A Prayer Of Salvation (4 Viewers)

[Captain Cranks]

I don't come from this worldview so please take this as genuine inquiry, not an attempt to argue or sway you from your position. I'm trying to put myself in your frame of reference to understand it better.

I have thought about this mindset in the past, and it had occurred to me that it is an oversimplification to assume that bolded bit. I certainly agree that science has improved our ability to predict outcomes as it has been studied and refined over time, but I don't think we're anywhere near a point that you describe. Where do you get your confidence that progress leads to a certainty that everything in the universe behaves this way? It seems like today especially with what we are learning about quantum mechanics and chaos theory that there are very much things we do not understand and maybe even the unpredictability is the rule in some respects.

As a person of faith, I respect the the leap of faith entailed in the idea that steady progress implies there must be a determinationalistic conclusion, but I don't expect you're talking about faith here.

I'm not taking your questions as argumentative. First and foremost I would never suggest I know what I said to be true. You're right, there is a ton we don't understand about the universe. Yet even if something is mysterious or unanswered now, humanity has shown it will eventually discover how things work through scientific inquiry. I trust that will be the case with quantum mechanics.

Yeah, I'm not talking about faith. I guess I have faith in the sense that I don't think my rejection of Christ as God will lead to eternal damnation, but ultimately my worldview is being shaped by pattern recognition and a moderate understanding of human behavior.

 

[Psychopav]

I'm not a guy that gets in the weeds and argues, nothing against it, just not my thing. I haven't read all the responses and don't plan to (I know where these things usually end up unfortunately) but I do support the thread and the notion of the salvation of souls, so I'll just add my own prayer if anyone want to pray it with me. If not that's okay too. We can agree to disagree without hatred or anger towards one another and without making fun of each other's beliefs or non-beliefs.

Linkage

Prayer for the Salvation of the World.​

Father, hear our prayers for the salvation of the world. Grant Mercy to all souls that turned away from You. Open their hearts and minds with Your light.
Gather Your children from the east and the west, from the north and the south.

Have mercy O God on those who do not know You. Bring them out of darkness into Your light. You are our saving God Who leads us in our salvation. Protect us from evil.
Bless and praise You O Lord, hear our prayers and answer us. You, our Savior, are the hope of all the ends of the Earth and the distant seas. May Your way be known upon Earth; among all nations Your salvation.

We put the world in Your hands; fill us with Your love. Grant us peace through Christ, our Lord.

Amen


Peace everyone!

You mean save us from the eternal damnation H/he created and chooses to send us when we don't do exactly what we want within H/his rules despite giving us the ability to exercise free will and critical thinking meaning much of us may deduce in good faith not to follow said rules?

If so, such a nice guy, that G/god.

This is a bit beyond and also misstates the Christian perspective in several key ways:

• He created free will. The damnation is separation from Him, which mankind chose. The good faith you mentioned is in operation, but it must come with sincerity of heart and a commitment to a well formed conscience.
• The starting point for all humans born today is estrangement from Him, and He is constantly working to bring us to union with Him. That becomes eternal if we never become reconciled. He doesn't "choose" to send us anywhere any more than the wind "chooses" not to move us when we choose to stand still and not be moved by it.
• The way we become reconciled with Him is to turn our hearts to Him and let Him work in us. What you refer to as rules are most likely a misunderstanding of how that works - not necessarily on your part but on the part of those who preach it or put it into practice.

Did God create damnation?

He created free will

Okay. Did he create Hell/damnation?

Yes, in a similar way that light creates shadow.

No, in a similar way that a tent creates pitch dark.

 

[Captain Cranks]

Sorry if I’m misinterpreting you, but this sounds like “because there are some things that I don’t choose then it must be true that I don’t choose anything.”

I’ve never understood the argument FOR free will to mean that I choose everything. It’s not all encompassing. But it seems the argument AGAINST free will is an all or nothing proposition.

That's certainly how I feel about it. I assume you'd say a lot of trivial decisions are done unconsciously, but that deliberate decisions are not pre-determined. I'd argue that we're simply aware of the decision making but not in control of it.

 

[dgreen]

Sorry if I’m misinterpreting you, but this sounds like “because there are some things that I don’t choose then it must be true that I don’t choose anything.”

I’ve never understood the argument FOR free will to mean that I choose everything. It’s not all encompassing. But it seems the argument AGAINST free will is an all or nothing proposition.

That's certainly how I feel about it. I assume you'd say a lot of trivial decisions are done unconsciously, but that deliberate decisions are not pre-determined. I'd argue that we're simply aware of the decision making but not in control of it.

By “decisions”, are you only including the conclusions reached in the brain or also the actions taken to carry out those conclusions?

The sum of all of my experiences have shaped my opinion on this topic in a non-free-will way, but what about the actual act of typing these words and clicking “Post reply”?

 

[Captain Cranks]

Sorry if I’m misinterpreting you, but this sounds like “because there are some things that I don’t choose then it must be true that I don’t choose anything.”

I’ve never understood the argument FOR free will to mean that I choose everything. It’s not all encompassing. But it seems the argument AGAINST free will is an all or nothing proposition.

That's certainly how I feel about it. I assume you'd say a lot of trivial decisions are done unconsciously, but that deliberate decisions are not pre-determined. I'd argue that we're simply aware of the decision making but not in control of it.

By “decisions”, are you only including the conclusions reached in the brain or also the actions taken to carry out those conclusions?

The sum of all of my experiences have shaped my opinion on this topic in a non-free-will way, but what about the actual act of typing these words and clicking “Post reply”?

The actions as well. The brain is simply commanding the body to run certain operations. We're "meat computers" as Sam Harris would say.

 

[dkp993]

I'm not a guy that gets in the weeds and argues, nothing against it, just not my thing. I haven't read all the responses and don't plan to (I know where these things usually end up unfortunately) but I do support the thread and the notion of the salvation of souls, so I'll just add my own prayer if anyone want to pray it with me. If not that's okay too. We can agree to disagree without hatred or anger towards one another and without making fun of each other's beliefs or non-beliefs.

Linkage

Prayer for the Salvation of the World.​

Father, hear our prayers for the salvation of the world. Grant Mercy to all souls that turned away from You. Open their hearts and minds with Your light.
Gather Your children from the east and the west, from the north and the south.

Have mercy O God on those who do not know You. Bring them out of darkness into Your light. You are our saving God Who leads us in our salvation. Protect us from evil.
Bless and praise You O Lord, hear our prayers and answer us. You, our Savior, are the hope of all the ends of the Earth and the distant seas. May Your way be known upon Earth; among all nations Your salvation.

We put the world in Your hands; fill us with Your love. Grant us peace through Christ, our Lord.

Amen


Peace everyone!

You mean save us from the eternal damnation H/he created and chooses to send us when we don't do exactly what we want within H/his rules despite giving us the ability to exercise free will and critical thinking meaning much of us may deduce in good faith not to follow said rules?

If so, such a nice guy, that G/god.

This is a bit beyond and also misstates the Christian perspective in several key ways:

• He created free will. The damnation is separation from Him, which mankind chose. The good faith you mentioned is in operation, but it must come with sincerity of heart and a commitment to a well formed conscience.
• The starting point for all humans born today is estrangement from Him, and He is constantly working to bring us to union with Him. That becomes eternal if we never become reconciled. He doesn't "choose" to send us anywhere any more than the wind "chooses" not to move us when we choose to stand still and not be moved by it.
• The way we become reconciled with Him is to turn our hearts to Him and let Him work in us. What you refer to as rules are most likely a misunderstanding of how that works - not necessarily on your part but on the part of those who preach it or put it into practice.

Did God create damnation?

He created free will

Okay. Did he create Hell/damnation?

Yes, in a similar way that light creates shadow.

No, in a similar way that a tent creates pitch dark.

I’m sorry, and please don’t take this poorly or as an attack as it is in no way intended to be, but that is the ultimate copout. An all knowing all creating being created a system where 1000’s of years later, after its creation, you have to be incredibly lucky to even be exposed to it, pick it over over very similar systems and blindly believe in it with no proof or your damned for all of eternity to torture. And we are expected to believe that the torture component is just the “byproduct” of choice and he’s helpless to its creation?

 

[Psychopav]

I'm not a guy that gets in the weeds and argues, nothing against it, just not my thing. I haven't read all the responses and don't plan to (I know where these things usually end up unfortunately) but I do support the thread and the notion of the salvation of souls, so I'll just add my own prayer if anyone want to pray it with me. If not that's okay too. We can agree to disagree without hatred or anger towards one another and without making fun of each other's beliefs or non-beliefs.

Linkage

Prayer for the Salvation of the World.​

Father, hear our prayers for the salvation of the world. Grant Mercy to all souls that turned away from You. Open their hearts and minds with Your light.
Gather Your children from the east and the west, from the north and the south.

Have mercy O God on those who do not know You. Bring them out of darkness into Your light. You are our saving God Who leads us in our salvation. Protect us from evil.
Bless and praise You O Lord, hear our prayers and answer us. You, our Savior, are the hope of all the ends of the Earth and the distant seas. May Your way be known upon Earth; among all nations Your salvation.

We put the world in Your hands; fill us with Your love. Grant us peace through Christ, our Lord.

Amen


Peace everyone!

You mean save us from the eternal damnation H/he created and chooses to send us when we don't do exactly what we want within H/his rules despite giving us the ability to exercise free will and critical thinking meaning much of us may deduce in good faith not to follow said rules?

If so, such a nice guy, that G/god.

This is a bit beyond and also misstates the Christian perspective in several key ways:

• He created free will. The damnation is separation from Him, which mankind chose. The good faith you mentioned is in operation, but it must come with sincerity of heart and a commitment to a well formed conscience.
• The starting point for all humans born today is estrangement from Him, and He is constantly working to bring us to union with Him. That becomes eternal if we never become reconciled. He doesn't "choose" to send us anywhere any more than the wind "chooses" not to move us when we choose to stand still and not be moved by it.
• The way we become reconciled with Him is to turn our hearts to Him and let Him work in us. What you refer to as rules are most likely a misunderstanding of how that works - not necessarily on your part but on the part of those who preach it or put it into practice.

Did God create damnation?

He created free will

Okay. Did he create Hell/damnation?

Yes, in a similar way that light creates shadow.

No, in a similar way that a tent creates pitch dark.

I’m sorry, and please don’t take this poorly or as an attack as it is in no way intended to be, but that is the ultimate copout. An all knowing all creating being created a system where 1000’s of years later, after its creation, you have to be incredibly lucky to even be exposed to it, pick it over over very similar systems and blindly believe in it with no proof or your damned for all of eternity to torture. And we are expected to believe that the torture component is just the “byproduct” of choice and he’s helpless to its creation?

