
DL

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:

snowyflake wrote:That's retarded GIA. Prove to me that unicorns don't exist. You cannot prove the nonexistence of something. If it isn't there IT ISN'T THERE!! How can there be evidence of something that doesn't exist??

That's not a double standard at all. That's just common sense. Just because we can imagine The BEST god ever doesn't mean that whatever we imagine has an equal possibility of being real. That's just silly.

Any minute now someone will present the fallacious old chestnut that absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence, which of course it is. Does anyone really think the absence of evidence for mermaids is NOT evidence they don't exist.

You are correct in that it is evidence for that place and time, but it would still be a logical fallacy to say unequivocally that mermaid do not exist as you do not have the evidence to prove your statement.

Regards
DL

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:

No. All that exists has it's existence as evidence that it exists.

So invisible unicorns have their existence as evidence they exist, and you can't deny they exist of course, unless you can 'prove' they don't?

This doesn't sound logically consistent to me, and it sounds epistemologically absurd, though I admit I'm far from an expert in philosophical epistemology.  

Hell. I cant even pronounce it let alone be expert in it.

----------

"So invisible unicorns have their existence as evidence they exist,"

Only if their existence is evidence by their presence. That would prove3 their existence.

----------

"and you can't deny they exist of course, unless you can 'prove' they don't?

True. I cannot say they do not exist as I have no evidence to prove that claim.

Now be a good atheist and speak as they do and say that there is likely no God.

Do not say there is no God, because that is a logical fallacy as it is a statement that you cannot prove to be true as you do not have evidence to give.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am wrote:

snowyflake wrote:

Yes. Thank you for confirming that god doesn't exist.

I did not and cannot confirm that God does not exist.

If he does though, I think he should be killed on sight if he is at all like the mainstream Gods.

Those Gods are real pricks.

Regards
DL

All gods are the products of the depths of human depravity.

snowyflake wrote:All gods are the products of the depths of human depravity.

Indeed.
As well as our highest ideals.

Regards
DL

Which makes it pointless. You might as well just use reason, knowledge, rationality rather than pretend there is anything greater than ourselves. We are the creators in our minds and there is no limit to our imagination. Doesn't make it 'real' though. That's where you and I part company. You believe there is more to reality than there actually is and you've been chasing that story for a long time. You had an experience that convinced you of something and you will never listen to any counter argument because the one you have chosen suits your psychology. That's all your belief is. It makes you comfortable. I have no issue with it except that it's not real to anyone else but you. This, of course, makes it suspect to anyone else since our shared collective reality is generally universal. We eat, sleep, work, have sex, experience colour and sound and nature in very similar ways. If I can't experience what you experience when you tell me your experience is real, then it's not real, is it? Any more than me telling you I believe I have dancing elephants in pink tutus on my ceiling. No matter how 'real' it is to me, it will never be real to you. So my belief is not really real, is it?

snowyflake wrote:Which makes it pointless. You might as well just use reason, knowledge, rationality rather than pretend there is anything greater than ourselves.

Secular law would not agree that to seek the highest ideal in law is pointless. Be it found in theology or philosophy, the seeking of that ideal is not pointless. Without secular law seeking it, we might be under demonstrably less moral and just religious laws.  

Gnostic Christians use reason, knowledge, rationality reasoned arguments to judge the mainstream Gods and governments today the same way we did in the past.

That is why we can say that they are all mostly corrupt.

We are the creators in our minds and there is no limit to our imagination.

Exactly why we should step up and have the Gods step the hell out of the way of religious progress.

Doesn't make it 'real' though.

True, unless your idea goes viral. Strange that you limited your no limit imagination and did not see my reply coming.

Just kidding here friend.

That's where you and I part company. You believe there is more to reality than there actually is and you've been chasing that story for a long time. You had an experience that convinced you of something and you will never listen to any counter argument because the one you have chosen suits your psychology.

I do believe that there is more than what we think but do not take anything to the supernatural.

As to why I believe as I do, it was not the experience that convinced me. It was the testimony of my victim (her words),  that did the convincing. Without that, I would likely have just thought I had a mind burp or something and would not believe what I believe. Her witness makes it real.

That's all your belief is. It makes you comfortable.

The opposite is true. I curse the fact that it is not reproducible on demand. The good I could do. Sometimes ignorance is bliss.

I have no issue with it except that it's not real to anyone else but you.

Two of us. That means that my statement would stand up in a court of law.

This, of course, makes it suspect to anyone else since our shared collective reality is generally universal. We eat, sleep, work, have sex, experience colour and sound and nature in very similar ways. If I can't experience what you experience when you tell me your experience is real, then it's not real, is it? Any more than me telling you I believe I have dancing elephants in pink tutus on my ceiling. No matter how 'real' it is to me, it will never be real to you. So my belief is not really real, is it?

Our realities are all different and on a scale. Ask the starving mother and child and then ask the oligarch who owns you.
We share the planet but not equality.

"If I can't experience what you experience when you tell me your experience is real, then it's not real, is it?"

Yes it is.
Unless I lie, if I say something is real, then it is. If you choose to not make the information real to you, that is your choice.

Let's see if things work out well with that bit I quoted.

You are facing me on a rock cliff and I see a huge boulder heading your way.
I tell you of it but you cannot see as you are facing me and refuse to turn because you think I am kidding as you are sure that you are safe on out rock cliff.

That boulder will kill you before you can even choose to believe it is not real.
 