Do you believe in natural moral law? My faith teaches that your salvation does not hinge on the luck of the draw and whether you happen to be exposed to the faith.

 

[dkp993]

I'm not a guy that gets in the weeds and argues, nothing against it, just not my thing. I haven't read all the responses and don't plan to (I know where these things usually end up unfortunately) but I do support the thread and the notion of the salvation of souls, so I'll just add my own prayer if anyone want to pray it with me. If not that's okay too. We can agree to disagree without hatred or anger towards one another and without making fun of each other's beliefs or non-beliefs.

Linkage

Prayer for the Salvation of the World.​

Father, hear our prayers for the salvation of the world. Grant Mercy to all souls that turned away from You. Open their hearts and minds with Your light.
Gather Your children from the east and the west, from the north and the south.

Have mercy O God on those who do not know You. Bring them out of darkness into Your light. You are our saving God Who leads us in our salvation. Protect us from evil.
Bless and praise You O Lord, hear our prayers and answer us. You, our Savior, are the hope of all the ends of the Earth and the distant seas. May Your way be known upon Earth; among all nations Your salvation.

We put the world in Your hands; fill us with Your love. Grant us peace through Christ, our Lord.

Amen


Peace everyone!

You mean save us from the eternal damnation H/he created and chooses to send us when we don't do exactly what we want within H/his rules despite giving us the ability to exercise free will and critical thinking meaning much of us may deduce in good faith not to follow said rules?

If so, such a nice guy, that G/god.

This is a bit beyond and also misstates the Christian perspective in several key ways:

• He created free will. The damnation is separation from Him, which mankind chose. The good faith you mentioned is in operation, but it must come with sincerity of heart and a commitment to a well formed conscience.
• The starting point for all humans born today is estrangement from Him, and He is constantly working to bring us to union with Him. That becomes eternal if we never become reconciled. He doesn't "choose" to send us anywhere any more than the wind "chooses" not to move us when we choose to stand still and not be moved by it.
• The way we become reconciled with Him is to turn our hearts to Him and let Him work in us. What you refer to as rules are most likely a misunderstanding of how that works - not necessarily on your part but on the part of those who preach it or put it into practice.

Did God create damnation?

He created free will

Okay. Did he create Hell/damnation?

Yes, in a similar way that light creates shadow.

No, in a similar way that a tent creates pitch dark.

I’m sorry, and please don’t take this poorly or as an attack as it is in no way intended to be, but that is the ultimate copout. An all knowing all creating being created a system where 1000’s of years later, after its creation, you have to be incredibly lucky to even be exposed to it, pick it over over very similar systems and blindly believe in it with no proof or your damned for all of eternity to torture. And we are expected to believe that the torture component is just the “byproduct” of choice and he’s helpless to its creation?

Do you believe in natural moral law? My faith teaches that your salvation does not hinge on the luck of the draw and whether you happen to be exposed to the faith.

Please define natural moral law as you believe it. Once I understand that I can answer the question of if I believe from your perspective. Thanks.

 

[Psychopav]

I'm not a guy that gets in the weeds and argues, nothing against it, just not my thing. I haven't read all the responses and don't plan to (I know where these things usually end up unfortunately) but I do support the thread and the notion of the salvation of souls, so I'll just add my own prayer if anyone want to pray it with me. If not that's okay too. We can agree to disagree without hatred or anger towards one another and without making fun of each other's beliefs or non-beliefs.

Linkage

Prayer for the Salvation of the World.​

Father, hear our prayers for the salvation of the world. Grant Mercy to all souls that turned away from You. Open their hearts and minds with Your light.
Gather Your children from the east and the west, from the north and the south.

Have mercy O God on those who do not know You. Bring them out of darkness into Your light. You are our saving God Who leads us in our salvation. Protect us from evil.
Bless and praise You O Lord, hear our prayers and answer us. You, our Savior, are the hope of all the ends of the Earth and the distant seas. May Your way be known upon Earth; among all nations Your salvation.

We put the world in Your hands; fill us with Your love. Grant us peace through Christ, our Lord.

Amen


Peace everyone!

You mean save us from the eternal damnation H/he created and chooses to send us when we don't do exactly what we want within H/his rules despite giving us the ability to exercise free will and critical thinking meaning much of us may deduce in good faith not to follow said rules?

If so, such a nice guy, that G/god.

This is a bit beyond and also misstates the Christian perspective in several key ways:

• He created free will. The damnation is separation from Him, which mankind chose. The good faith you mentioned is in operation, but it must come with sincerity of heart and a commitment to a well formed conscience.
• The starting point for all humans born today is estrangement from Him, and He is constantly working to bring us to union with Him. That becomes eternal if we never become reconciled. He doesn't "choose" to send us anywhere any more than the wind "chooses" not to move us when we choose to stand still and not be moved by it.
• The way we become reconciled with Him is to turn our hearts to Him and let Him work in us. What you refer to as rules are most likely a misunderstanding of how that works - not necessarily on your part but on the part of those who preach it or put it into practice.

Did God create damnation?

He created free will

Okay. Did he create Hell/damnation?

Yes, in a similar way that light creates shadow.

No, in a similar way that a tent creates pitch dark.

I’m sorry, and please don’t take this poorly or as an attack as it is in no way intended to be, but that is the ultimate copout. An all knowing all creating being created a system where 1000’s of years later, after its creation, you have to be incredibly lucky to even be exposed to it, pick it over over very similar systems and blindly believe in it with no proof or your damned for all of eternity to torture. And we are expected to believe that the torture component is just the “byproduct” of choice and he’s helpless to its creation?

Do you believe in natural moral law? My faith teaches that your salvation does not hinge on the luck of the draw and whether you happen to be exposed to the faith.

Please define natural moral law as you believe it. Once I understand that I can answer the question of if I believe from your perspective. Thanks.

Natural moral law to me is a basic and universal understanding of right and wrong on fundamental questions not related to any religious tradition. The simplest example is murder, which everyone agrees is wrong I believe.

Here's what Google Gemini has to say on the subject. It sounds good to me:

Natural moral law is a philosophical theory proposing that certain universal moral principles are inherent in human nature, discoverable through reason, and form the basis for objective right and wrong. Developed by Thomas Aquinas and others, it posits that God or a rational natural order provides these moral standards, which are accessible to everyone and serve as a foundation for a just society, guiding humans toward their natural purpose of living a good and happy life. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
Key Aspects of Natural Moral Law

• Objective and Universal: Natural moral laws are not created by humans or governments but are an inherent part of human nature and the world, making them valid for all people, in all places, and for all time. [2, 4]
• Discoverable by Reason: While some believe a divine presence provides these laws, humans can discover them through reason and rational analysis, not just through revelation or scripture. [4, 6]
• Purposeful: Natural law views human existence, and the world itself, as having a purpose. For Aquinas, the fundamental principle is that good should be done and evil avoided. [3, 5]
• Accessible to All: Because they are based on human nature, these moral principles are accessible to everyone, regardless of their religious or cultural background. [2, 4]
• Foundation for Justice: Natural moral law serves as the standard against which human laws should be measured. An unjust law is considered "not a law at all" from a natural law perspective. [5]
• Intrinsic Rights and Goods: The theory implies that humans have certain fundamental rights and are naturally inclined toward basic goods such as life, procreation, knowledge, and social living. [2, 3]

Examples

• Parental Duty: The responsibility of parents to care for and protect their children is seen as a natural moral law, evident not only in human society but also in the animal kingdom. [7]
• Basic Human Rights: The concept of inherent rights to life and liberty is a key principle derived from natural law, which human laws ought to protect. [2]

AI responses may include mistakes.

[1] https://iep.utm.edu/natlaw/
[2] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/natural-law.asp
[3] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-law-ethics/
[4] https://quizlet.com/gb/442254356/natural-moral-law-flash-cards/
[5] https://study.com/academy/lesson/natural-law-theory-definition-ethics-examples.html
[6] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/natural_law
[7] https://helpfulprofessor.com
/natural-law-examples/

 

[Paddington]

Then don't answer the door, aka click on the thread

Sorry, "don't read the thread if you don't like it" doesn't fly here. We have hundreds of locked threads to prove it.

You would know that if you were a regular contributor, rather than a copy/paste spammer.

Wow. I didn't realize this. It's their entire post history.

Paddington

forums.footballguys.com

This is yet another feather in the cap of "there's no way this would fly here if it was any other topic". It's literally all religious spam.

Why is it so important to you that my views are silenced? And the views of thoae interested in it? Kindly love on to a different thread.

 

[Paddington]

I'm not a guy that gets in the weeds and argues, nothing against it, just not my thing. I haven't read all the responses and don't plan to (I know where these things usually end up unfortunately) but I do support the thread and the notion of the salvation of souls, so I'll just add my own prayer if anyone want to pray it with me. If not that's okay too. We can agree to disagree without hatred or anger towards one another and without making fun of each other's beliefs or non-beliefs.

Linkage

Prayer for the Salvation of the World.​

Father, hear our prayers for the salvation of the world. Grant Mercy to all souls that turned away from You. Open their hearts and minds with Your light.
Gather Your children from the east and the west, from the north and the south.

Have mercy O God on those who do not know You. Bring them out of darkness into Your light. You are our saving God Who leads us in our salvation. Protect us from evil.
Bless and praise You O Lord, hear our prayers and answer us. You, our Savior, are the hope of all the ends of the Earth and the distant seas. May Your way be known upon Earth; among all nations Your salvation.

We put the world in Your hands; fill us with Your love. Grant us peace through Christ, our Lord.

Amen


Peace everyone!

You mean save us from the eternal damnation H/he created and chooses to send us when we don't do exactly what we want within H/his rules despite giving us the ability to exercise free will and critical thinking meaning much of us may deduce in good faith not to follow said rules?

If so, such a nice guy, that G/god.

This is a bit beyond and also misstates the Christian perspective in several key ways:

• He created free will. The damnation is separation from Him, which mankind chose. The good faith you mentioned is in operation, but it must come with sincerity of heart and a commitment to a well formed conscience.
• The starting point for all humans born today is estrangement from Him, and He is constantly working to bring us to union with Him. That becomes eternal if we never become reconciled. He doesn't "choose" to send us anywhere any more than the wind "chooses" not to move us when we choose to stand still and not be moved by it.
• The way we become reconciled with Him is to turn our hearts to Him and let Him work in us. What you refer to as rules are most likely a misunderstanding of how that works - not necessarily on your part but on the part of those who preach it or put it into practice.

Did God create damnation?

He created free will

Yes, God created freewill and by our own free will choice to sin, we reject God and His will, which is a crime in heaven. It's like treason here if we had a King. God is the King of the Universe and His Word is Law. To sin is to break God's law according to the Bible. Jesus came and died and rose again in place of our punishment, but all we need to do is place our Faith and Trust in Jesus Christ, believing that He died in the cross and rose from the dead as these sacrifice for our sins. That's how we accept God's pardon for our sins. It's a great deal. God just wants to love us and bless us, He doesn't want to punish anyone.

 

[waiver wire]

what i have never understood is why your god is better than someone else's god.
Edited to add , this isnt just aimed at Christians. its every religion

 

[Zow]

I'm not a guy that gets in the weeds and argues, nothing against it, just not my thing. I haven't read all the responses and don't plan to (I know where these things usually end up unfortunately) but I do support the thread and the notion of the salvation of souls, so I'll just add my own prayer if anyone want to pray it with me. If not that's okay too. We can agree to disagree without hatred or anger towards one another and without making fun of each other's beliefs or non-beliefs.

Linkage

Prayer for the Salvation of the World.​

Father, hear our prayers for the salvation of the world. Grant Mercy to all souls that turned away from You. Open their hearts and minds with Your light.
Gather Your children from the east and the west, from the north and the south.

Have mercy O God on those who do not know You. Bring them out of darkness into Your light. You are our saving God Who leads us in our salvation. Protect us from evil.
Bless and praise You O Lord, hear our prayers and answer us. You, our Savior, are the hope of all the ends of the Earth and the distant seas. May Your way be known upon Earth; among all nations Your salvation.

We put the world in Your hands; fill us with Your love. Grant us peace through Christ, our Lord.

Amen


Peace everyone!

You mean save us from the eternal damnation H/he created and chooses to send us when we don't do exactly what we want within H/his rules despite giving us the ability to exercise free will and critical thinking meaning much of us may deduce in good faith not to follow said rules?

If so, such a nice guy, that G/god.

This is a bit beyond and also misstates the Christian perspective in several key ways:

• He created free will. The damnation is separation from Him, which mankind chose. The good faith you mentioned is in operation, but it must come with sincerity of heart and a commitment to a well formed conscience.
• The starting point for all humans born today is estrangement from Him, and He is constantly working to bring us to union with Him. That becomes eternal if we never become reconciled. He doesn't "choose" to send us anywhere any more than the wind "chooses" not to move us when we choose to stand still and not be moved by it.
• The way we become reconciled with Him is to turn our hearts to Him and let Him work in us. What you refer to as rules are most likely a misunderstanding of how that works - not necessarily on your part but on the part of those who preach it or put it into practice.

Did God create damnation?

He created free will

Okay. Did he create Hell/damnation?

Yes, in a similar way that light creates shadow.

No, in a similar way that a tent creates pitch dark.

Are you saying then that H/he didn't anticipate damnation or didn't foresee it as it being at a minimum and indirect offshoot of H/his intentional creation?

 

[dkp993]

I'm not a guy that gets in the weeds and argues, nothing against it, just not my thing. I haven't read all the responses and don't plan to (I know where these things usually end up unfortunately) but I do support the thread and the notion of the salvation of souls, so I'll just add my own prayer if anyone want to pray it with me. If not that's okay too. We can agree to disagree without hatred or anger towards one another and without making fun of each other's beliefs or non-beliefs.

Linkage

Prayer for the Salvation of the World.​

Father, hear our prayers for the salvation of the world. Grant Mercy to all souls that turned away from You. Open their hearts and minds with Your light.
Gather Your children from the east and the west, from the north and the south.

Have mercy O God on those who do not know You. Bring them out of darkness into Your light. You are our saving God Who leads us in our salvation. Protect us from evil.
Bless and praise You O Lord, hear our prayers and answer us. You, our Savior, are the hope of all the ends of the Earth and the distant seas. May Your way be known upon Earth; among all nations Your salvation.

We put the world in Your hands; fill us with Your love. Grant us peace through Christ, our Lord.

Amen


Peace everyone!

You mean save us from the eternal damnation H/he created and chooses to send us when we don't do exactly what we want within H/his rules despite giving us the ability to exercise free will and critical thinking meaning much of us may deduce in good faith not to follow said rules?

If so, such a nice guy, that G/god.

This is a bit beyond and also misstates the Christian perspective in several key ways:

• He created free will. The damnation is separation from Him, which mankind chose. The good faith you mentioned is in operation, but it must come with sincerity of heart and a commitment to a well formed conscience.
• The starting point for all humans born today is estrangement from Him, and He is constantly working to bring us to union with Him. That becomes eternal if we never become reconciled. He doesn't "choose" to send us anywhere any more than the wind "chooses" not to move us when we choose to stand still and not be moved by it.
• The way we become reconciled with Him is to turn our hearts to Him and let Him work in us. What you refer to as rules are most likely a misunderstanding of how that works - not necessarily on your part but on the part of those who preach it or put it into practice.

Did God create damnation?

He created free will

Okay. Did he create Hell/damnation?

Yes, in a similar way that light creates shadow.

No, in a similar way that a tent creates pitch dark.

I’m sorry, and please don’t take this poorly or as an attack as it is in no way intended to be, but that is the ultimate copout. An all knowing all creating being created a system where 1000’s of years later, after its creation, you have to be incredibly lucky to even be exposed to it, pick it over over very similar systems and blindly believe in it with no proof or your damned for all of eternity to torture. And we are expected to believe that the torture component is just the “byproduct” of choice and he’s helpless to its creation?

Do you believe in natural moral law? My faith teaches that your salvation does not hinge on the luck of the draw and whether you happen to be exposed to the faith.

Please define natural moral law as you believe it. Once I understand that I can answer the question of if I believe from your perspective. Thanks.

Natural moral law to me is a basic and universal understanding of right and wrong on fundamental questions not related to any religious tradition. The simplest example is murder, which everyone agrees is wrong I believe.

Here's what Google Gemini has to say on the subject. It sounds good to me:

Natural moral law is a philosophical theory proposing that certain universal moral principles are inherent in human nature, discoverable through reason, and form the basis for objective right and wrong. Developed by Thomas Aquinas and others, it posits that God or a rational natural order provides these moral standards, which are accessible to everyone and serve as a foundation for a just society, guiding humans toward their natural purpose of living a good and happy life. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
Key Aspects of Natural Moral Law

• Objective and Universal: Natural moral laws are not created by humans or governments but are an inherent part of human nature and the world, making them valid for all people, in all places, and for all time. [2, 4]
• Discoverable by Reason: While some believe a divine presence provides these laws, humans can discover them through reason and rational analysis, not just through revelation or scripture. [4, 6]
• Purposeful: Natural law views human existence, and the world itself, as having a purpose. For Aquinas, the fundamental principle is that good should be done and evil avoided. [3, 5]
• Accessible to All: Because they are based on human nature, these moral principles are accessible to everyone, regardless of their religious or cultural background. [2, 4]
• Foundation for Justice: Natural moral law serves as the standard against which human laws should be measured. An unjust law is considered "not a law at all" from a natural law perspective. [5]
• Intrinsic Rights and Goods: The theory implies that humans have certain fundamental rights and are naturally inclined toward basic goods such as life, procreation, knowledge, and social living. [2, 3]

Examples

• Parental Duty: The responsibility of parents to care for and protect their children is seen as a natural moral law, evident not only in human society but also in the animal kingdom. [7]
• Basic Human Rights: The concept of inherent rights to life and liberty is a key principle derived from natural law, which human laws ought to protect. [2]

AI responses may include mistakes.

[1] https://iep.utm.edu/natlaw/
[2] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/natural-law.asp
[3] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-law-ethics/
[4] https://quizlet.com/gb/442254356/natural-moral-law-flash-cards/
[5] https://study.com/academy/lesson/natural-law-theory-definition-ethics-examples.html
[6] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/natural_law
[7] https://helpfulprofessor.com
/natural-law-examples/

Thanks. So we have the same understanding of what it is. To answer your question yes I believe that.

So is it my understanding based on your previous response you’re not a believer that you must be saved by Jesus to be accepted in heaven?

 

[Paddington]

what i have never understood is why your god is better than someone else's god.
Edited to add , this isnt just aimed at Christians. its every religion

Because I believe that my God is the one and only true God. He is the creator of all things. He fulfilled over 100 prophecies written hundreds of years before His birth in His first coming. There are many others of His second coming. He performed miracles to prove who He was. He predicted His own death and resurrection and then died a.d rose again. That is just a few reasons why I believe that my God is the true God and all others are false.

 

[Psychopav]

I'm not a guy that gets in the weeds and argues, nothing against it, just not my thing. I haven't read all the responses and don't plan to (I know where these things usually end up unfortunately) but I do support the thread and the notion of the salvation of souls, so I'll just add my own prayer if anyone want to pray it with me. If not that's okay too. We can agree to disagree without hatred or anger towards one another and without making fun of each other's beliefs or non-beliefs.

Linkage

Prayer for the Salvation of the World.​

Father, hear our prayers for the salvation of the world. Grant Mercy to all souls that turned away from You. Open their hearts and minds with Your light.
Gather Your children from the east and the west, from the north and the south.

Have mercy O God on those who do not know You. Bring them out of darkness into Your light. You are our saving God Who leads us in our salvation. Protect us from evil.
Bless and praise You O Lord, hear our prayers and answer us. You, our Savior, are the hope of all the ends of the Earth and the distant seas. May Your way be known upon Earth; among all nations Your salvation.

We put the world in Your hands; fill us with Your love. Grant us peace through Christ, our Lord.

Amen


Peace everyone!

You mean save us from the eternal damnation H/he created and chooses to send us when we don't do exactly what we want within H/his rules despite giving us the ability to exercise free will and critical thinking meaning much of us may deduce in good faith not to follow said rules?

If so, such a nice guy, that G/god.

This is a bit beyond and also misstates the Christian perspective in several key ways:

• He created free will. The damnation is separation from Him, which mankind chose. The good faith you mentioned is in operation, but it must come with sincerity of heart and a commitment to a well formed conscience.
• The starting point for all humans born today is estrangement from Him, and He is constantly working to bring us to union with Him. That becomes eternal if we never become reconciled. He doesn't "choose" to send us anywhere any more than the wind "chooses" not to move us when we choose to stand still and not be moved by it.
• The way we become reconciled with Him is to turn our hearts to Him and let Him work in us. What you refer to as rules are most likely a misunderstanding of how that works - not necessarily on your part but on the part of those who preach it or put it into practice.

Did God create damnation?

He created free will

Okay. Did he create Hell/damnation?

Yes, in a similar way that light creates shadow.

No, in a similar way that a tent creates pitch dark.

Are you saying then that H/he didn't anticipate damnation or didn't foresee it as it being at a minimum and indirect offshoot of H/his intentional creation?