Regards
DL

snowyflake wrote:All gods are the products of the depths of human depravity.

Isn't that going a little over the top? When Ug the caveman came out of his cave and 3 mornings in a row an avalanche of snow cover him, he must, having no understanding of gravity, have  thought some'one' had it in for him. Early 'gods' came from man's ignorance of science. As a way of explaining how things came into being.

You talk of depravity, but that only comes when a form of morals comes into being. People talk of the 'dreadful' practice of marrying young girls and boys. But that was the standard 'moral' practise of the time, and indeed some nations still prasctise it. If you understand the needs of the time then it was a sensible and necessary thing to do. In fact, it was the natural thing to do. By the time a girl was 12-14 and reached puberty she had learnt from her mother everything there was to know about family life and looking after a husband.  And the boy had learnt his father's trade. When the families saw they were ready, the agreed marriage took place.  Today there is no necessity for it, and in these 'enlightened' times we deplore the practise. We live longer, allow our children education and their own decisions for life. Most of us have moved on 3 millenia from those days.
In a millenia from now we will probably, and rightly - due to our violent world - be considered depraved.

If only humans had access to absolute or perfect morals, say from a perfect deity, perhaps we could have avoided such pernicious behaviour. Sadly religious beliefs offer moral claims that are quite demonstrably no better, and often far worse than secular morality. In your examples for instance you talk of the necessity of certain behaviours, but don't mention the physical and emotional well being of those involved, or the rights of individuals. That's interesting, as I happen to agree with Sam Harris and Confucius here, that the best morality maximises people's physical and emotional well being, and not just humans, but all conscious animals.

I have seen nothing in religion that suggests the rights of the individual are paramount, indeed they often imply that they don't matter at all, and should be negated in the service of higher being. Often the opposite view is taken in religions, and suffering seems to feature as more important than anything else.

Most of us have moved on 3 millenia from those days.
In a millenia from now we will probably, and rightly - due to our violent world - be considered depraved.

That could have been lifted from Sam Harris's 'The moral Landscape', however it roundly refutes the idea that religions possess moral absolutes, and axiomatically shows that human morality is and must be relative. However like Harris and many other secularists i agree there can be moral imperatives that are derived from reason and knowledge, and that science can therefore drive and determine our morals.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:If only humans had access to absolute or perfect morals, say from a perfect deity, perhaps we could have avoided such pernicious behaviour. Sadly religious beliefs offer moral claims that are quite demonstrably no better, and often far worse than secular morality. In your examples for instance you talk of the necessity of certain behaviours, but don't mention the physical and emotional well being of those involved, or the rights of individuals.

If you are talking of the attitude towards children this has nothing to do with religion. It was general practise of the time. What happened to the children was normal practise. There was no education for them, except to teach boys how to earn a living, and the girls how to run a home. The only rights of individuals in the sense we are talking, was the right to earn a living. The physical and emotional well-being was all tied  up with this. What would you want? To allow the children to run wild until they were old enough, and find they had no experience when necessary. Can you imagine a father's surprise 3,000 years ago when his son tells him he didn't want to follow in his fathers footsteps. He wants to go University. We're talking about  life in the distant past. Life was accepted as it was. A young person was far more advanced and capable of dealing with family life than a child is today. Our children have greater expectations because things have changed over 3,000 years. Most want to put off having a family, against the young person 3,000 years ago who was happy to have a family early. It was a point of pride and rejoicing for both families that the family name would continue.

You're just living in the 21st century. They were living 3 millenia ago. Living was hard. Children were vital to a family.  No frills that we have today.

You're just living in the 21st century.

Where bronze age morals largely appear repugnant, how then can we seriously believe a perfect deity handed those morals as a blueprint for it's plan? Theistic morals seem no better than secular morals then, and adhering to them now in the 21st century makes them appear far worse. I get why children were exploited before post industrialised human societies emancipated enough people to question the morality of such behaviours. What I don't understand is how anyone can think it rational that a perfectly moral deity could come up with ten commandments and not once prohibit child abuse, or rape, but waste the first 4 on rules about how it wants it's created pets to worship it. Or how it can dedicate entire passages to rules about how to conduct slavery, but condemn a child to be stoned to death for disrespecting it's parents.

I understand that human morality evolves, and largely grasp why, what is baffling is why religious apologetics seems to decry moral relativity, despite the fact this moral evolution is the reason we no longer allow abhorrent behaviours such as slavery, or deny women the right to divorce abusive husbands, just two things religious dogma were steadfastly in favour of keeping and largely because the bible endorses them.

If you're talking religion then I agree with you. I'm agnostic now having been an 'ardent' christian at one time. We've moved on - in the west - from those things. Anyone who has read and studied the Bible and just read  Qu'ran must surely realise that these are simply the works of man, and in that sense I agree somewhat with Snowyflakes 'depravity'. But again we are what we have been brought to be, in a society that demands certain things. It took Britain nearly 2000 years to release children from 'slave' labour. A lot of that to do with the Church and education.
The first 5 books of the Tanakh where written around the 7-5th centuries BCE by scribes who simply took laws and practises that were in other societies and codes, and formed the Torah. They used places and natural events that were known to them, and formed their stories around them. There is no '10 Moses Commandments'. Moses never wrote anything - or existed. The same with many of the early 'patriarchs'.  The mistakes they made in the writing of these stories show their ignorance of certain known historical events.