Not at all. I'm sure He foresees everything. I'm not interested in a philosophical or theological debate. I just wanted to make sure we're clear on the Church's actual position that eternal separation from God is a result of man's pride. As @Paddington mentioned up thread, God does not want a single soul to go to hell but because He gives us free will we have the freedom to choose that.

 

[Psychopav]

I'm not a guy that gets in the weeds and argues, nothing against it, just not my thing. I haven't read all the responses and don't plan to (I know where these things usually end up unfortunately) but I do support the thread and the notion of the salvation of souls, so I'll just add my own prayer if anyone want to pray it with me. If not that's okay too. We can agree to disagree without hatred or anger towards one another and without making fun of each other's beliefs or non-beliefs.

Linkage

Prayer for the Salvation of the World.​

Father, hear our prayers for the salvation of the world. Grant Mercy to all souls that turned away from You. Open their hearts and minds with Your light.
Gather Your children from the east and the west, from the north and the south.

Have mercy O God on those who do not know You. Bring them out of darkness into Your light. You are our saving God Who leads us in our salvation. Protect us from evil.
Bless and praise You O Lord, hear our prayers and answer us. You, our Savior, are the hope of all the ends of the Earth and the distant seas. May Your way be known upon Earth; among all nations Your salvation.

We put the world in Your hands; fill us with Your love. Grant us peace through Christ, our Lord.

Amen


Peace everyone!

You mean save us from the eternal damnation H/he created and chooses to send us when we don't do exactly what we want within H/his rules despite giving us the ability to exercise free will and critical thinking meaning much of us may deduce in good faith not to follow said rules?

If so, such a nice guy, that G/god.

This is a bit beyond and also misstates the Christian perspective in several key ways:

• He created free will. The damnation is separation from Him, which mankind chose. The good faith you mentioned is in operation, but it must come with sincerity of heart and a commitment to a well formed conscience.
• The starting point for all humans born today is estrangement from Him, and He is constantly working to bring us to union with Him. That becomes eternal if we never become reconciled. He doesn't "choose" to send us anywhere any more than the wind "chooses" not to move us when we choose to stand still and not be moved by it.
• The way we become reconciled with Him is to turn our hearts to Him and let Him work in us. What you refer to as rules are most likely a misunderstanding of how that works - not necessarily on your part but on the part of those who preach it or put it into practice.

Did God create damnation?

He created free will

Okay. Did he create Hell/damnation?

Yes, in a similar way that light creates shadow.

No, in a similar way that a tent creates pitch dark.

I’m sorry, and please don’t take this poorly or as an attack as it is in no way intended to be, but that is the ultimate copout. An all knowing all creating being created a system where 1000’s of years later, after its creation, you have to be incredibly lucky to even be exposed to it, pick it over over very similar systems and blindly believe in it with no proof or your damned for all of eternity to torture. And we are expected to believe that the torture component is just the “byproduct” of choice and he’s helpless to its creation?

Do you believe in natural moral law? My faith teaches that your salvation does not hinge on the luck of the draw and whether you happen to be exposed to the faith.

Please define natural moral law as you believe it. Once I understand that I can answer the question of if I believe from your perspective. Thanks.

Natural moral law to me is a basic and universal understanding of right and wrong on fundamental questions not related to any religious tradition. The simplest example is murder, which everyone agrees is wrong I believe.

Here's what Google Gemini has to say on the subject. It sounds good to me:

Natural moral law is a philosophical theory proposing that certain universal moral principles are inherent in human nature, discoverable through reason, and form the basis for objective right and wrong. Developed by Thomas Aquinas and others, it posits that God or a rational natural order provides these moral standards, which are accessible to everyone and serve as a foundation for a just society, guiding humans toward their natural purpose of living a good and happy life. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
Key Aspects of Natural Moral Law

• Objective and Universal: Natural moral laws are not created by humans or governments but are an inherent part of human nature and the world, making them valid for all people, in all places, and for all time. [2, 4]
• Discoverable by Reason: While some believe a divine presence provides these laws, humans can discover them through reason and rational analysis, not just through revelation or scripture. [4, 6]
• Purposeful: Natural law views human existence, and the world itself, as having a purpose. For Aquinas, the fundamental principle is that good should be done and evil avoided. [3, 5]
• Accessible to All: Because they are based on human nature, these moral principles are accessible to everyone, regardless of their religious or cultural background. [2, 4]
• Foundation for Justice: Natural moral law serves as the standard against which human laws should be measured. An unjust law is considered "not a law at all" from a natural law perspective. [5]
• Intrinsic Rights and Goods: The theory implies that humans have certain fundamental rights and are naturally inclined toward basic goods such as life, procreation, knowledge, and social living. [2, 3]

Examples

• Parental Duty: The responsibility of parents to care for and protect their children is seen as a natural moral law, evident not only in human society but also in the animal kingdom. [7]
• Basic Human Rights: The concept of inherent rights to life and liberty is a key principle derived from natural law, which human laws ought to protect. [2]

AI responses may include mistakes.

[1] https://iep.utm.edu/natlaw/
[2] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/natural-law.asp
[3] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-law-ethics/
[4] https://quizlet.com/gb/442254356/natural-moral-law-flash-cards/
[5] https://study.com/academy/lesson/natural-law-theory-definition-ethics-examples.html
[6] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/natural_law
[7] https://helpfulprofessor.com
/natural-law-examples/

Thanks. So we have the same understanding of what it is. To answer your question yes I believe that.

So is it my understanding based on your previous response you’re not a believer that you must be saved by Jesus to be accepted in heaven?

I do believe that, but I believe in God's infinite mercy and that circumstances matter.

 

[dkp993]

I'm not a guy that gets in the weeds and argues, nothing against it, just not my thing. I haven't read all the responses and don't plan to (I know where these things usually end up unfortunately) but I do support the thread and the notion of the salvation of souls, so I'll just add my own prayer if anyone want to pray it with me. If not that's okay too. We can agree to disagree without hatred or anger towards one another and without making fun of each other's beliefs or non-beliefs.

Linkage

Prayer for the Salvation of the World.​

Father, hear our prayers for the salvation of the world. Grant Mercy to all souls that turned away from You. Open their hearts and minds with Your light.
Gather Your children from the east and the west, from the north and the south.

Have mercy O God on those who do not know You. Bring them out of darkness into Your light. You are our saving God Who leads us in our salvation. Protect us from evil.
Bless and praise You O Lord, hear our prayers and answer us. You, our Savior, are the hope of all the ends of the Earth and the distant seas. May Your way be known upon Earth; among all nations Your salvation.

We put the world in Your hands; fill us with Your love. Grant us peace through Christ, our Lord.

Amen


Peace everyone!

You mean save us from the eternal damnation H/he created and chooses to send us when we don't do exactly what we want within H/his rules despite giving us the ability to exercise free will and critical thinking meaning much of us may deduce in good faith not to follow said rules?

If so, such a nice guy, that G/god.

This is a bit beyond and also misstates the Christian perspective in several key ways:

• He created free will. The damnation is separation from Him, which mankind chose. The good faith you mentioned is in operation, but it must come with sincerity of heart and a commitment to a well formed conscience.
• The starting point for all humans born today is estrangement from Him, and He is constantly working to bring us to union with Him. That becomes eternal if we never become reconciled. He doesn't "choose" to send us anywhere any more than the wind "chooses" not to move us when we choose to stand still and not be moved by it.
• The way we become reconciled with Him is to turn our hearts to Him and let Him work in us. What you refer to as rules are most likely a misunderstanding of how that works - not necessarily on your part but on the part of those who preach it or put it into practice.

Did God create damnation?

He created free will

Okay. Did he create Hell/damnation?

Yes, in a similar way that light creates shadow.

No, in a similar way that a tent creates pitch dark.

I’m sorry, and please don’t take this poorly or as an attack as it is in no way intended to be, but that is the ultimate copout. An all knowing all creating being created a system where 1000’s of years later, after its creation, you have to be incredibly lucky to even be exposed to it, pick it over over very similar systems and blindly believe in it with no proof or your damned for all of eternity to torture. And we are expected to believe that the torture component is just the “byproduct” of choice and he’s helpless to its creation?

Do you believe in natural moral law? My faith teaches that your salvation does not hinge on the luck of the draw and whether you happen to be exposed to the faith.

Please define natural moral law as you believe it. Once I understand that I can answer the question of if I believe from your perspective. Thanks.

Natural moral law to me is a basic and universal understanding of right and wrong on fundamental questions not related to any religious tradition. The simplest example is murder, which everyone agrees is wrong I believe.

Here's what Google Gemini has to say on the subject. It sounds good to me:

Natural moral law is a philosophical theory proposing that certain universal moral principles are inherent in human nature, discoverable through reason, and form the basis for objective right and wrong. Developed by Thomas Aquinas and others, it posits that God or a rational natural order provides these moral standards, which are accessible to everyone and serve as a foundation for a just society, guiding humans toward their natural purpose of living a good and happy life. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
Key Aspects of Natural Moral Law

• Objective and Universal: Natural moral laws are not created by humans or governments but are an inherent part of human nature and the world, making them valid for all people, in all places, and for all time. [2, 4]
• Discoverable by Reason: While some believe a divine presence provides these laws, humans can discover them through reason and rational analysis, not just through revelation or scripture. [4, 6]
• Purposeful: Natural law views human existence, and the world itself, as having a purpose. For Aquinas, the fundamental principle is that good should be done and evil avoided. [3, 5]
• Accessible to All: Because they are based on human nature, these moral principles are accessible to everyone, regardless of their religious or cultural background. [2, 4]
• Foundation for Justice: Natural moral law serves as the standard against which human laws should be measured. An unjust law is considered "not a law at all" from a natural law perspective. [5]
• Intrinsic Rights and Goods: The theory implies that humans have certain fundamental rights and are naturally inclined toward basic goods such as life, procreation, knowledge, and social living. [2, 3]

Examples

• Parental Duty: The responsibility of parents to care for and protect their children is seen as a natural moral law, evident not only in human society but also in the animal kingdom. [7]
• Basic Human Rights: The concept of inherent rights to life and liberty is a key principle derived from natural law, which human laws ought to protect. [2]

AI responses may include mistakes.

[1] https://iep.utm.edu/natlaw/
[2] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/natural-law.asp
[3] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-law-ethics/
[4] https://quizlet.com/gb/442254356/natural-moral-law-flash-cards/
[5] https://study.com/academy/lesson/natural-law-theory-definition-ethics-examples.html
[6] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/natural_law
[7] https://helpfulprofessor.com
/natural-law-examples/

Thanks. So we have the same understanding of what it is. To answer your question yes I believe that.

So is it my understanding based on your previous response you’re not a believer that you must be saved by Jesus to be accepted in heaven?

I do believe that, but I believe in God's infinite mercy and that circumstances matter.

Can you expand on this please. As far as I understand basic Christianity, it’s a binary proposition. You either accept Jesus as your savior and get your golden ticket or you don’t and you don’t get in. Your behavior actually has nothing to do with your entry.

In other words, you can be a serial killer your whole life, but in your last days ask for forgiveness and accept Jesus, and you’re in. Other the hand can you can behave like Mother Teresa your whole life but never accept Jesus and sorry, down you go.

 

[Gally]

Is Hell exothermic or endothermic?

First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we need to know the rate at which souls are moving into Hell and the rate at which they are leaving, which is unlikely. I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving. As for how many souls are entering Hell, let’s look at the different religions that exist in the world today.

Most of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there is more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell. With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially. Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell because Boyle’s Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of Hell has to expand proportionately as souls are added.

This gives two possibilities:

1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until all Hell breaks loose.

2. If Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over.

So which is it?

If we accept the postulate given to me by Teresa during my Freshman year that, ‘It will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you,’ and take into account the fact that I slept with her last night, then number two must be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and has already frozen over. The corollary of this theory is that since Hell has frozen over, it follows that it is not accepting any more souls and is therefore, extinct….. …leaving only Heaven, thereby proving the existence of a divine being which explains why, last night, Teresa kept shouting ‘Oh my God.’

 

[Psychopav]

Is Hell exothermic or endothermic?

First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we need to know the rate at which souls are moving into Hell and the rate at which they are leaving, which is unlikely. I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving. As for how many souls are entering Hell, let’s look at the different religions that exist in the world today.

Most of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there is more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell. With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially. Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell because Boyle’s Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of Hell has to expand proportionately as souls are added.

This gives two possibilities:

1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until all Hell breaks loose.

2. If Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over.

So which is it?

If we accept the postulate given to me by Teresa during my Freshman year that, ‘It will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you,’ and take into account the fact that I slept with her last night, then number two must be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and has already frozen over. The corollary of this theory is that since Hell has frozen over, it follows that it is not accepting any more souls and is therefore, extinct….. …leaving only Heaven, thereby proving the existence of a divine being which explains why, last night, Teresa kept shouting ‘Oh my God.’

Thanks for the bolded, making this abundantly clear that this was satirical.

 

[Psychopav]

I'm not a guy that gets in the weeds and argues, nothing against it, just not my thing. I haven't read all the responses and don't plan to (I know where these things usually end up unfortunately) but I do support the thread and the notion of the salvation of souls, so I'll just add my own prayer if anyone want to pray it with me. If not that's okay too. We can agree to disagree without hatred or anger towards one another and without making fun of each other's beliefs or non-beliefs.

Linkage

Prayer for the Salvation of the World.​

Father, hear our prayers for the salvation of the world. Grant Mercy to all souls that turned away from You. Open their hearts and minds with Your light.
Gather Your children from the east and the west, from the north and the south.

Have mercy O God on those who do not know You. Bring them out of darkness into Your light. You are our saving God Who leads us in our salvation. Protect us from evil.
Bless and praise You O Lord, hear our prayers and answer us. You, our Savior, are the hope of all the ends of the Earth and the distant seas. May Your way be known upon Earth; among all nations Your salvation.

We put the world in Your hands; fill us with Your love. Grant us peace through Christ, our Lord.

Amen


Peace everyone!

You mean save us from the eternal damnation H/he created and chooses to send us when we don't do exactly what we want within H/his rules despite giving us the ability to exercise free will and critical thinking meaning much of us may deduce in good faith not to follow said rules?

If so, such a nice guy, that G/god.

This is a bit beyond and also misstates the Christian perspective in several key ways:

• He created free will. The damnation is separation from Him, which mankind chose. The good faith you mentioned is in operation, but it must come with sincerity of heart and a commitment to a well formed conscience.
• The starting point for all humans born today is estrangement from Him, and He is constantly working to bring us to union with Him. That becomes eternal if we never become reconciled. He doesn't "choose" to send us anywhere any more than the wind "chooses" not to move us when we choose to stand still and not be moved by it.
• The way we become reconciled with Him is to turn our hearts to Him and let Him work in us. What you refer to as rules are most likely a misunderstanding of how that works - not necessarily on your part but on the part of those who preach it or put it into practice.

Did God create damnation?

He created free will

Okay. Did he create Hell/damnation?

Yes, in a similar way that light creates shadow.

No, in a similar way that a tent creates pitch dark.

I’m sorry, and please don’t take this poorly or as an attack as it is in no way intended to be, but that is the ultimate copout. An all knowing all creating being created a system where 1000’s of years later, after its creation, you have to be incredibly lucky to even be exposed to it, pick it over over very similar systems and blindly believe in it with no proof or your damned for all of eternity to torture. And we are expected to believe that the torture component is just the “byproduct” of choice and he’s helpless to its creation?

Do you believe in natural moral law? My faith teaches that your salvation does not hinge on the luck of the draw and whether you happen to be exposed to the faith.

Please define natural moral law as you believe it. Once I understand that I can answer the question of if I believe from your perspective. Thanks.

Natural moral law to me is a basic and universal understanding of right and wrong on fundamental questions not related to any religious tradition. The simplest example is murder, which everyone agrees is wrong I believe.

Here's what Google Gemini has to say on the subject. It sounds good to me:

Natural moral law is a philosophical theory proposing that certain universal moral principles are inherent in human nature, discoverable through reason, and form the basis for objective right and wrong. Developed by Thomas Aquinas and others, it posits that God or a rational natural order provides these moral standards, which are accessible to everyone and serve as a foundation for a just society, guiding humans toward their natural purpose of living a good and happy life. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
Key Aspects of Natural Moral Law

• Objective and Universal: Natural moral laws are not created by humans or governments but are an inherent part of human nature and the world, making them valid for all people, in all places, and for all time. [2, 4]
• Discoverable by Reason: While some believe a divine presence provides these laws, humans can discover them through reason and rational analysis, not just through revelation or scripture. [4, 6]
• Purposeful: Natural law views human existence, and the world itself, as having a purpose. For Aquinas, the fundamental principle is that good should be done and evil avoided. [3, 5]
• Accessible to All: Because they are based on human nature, these moral principles are accessible to everyone, regardless of their religious or cultural background. [2, 4]
• Foundation for Justice: Natural moral law serves as the standard against which human laws should be measured. An unjust law is considered "not a law at all" from a natural law perspective. [5]
• Intrinsic Rights and Goods: The theory implies that humans have certain fundamental rights and are naturally inclined toward basic goods such as life, procreation, knowledge, and social living. [2, 3]

Examples

• Parental Duty: The responsibility of parents to care for and protect their children is seen as a natural moral law, evident not only in human society but also in the animal kingdom. [7]
• Basic Human Rights: The concept of inherent rights to life and liberty is a key principle derived from natural law, which human laws ought to protect. [2]

AI responses may include mistakes.

[1] https://iep.utm.edu/natlaw/
[2] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/natural-law.asp
[3] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-law-ethics/
[4] https://quizlet.com/gb/442254356/natural-moral-law-flash-cards/
[5] https://study.com/academy/lesson/natural-law-theory-definition-ethics-examples.html
[6] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/natural_law
[7] https://helpfulprofessor.com
/natural-law-examples/

Thanks. So we have the same understanding of what it is. To answer your question yes I believe that.

So is it my understanding based on your previous response you’re not a believer that you must be saved by Jesus to be accepted in heaven?

I do believe that, but I believe in God's infinite mercy and that circumstances matter.

Can you expand on this please. As far as I understand basic Christianity, it’s a binary proposition. You either accept Jesus as your savior and get your golden ticket or you don’t and you don’t get in. Your behavior actually has nothing to do with your entry.

In other words, you can be a serial killer your whole life, but in your last days ask for forgiveness and accept Jesus, and you’re in. Other the hand can you can behave like Mother Teresa your whole life but never accept Jesus and sorry, down you go.

I'm on a road trip today and not able to grab references but will reply later today/tonight.

 

[Gally]

Is Hell exothermic or endothermic?

First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we need to know the rate at which souls are moving into Hell and the rate at which they are leaving, which is unlikely. I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving. As for how many souls are entering Hell, let’s look at the different religions that exist in the world today.

Most of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there is more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell. With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially. Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell because Boyle’s Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of Hell has to expand proportionately as souls are added.

This gives two possibilities:

1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until all Hell breaks loose.

2. If Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over.

So which is it?

If we accept the postulate given to me by Teresa during my Freshman year that, ‘It will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you,’ and take into account the fact that I slept with her last night, then number two must be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and has already frozen over. The corollary of this theory is that since Hell has frozen over, it follows that it is not accepting any more souls and is therefore, extinct….. …leaving only Heaven, thereby proving the existence of a divine being which explains why, last night, Teresa kept shouting ‘Oh my God.’

Thanks for the bolded, making this abundantly clear that this was satirical.

While it is obviously a joke there is one point that has always stuck with me when discussing differing religions and that is this part:

"Most of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there is more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell"

Reconciling this is a bit of a problem.

 

[dkp993]

Is Hell exothermic or endothermic?

First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we need to know the rate at which souls are moving into Hell and the rate at which they are leaving, which is unlikely. I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving. As for how many souls are entering Hell, let’s look at the different religions that exist in the world today.

Most of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there is more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell. With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially. Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell because Boyle’s Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of Hell has to expand proportionately as souls are added.

This gives two possibilities:

1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until all Hell breaks loose.

2. If Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over.

So which is it?

If we accept the postulate given to me by Teresa during my Freshman year that, ‘It will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you,’ and take into account the fact that I slept with her last night, then number two must be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and has already frozen over. The corollary of this theory is that since Hell has frozen over, it follows that it is not accepting any more souls and is therefore, extinct….. …leaving only Heaven, thereby proving the existence of a divine being which explains why, last night, Teresa kept shouting ‘Oh my God.’

Thanks for the bolded, making this abundantly clear that this was satirical.

While it is obviously a joke there is one point that has always stuck with me when discussing differing religions and that is this part:

"Most of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there is more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell"

Reconciling this is a bit of a problem.

In the vain of “reconciling a bit of a problem” your example above runs parallel to my question of exposure to said religion/s. There are billions of people/souls that have never been exposed to the teachings of Christianity or Jesus (or any said religion), so I’m supposed to believe a loving caring God is going to damn them for all of eternity because of it. That doesn’t align at all.

 

[Gally]

Is Hell exothermic or endothermic?

First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we need to know the rate at which souls are moving into Hell and the rate at which they are leaving, which is unlikely. I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving. As for how many souls are entering Hell, let’s look at the different religions that exist in the world today.

Most of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there is more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell. With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially. Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell because Boyle’s Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of Hell has to expand proportionately as souls are added.

This gives two possibilities:

1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until all Hell breaks loose.

2. If Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over.

So which is it?

If we accept the postulate given to me by Teresa during my Freshman year that, ‘It will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you,’ and take into account the fact that I slept with her last night, then number two must be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and has already frozen over. The corollary of this theory is that since Hell has frozen over, it follows that it is not accepting any more souls and is therefore, extinct….. …leaving only Heaven, thereby proving the existence of a divine being which explains why, last night, Teresa kept shouting ‘Oh my God.’

Thanks for the bolded, making this abundantly clear that this was satirical.

While it is obviously a joke there is one point that has always stuck with me when discussing differing religions and that is this part:

"Most of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there is more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell"

Reconciling this is a bit of a problem.

In the vain of “reconciling a bit of a problem” your example above runs parallel to my question of exposure to said religion/s. There are billions of people/souls that have never been exposed to the teachings of Christianity or Jesus (or any said religion), so I’m supposed to believe a loving caring God is going to damn them for all of eternity because of it. That doesn’t align at all.

I saw your question above and was waiting for someone to try and answer that. It's always been an interesting situation that I wonder how varying religions reconcile.

ETA: It just seems bold that any one religion condemns random people that have never been exposed to their ways for just not knowing about it rather than their actual actions while going through life.

 

[Psychopav]

Is Hell exothermic or endothermic?

First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we need to know the rate at which souls are moving into Hell and the rate at which they are leaving, which is unlikely. I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving. As for how many souls are entering Hell, let’s look at the different religions that exist in the world today.

Most of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there is more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell. With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially. Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell because Boyle’s Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of Hell has to expand proportionately as souls are added.

This gives two possibilities:

1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until all Hell breaks loose.

2. If Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over.

So which is it?

If we accept the postulate given to me by Teresa during my Freshman year that, ‘It will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you,’ and take into account the fact that I slept with her last night, then number two must be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and has already frozen over. The corollary of this theory is that since Hell has frozen over, it follows that it is not accepting any more souls and is therefore, extinct….. …leaving only Heaven, thereby proving the existence of a divine being which explains why, last night, Teresa kept shouting ‘Oh my God.’

Thanks for the bolded, making this abundantly clear that this was satirical.

While it is obviously a joke there is one point that has always stuck with me when discussing differing religions and that is this part:

"Most of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there is more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell"

Reconciling this is a bit of a problem.

In the vain of “reconciling a bit of a problem” your example above runs parallel to my question of exposure to said religion/s. There are billions of people/souls that have never been exposed to the teachings of Christianity or Jesus (or any said religion), so I’m supposed to believe a loving caring God is going to damn them for all of eternity because of it. That doesn’t align at all.

I saw your question above and was waiting for someone to try and answer that. It's always been an interesting situation that I wonder how varying religions reconcile.

ETA: It just seems bold that any one religion condemns random people that have never been exposed to their ways for just not knowing about it rather than their actual actions while going through life.

Ok I couldn't do such a dense topic justice anyway I suppose, so rather than let this discussion go too much farther let me insert the Catholic position, which is essentially another "both/and" proposition of the Church: it is true that there is no salvation apart from the Church, and it is also true that one does not need to be Catholic - or even necessarily Christian - to be saved.

From this excellent essay on the topic, here's the key passage from the Catechism:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience — those too may achieve eternal salvation.

CCC 847, quoting Lumen Gentium 16

Note the "moved by grace" bit, which reinforces up the point that @dkp993 made above that there's nothing one can "do"to merit salvation (apart from responding to God's grace in faith, whatever form that may take under the circumstances). This puts the onus on believers to share the gospel with the world, so that all may come to know the risen Christ, without placing an undue burden on those who have not heard the message or have sincerely sought the truth and followed their own conscience in earnest sincerity. Hence justice and mercy both triumph in God's perfect plan.

 

[Paddington]

I'm not a guy that gets in the weeds and argues, nothing against it, just not my thing. I haven't read all the responses and don't plan to (I know where these things usually end up unfortunately) but I do support the thread and the notion of the salvation of souls, so I'll just add my own prayer if anyone want to pray it with me. If not that's okay too. We can agree to disagree without hatred or anger towards one another and without making fun of each other's beliefs or non-beliefs.

Linkage

Prayer for the Salvation of the World.​

Father, hear our prayers for the salvation of the world. Grant Mercy to all souls that turned away from You. Open their hearts and minds with Your light.
Gather Your children from the east and the west, from the north and the south.

Have mercy O God on those who do not know You. Bring them out of darkness into Your light. You are our saving God Who leads us in our salvation. Protect us from evil.
Bless and praise You O Lord, hear our prayers and answer us. You, our Savior, are the hope of all the ends of the Earth and the distant seas. May Your way be known upon Earth; among all nations Your salvation.

We put the world in Your hands; fill us with Your love. Grant us peace through Christ, our Lord.

Amen


Peace everyone!

I appreciate your support. That's what it's all about. The Salvation of souls for Christ.

 

[dgreen]

Is Hell exothermic or endothermic?

First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we need to know the rate at which souls are moving into Hell and the rate at which they are leaving, which is unlikely. I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving. As for how many souls are entering Hell, let’s look at the different religions that exist in the world today.

Most of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there is more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell. With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially. Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell because Boyle’s Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of Hell has to expand proportionately as souls are added.

This gives two possibilities:

1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until all Hell breaks loose.

2. If Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over.

So which is it?

If we accept the postulate given to me by Teresa during my Freshman year that, ‘It will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you,’ and take into account the fact that I slept with her last night, then number two must be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and has already frozen over. The corollary of this theory is that since Hell has frozen over, it follows that it is not accepting any more souls and is therefore, extinct….. …leaving only Heaven, thereby proving the existence of a divine being which explains why, last night, Teresa kept shouting ‘Oh my God.’

Thanks for the bolded, making this abundantly clear that this was satirical.

While it is obviously a joke there is one point that has always stuck with me when discussing differing religions and that is this part:

"Most of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there is more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell"

Reconciling this is a bit of a problem.

In the vain of “reconciling a bit of a problem” your example above runs parallel to my question of exposure to said religion/s. There are billions of people/souls that have never been exposed to the teachings of Christianity or Jesus (or any said religion), so I’m supposed to believe a loving caring God is going to damn them for all of eternity because of it. That doesn’t align at all.

Throughout the many versions of these threads, several of us have attempted to point out that there are many, many Christians who don't agree with what you earlier described as how you "understand basic Christianity." Most of the pushback in these threads is pretty much only in response to the Christianity that one poster is proposing. Granted, it is possible that it is also the Christianity many of you were given growing up, so you are also pushing back against that. It's an understandable understanding and pushback. However, for many Christians, this isn't the essence of Christianity. I don't think any of these arguments are a rejection of Christianity because I think they are refuting an incorrect representation of Christianity.

And, just to be clear, I'm not trying to say that I have the key to "true" Christianity. I have a lot to learn and a lot that I will never learn. I have just come, through an honest journey (and not through some effort to just have a more likeable God and reject all the ugly stuff), to a different understanding of the story God is telling through the Bible.

 

[dkp993]

Is Hell exothermic or endothermic?

First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we need to know the rate at which souls are moving into Hell and the rate at which they are leaving, which is unlikely. I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving. As for how many souls are entering Hell, let’s look at the different religions that exist in the world today.

Most of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there is more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell. With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially. Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell because Boyle’s Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of Hell has to expand proportionately as souls are added.

This gives two possibilities:

1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until all Hell breaks loose.

2. If Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over.

So which is it?

If we accept the postulate given to me by Teresa during my Freshman year that, ‘It will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you,’ and take into account the fact that I slept with her last night, then number two must be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and has already frozen over. The corollary of this theory is that since Hell has frozen over, it follows that it is not accepting any more souls and is therefore, extinct….. …leaving only Heaven, thereby proving the existence of a divine being which explains why, last night, Teresa kept shouting ‘Oh my God.’

Thanks for the bolded, making this abundantly clear that this was satirical.

While it is obviously a joke there is one point that has always stuck with me when discussing differing religions and that is this part:

"Most of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there is more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell"

Reconciling this is a bit of a problem.

In the vain of “reconciling a bit of a problem” your example above runs parallel to my question of exposure to said religion/s. There are billions of people/souls that have never been exposed to the teachings of Christianity or Jesus (or any said religion), so I’m supposed to believe a loving caring God is going to damn them for all of eternity because of it. That doesn’t align at all.

Throughout the many versions of these threads, several of us have attempted to point out that there are many, many Christians who don't agree with what you earlier described as how you "understand basic Christianity." Most of the pushback in these threads is pretty much only in response to the Christianity that one poster is proposing. Granted, it is possible that it is also the Christianity many of you were given growing up, so you are also pushing back against that. It's an understandable understanding and pushback. However, for many Christians, this isn't the essence of Christianity. I don't think any of these arguments are a rejection of Christianity because I think they are refuting an incorrect representation of Christianity.

And, just to be clear, I'm not trying to say that I have the key to "true" Christianity. I have a lot to learn and a lot that I will never learn. I have just come, through an honest journey (and not through some effort to just have a more likeable God and reject all the ugly stuff), to a different understanding of the story God is telling through the Bible.

There is no question one of the bigger challenges of discussing this topic are the subtle variations, not just within the different religions, but also within the specific religions themselves. Like Ben and Jerry’s there’s a flavor for everyone (which is also part of my issue with organized religion, but that is for another discussion).
And while I agree that within some subsets the idea one must accept Jesus to not burn for all eternity “isn't the essence of Christianity” it certainly is with others. (For the record, this point has been made by multiple others in the various threads, not just the one person you eluded too). So I’m not sure what you’re trying to imply with this post. The context of your post reads to me, and I emphasize the point “to me”, that I’m challenging some fringe concept. And while as I mentioned upstream, there are certainly Christians who don’t believe that version the concept is far from fringe. It’s common.

So when I run across someone posting, who seems to be of that ilk, like I was interpreting @pychopav to be, I ask questions to seek to understand the mindset.

 

[dgreen]

Is Hell exothermic or endothermic?

First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we need to know the rate at which souls are moving into Hell and the rate at which they are leaving, which is unlikely. I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving. As for how many souls are entering Hell, let’s look at the different religions that exist in the world today.

Most of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there is more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell. With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially. Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell because Boyle’s Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of Hell has to expand proportionately as souls are added.

This gives two possibilities:

1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until all Hell breaks loose.

2. If Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over.

So which is it?

If we accept the postulate given to me by Teresa during my Freshman year that, ‘It will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you,’ and take into account the fact that I slept with her last night, then number two must be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and has already frozen over. The corollary of this theory is that since Hell has frozen over, it follows that it is not accepting any more souls and is therefore, extinct….. …leaving only Heaven, thereby proving the existence of a divine being which explains why, last night, Teresa kept shouting ‘Oh my God.’

Thanks for the bolded, making this abundantly clear that this was satirical.

While it is obviously a joke there is one point that has always stuck with me when discussing differing religions and that is this part:

"Most of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there is more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell"

Reconciling this is a bit of a problem.

In the vain of “reconciling a bit of a problem” your example above runs parallel to my question of exposure to said religion/s. There are billions of people/souls that have never been exposed to the teachings of Christianity or Jesus (or any said religion), so I’m supposed to believe a loving caring God is going to damn them for all of eternity because of it. That doesn’t align at all.

Throughout the many versions of these threads, several of us have attempted to point out that there are many, many Christians who don't agree with what you earlier described as how you "understand basic Christianity." Most of the pushback in these threads is pretty much only in response to the Christianity that one poster is proposing. Granted, it is possible that it is also the Christianity many of you were given growing up, so you are also pushing back against that. It's an understandable understanding and pushback. However, for many Christians, this isn't the essence of Christianity. I don't think any of these arguments are a rejection of Christianity because I think they are refuting an incorrect representation of Christianity.

And, just to be clear, I'm not trying to say that I have the key to "true" Christianity. I have a lot to learn and a lot that I will never learn. I have just come, through an honest journey (and not through some effort to just have a more likeable God and reject all the ugly stuff), to a different understanding of the story God is telling through the Bible.

There is no question one of the bigger challenges of discussing this topic are the subtle variations, not just within the different religions, but also within the specific religions themselves. Like Ben and Jerry’s there’s a flavor for everyone (which is also part of my issue with organized religion, but that is for another discussion).
And while I agree that within some subsets the idea one must accept Jesus to not burn for all eternity “isn't the essence of Christianity” it certainly is with others. (For the record, this point has been many by multiple others in the various threads, not just the one person you eluded too). So I’m not sure what you’re trying to apply with this post. The context of your post reads to me, and I emphasize the point “to me”, that I’m challenging some fringe concept. And while as I mentioned upstream, there are certainly Christians who don’t believe that version the concept is far from fringe. It’s common.

So when I run across someone posting, who seems to be of that ilk, like I was interpreting @pychopav to be, I ask questions to seek to understand the mindset.

My understanding is that it is only common within certain sects of primarily American Evangelical Christianity of the last 200 years. If we expand out to the entire world over the last 2000 years, my guess is it is very fringe. When you grow up in it and are surrounded by it, it will seem more common than it is.

Apparently there was some prediction of the rapture being today. No idea why. But, it's a great example of what I'm talking about. The vast majority of Christians throughout the world and throughout history don't believe in the rapture as it is discussed in some Christian circles today. It came from the 1800s and caught on in some evangelical sects in America. If you grow up in one of those denominations, it will appear as if rapture theology is common. But, it's not even the majority in American Christianity, much less worldwide, historical Christianity.

I guess the purpose of my post is my frustration with people arguing about this stuff. It's like if we all work for the same company and some of the employees are saying the CEO wants us to do X and other employees are arguing that X makes no sense. Meanwhile, you have voices saying, "You are right that the CEO isn't asking us to do X. He's asking us to do Y." But those arguing against X are completely ignoring the discussion of Y. It makes sense to question X, but there's no effort to then find out what the CEO really wants his employees to do. Of course, I also realize in this analogy, you probably don't believe there is a CEO...which adds its own complexities to having these discussions.

 

[Gally]

I guess the purpose of my post is my frustration with people arguing about this stuff. It's like if we all work for the same company and some of the employees are saying the CEO wants us to do X and other employees are arguing that X makes no sense. Meanwhile, you have voices saying, "You are right that the CEO isn't asking us to do X. He's asking us to do Y." But those arguing against X are completely ignoring the discussion of Y. It makes sense to question X, but there's no effort to then find out what the CEO really wants his employees to do. Of course, I also realize in this analogy, you probably don't believe there is a CEO...which adds its own complexities to having these discussions.

So exactly like most big companies. Makes a lot of sense now.

 

[Psychopav]

Is Hell exothermic or endothermic?

First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we need to know the rate at which souls are moving into Hell and the rate at which they are leaving, which is unlikely. I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving. As for how many souls are entering Hell, let’s look at the different religions that exist in the world today.

Most of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there is more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell. With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially. Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell because Boyle’s Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of Hell has to expand proportionately as souls are added.

This gives two possibilities:

1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until all Hell breaks loose.

2. If Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over.

So which is it?

If we accept the postulate given to me by Teresa during my Freshman year that, ‘It will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you,’ and take into account the fact that I slept with her last night, then number two must be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and has already frozen over. The corollary of this theory is that since Hell has frozen over, it follows that it is not accepting any more souls and is therefore, extinct….. …leaving only Heaven, thereby proving the existence of a divine being which explains why, last night, Teresa kept shouting ‘Oh my God.’

Thanks for the bolded, making this abundantly clear that this was satirical.

While it is obviously a joke there is one point that has always stuck with me when discussing differing religions and that is this part:

"Most of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there is more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell"

Reconciling this is a bit of a problem.

In the vain of “reconciling a bit of a problem” your example above runs parallel to my question of exposure to said religion/s. There are billions of people/souls that have never been exposed to the teachings of Christianity or Jesus (or any said religion), so I’m supposed to believe a loving caring God is going to damn them for all of eternity because of it. That doesn’t align at all.

Throughout the many versions of these threads, several of us have attempted to point out that there are many, many Christians who don't agree with what you earlier described as how you "understand basic Christianity." Most of the pushback in these threads is pretty much only in response to the Christianity that one poster is proposing. Granted, it is possible that it is also the Christianity many of you were given growing up, so you are also pushing back against that. It's an understandable understanding and pushback. However, for many Christians, this isn't the essence of Christianity. I don't think any of these arguments are a rejection of Christianity because I think they are refuting an incorrect representation of Christianity.

And, just to be clear, I'm not trying to say that I have the key to "true" Christianity. I have a lot to learn and a lot that I will never learn. I have just come, through an honest journey (and not through some effort to just have a more likeable God and reject all the ugly stuff), to a different understanding of the story God is telling through the Bible.

There is no question one of the bigger challenges of discussing this topic are the subtle variations, not just within the different religions, but also within the specific religions themselves. Like Ben and Jerry’s there’s a flavor for everyone (which is also part of my issue with organized religion, but that is for another discussion).
And while I agree that within some subsets the idea one must accept Jesus to not burn for all eternity “isn't the essence of Christianity” it certainly is with others. (For the record, this point has been many by multiple others in the various threads, not just the one person you eluded too). So I’m not sure what you’re trying to apply with this post. The context of your post reads to me, and I emphasize the point “to me”, that I’m challenging some fringe concept. And while as I mentioned upstream, there are certainly Christians who don’t believe that version the concept is far from fringe. It’s common.

So when I run across someone posting, who seems to be of that ilk, like I was interpreting @pychopav to be, I ask questions to seek to understand the mindset.

My understanding is that it is only common within certain sects of primarily American Evangelical Christianity of the last 200 years. If we expand out to the entire world over the last 2000 years, my guess is it is very fringe. When you grow up in it and are surrounded by it, it will seem more common than it is.

Apparently there was some prediction of the rapture being today. No idea why. But, it's a great example of what I'm talking about. The vast majority of Christians throughout the world and throughout history don't believe in the rapture as it is discussed in some Christian circles today. It came from the 1800s and caught on in some evangelical sects in America. If you grow up in one of those denominations, it will appear as if rapture theology is common. But, it's not even the majority in American Christianity, much less worldwide, historical Christianity.

I guess the purpose of my post is my frustration with people arguing about this stuff. It's like if we all work for the same company and some of the employees are saying the CEO wants us to do X and other employees are arguing that X makes no sense. Meanwhile, you have voices saying, "You are right that the CEO isn't asking us to do X. He's asking us to do Y." But those arguing against X are completely ignoring the discussion of Y. It makes sense to question X, but there's no effort to then find out what the CEO really wants his employees to do. Of course, I also realize in this analogy, you probably don't believe there is a CEO...which adds its own complexities to having these discussions.

It's interesting and profitable imo to think about these concepts and for theologians to plumb them. But they are not necessary for salvation.

If you want the basics of Christianity go to the creed:

I believe in God,
the Father almighty,
Creator of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died and was buried;
he descended into hell;
on the third day he rose again from the dead;
he ascended into heaven,
and is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty;
from there he will come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.

Amen.

The word "Catholic" here can be taken to mean universal, which is what that word means, and not specific to the RCC denomination.

 

[dkp993]

Is Hell exothermic or endothermic?

First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we need to know the rate at which souls are moving into Hell and the rate at which they are leaving, which is unlikely. I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving. As for how many souls are entering Hell, let’s look at the different religions that exist in the world today.

Most of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there is more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell. With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially. Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell because Boyle’s Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of Hell has to expand proportionately as souls are added.

This gives two possibilities:

1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until all Hell breaks loose.

2. If Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over.

So which is it?

If we accept the postulate given to me by Teresa during my Freshman year that, ‘It will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you,’ and take into account the fact that I slept with her last night, then number two must be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and has already frozen over. The corollary of this theory is that since Hell has frozen over, it follows that it is not accepting any more souls and is therefore, extinct….. …leaving only Heaven, thereby proving the existence of a divine being which explains why, last night, Teresa kept shouting ‘Oh my God.’

Thanks for the bolded, making this abundantly clear that this was satirical.

While it is obviously a joke there is one point that has always stuck with me when discussing differing religions and that is this part:

"Most of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there is more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell"

Reconciling this is a bit of a problem.

In the vain of “reconciling a bit of a problem” your example above runs parallel to my question of exposure to said religion/s. There are billions of people/souls that have never been exposed to the teachings of Christianity or Jesus (or any said religion), so I’m supposed to believe a loving caring God is going to damn them for all of eternity because of it. That doesn’t align at all.

Throughout the many versions of these threads, several of us have attempted to point out that there are many, many Christians who don't agree with what you earlier described as how you "understand basic Christianity." Most of the pushback in these threads is pretty much only in response to the Christianity that one poster is proposing. Granted, it is possible that it is also the Christianity many of you were given growing up, so you are also pushing back against that. It's an understandable understanding and pushback. However, for many Christians, this isn't the essence of Christianity. I don't think any of these arguments are a rejection of Christianity because I think they are refuting an incorrect representation of Christianity.

And, just to be clear, I'm not trying to say that I have the key to "true" Christianity. I have a lot to learn and a lot that I will never learn. I have just come, through an honest journey (and not through some effort to just have a more likeable God and reject all the ugly stuff), to a different understanding of the story God is telling through the Bible.

There is no question one of the bigger challenges of discussing this topic are the subtle variations, not just within the different religions, but also within the specific religions themselves. Like Ben and Jerry’s there’s a flavor for everyone (which is also part of my issue with organized religion, but that is for another discussion).
And while I agree that within some subsets the idea one must accept Jesus to not burn for all eternity “isn't the essence of Christianity” it certainly is with others. (For the record, this point has been many by multiple others in the various threads, not just the one person you eluded too). So I’m not sure what you’re trying to apply with this post. The context of your post reads to me, and I emphasize the point “to me”, that I’m challenging some fringe concept. And while as I mentioned upstream, there are certainly Christians who don’t believe that version the concept is far from fringe. It’s common.

So when I run across someone posting, who seems to be of that ilk, like I was interpreting @pychopav to be, I ask questions to seek to understand the mindset.

My understanding is that it is only common within certain sects of primarily American Evangelical Christianity of the last 200 years. If we expand out to the entire world over the last 2000 years, my guess is it is very fringe. When you grow up in it and are surrounded by it, it will seem more common than it is.

Apparently there was some prediction of the rapture being today. No idea why. But, it's a great example of what I'm talking about. The vast majority of Christians throughout the world and throughout history don't believe in the rapture as it is discussed in some Christian circles today. It came from the 1800s and caught on in some evangelical sects in America. If you grow up in one of those denominations, it will appear as if rapture theology is common. But, it's not even the majority in American Christianity, much less worldwide, historical Christianity.

I guess the purpose of my post is my frustration with people arguing about this stuff. It's like if we all work for the same company and some of the employees are saying the CEO wants us to do X and other employees are arguing that X makes no sense. Meanwhile, you have voices saying, "You are right that the CEO isn't asking us to do X. He's asking us to do Y." But those arguing against X are completely ignoring the discussion of Y. It makes sense to question X, but there's no effort to then find out what the CEO really wants his employees to do. Of course, I also realize in this analogy, you probably don't believe there is a CEO...which adds its own complexities to having these discussions.

Well I’m a bit shocked by your belief in the concept being a fringe position. Now I will readily defer to the fact that you are more educated on Christianity than I am. I have not spent much of my adult life thinking about it as my early life experiences set my beliefs pretty firmly early on. But with that being said, here’s my question to ChatGPT and its response, for whatever that’s worth.

Over the past 200 years is it a more or less a commonly held belief in Christianity that you must accept Jesus into your life to be accepted into heaven?
ChatGPT said:
Yes, over the past 200 years, it has been more or less a commonly held belief in most branches of Christianity—especially among evangelicals, conservative Protestants, and some Catholics—that accepting Jesus Christ (often phrased as "accepting Jesus as your Lord and Savior") is necessary for salvation and thus entry into heaven

 

[dkp993]

I guess the purpose of my post is my frustration with people arguing about this stuff.

I certainly understand this point. Being lumped into a group that has a core differential belief than you do can certainly be frustrating. I get it.

 

[dgreen]

Well I’m a bit shocked by your belief it the concept being a fringe position. Now I will readily defer to the fact that you are more educated on Christianity than I am. I have not spent much of my adult life thinking about it as my early life experiences set my beliefs pretty firmly early on. But with that being said, here’s my question to ChatGPT and its response, for whatever that’s worth.

Over the past 200 years is it a more or less a commonly held belief in Christianity that you must accept Jesus into your life to be accepted into heaven?
ChatGPT said:
Yes, over the past 200 years, it has been more or less a commonly held belief in most branches of Christianity—especially among evangelicals, conservative Protestants, and some Catholics—that accepting Jesus Christ (often phrased as "accepting Jesus as your Lord and Savior") is necessary for salvation and thus entry into heaven

Well, from there, we have to be in agreement on what it means to accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior, what salvation is, and what it means to gain entry into heaven or else we could be talking about different things. I assume you mean something like: "If I mentally agree with the idea that Jesus was God then I get to leave this Earth after I die and go to a place called Heaven for eternity. If I don't mentally agree with this idea then I will burn in a place called Hell for all eternity." That's what I think is less common. The hyper focus on "individual souls going to Heaven after we die based solely on a mental assent about who Jesus was" being the goal of Christianity is more fringe than we might think.

Here's a ChatGPT response based on this prompt, producing my basic understanding on this: "what are the origins of this idea: individual souls going to heaven after death based on mentally agreeing with the idea that Jesus is God"

Spoiler: ChatGPT

The idea that individual souls go to heaven after death based on mentally agreeing that Jesus is God is a specific interpretation of Christian theology—especially common in modern evangelical Protestantism. It draws on a complex evolution of ideas spanning Second Temple Judaism, early Christianity, Augustinian theology, Reformation doctrines, and modern evangelicalism. Here's a breakdown of where this concept comes from:

---

1. Jewish Background (Before and During Jesus' Time)​

• 
  
• Ancient Israelites generally didn’t have a clear doctrine of the afterlife like "heaven or hell."
• 
  
• The Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) mostly speaks of Sheol, a shadowy place of the dead.
• 
  
• By Jesus' time (Second Temple Judaism), some Jews (like Pharisees) believed in bodily resurrection at the end of time, not individual souls going to heaven immediately.
• 
  
• The idea of an immortal soul going to heaven after death came more from Greek (Platonic) influence than early Jewish thought.

---

2. Jesus and the Early Church​

• 
  
• Jesus talks about eternal life, judgment, and the kingdom of God, but He doesn't consistently describe a heaven-you-go-to-when-you-die scenario.
• 
  
• Early Christians (e.g., Paul) believed in the resurrection of the dead at the end of time—not disembodied souls going to heaven.
  • 
    
  • Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 emphasizes bodily resurrection, not soul-flight to heaven.
• 
  
• Belief in Jesus as Lord and Messiah was essential—but this meant loyalty and trust, not just mental assent.

---

3. Development of the Soul-Heaven Idea​

• 
  
• Greek philosophy, especially Platonism, emphasized the immortal soul escaping the body—this started influencing Christian thought in the 2nd–4th centuries.
• 
  
• Thinkers like Origen and Augustine helped blend Christian theology with Platonic ideas.
• 
  
• Over time, “going to heaven” became shorthand for what happens to the soul after death, though this wasn't a focus of the earliest Christian texts.

---

4. Augustine (4th–5th Century)​

• 
  
• Augustine emphasized original sin and the need for grace and faith for salvation.
• 
  
• He strongly shaped Western Christianity’s emphasis on individual salvation and the fate of the soul after death.
• 
  
• Still, “faith” wasn’t just mental agreement—it involved trust, love, and transformation.

---

5. Protestant Reformation (16th Century)​

• 
  
• Martin Luther and John Calvin emphasized sola fide (faith alone) as the basis for salvation.
• 
  
• This challenged the Catholic view that faith plus works (including sacraments) were required.
• 
  
• “Faith” increasingly got interpreted by some Protestants as intellectual belief in the right doctrine, particularly belief that Jesus is God and Savior.
• 
  
• Calvin also emphasized the predestination of individual souls to heaven or hell.

---

6. Modern Evangelicalism (18th–21st Century)​

• 
  
• In American evangelicalism especially, salvation became more individualistic and cognitive: “accept Jesus into your heart,” “believe Jesus is Lord,” etc.
• 
  
• The “sinner’s prayer”—where someone mentally agrees to Jesus being Lord and asks Him into their heart—became popular, especially in revivalist movements.
• 
  
• The focus shifted from transformational discipleship to personal decision.
• 
  
• Thus, salvation became equated with:
  • 
    
  • Mental agreement that Jesus is God,
  • 
    
  • Possibly saying a prayer,
  • 
    
  • And expecting to go to heaven immediately upon death.

---

Summary: Key Influences​

Element	Source
Immortal soul going to heaven	Greek (Platonism)
Salvation through faith	New Testament, esp. Paul
Mental assent to doctrine	Post-Reformation Protestantism
Individualistic decision-based salvation	Modern evangelicalism

---

Important Note​

This modern formulation—"Believe Jesus is God, go to heaven when you die"—is not how the earliest Christians understood salvation. It reflects:

• 
  
• Greek philosophical ideas (soul-heaven dualism),
• 
  
• Protestant emphasis on faith alone, and
• 
  
• Evangelical emphasis on individual decision-making.

In the New Testament, salvation is more about:

• 
  
• Being united with Christ,
• 
  
• Becoming part of the renewed people of God,
• 
  
• Resurrection from the dead, and
• 
  
• Participating in God’s kingdom—starting now and culminating in the new creation.

 

[dgreen]

I watched an atheist debate a rabbi. All the atheist wanted to talk about was whether or not certain things in the Bible happened as they were described. The rabbi agreed that Adam and Eve were parables but said he believes the Exodus really happened. However, the rabbi would then say, "But so what?" and tried to take the conversation in the direction of what the stories mean. The atheist had no interest in that discussion. What he cared about was whether or not there's any hard evidence that it happened.

I think I'm realizing that I'm trying to insert the discussions I care about into the discussions other people are having and that's probably not fair to the discussion.

 

[dkp993]

I’m at work and thus quickly reading vs deep thinking/interpreting your reply’s so forgive me if we are talking past each other. But I’m speaking to what the average person walking down the street would say or understand the concept to be. I believe (maybe wrongly so) that the majority of people’s interpretation of Christianity is that you must accept Jesus as your lord and savior to gain access to heaven. Especially if we were able to ask this question across the people of the past 200yrs. Now would I allow that the faith continues to evolve and adapt thus many(most?) Christian Churches in 2025 don’t teach that, sure, maybe.

But also doesn’t your ChatGPT answer below agree with my point….

Thus, salvation became equated with:

Mental agreement that Jesus is God,


*if I misinterpreted please see my point above about working

is a specific interpretation of Christian theology—especially common in modern evangelical Protestantism

 

[Gally]

I watched an atheist debate a rabbi. All the atheist wanted to talk about was whether or not certain things in the Bible happened as they were described. The rabbi agreed that Adam and Eve were parables but said he believes the Exodus really happened. However, the rabbi would then say, "But so what?" and tried to take the conversation in the direction of what the stories mean. The atheist had no interest in that discussion. What he cared about was whether or not there's any hard evidence that it happened.

Interesting situation. I think from an atheist/agnostic perspective the "proof" of something happening or being real is really their top priority. So a discussion like that where one side is looking for proof and the other side is trying to decipher meaning and doesn't care if it was real or not is always going to be talking past each other a bit.

 

[dkp993]

I watched an atheist debate a rabbi. All the atheist wanted to talk about was whether or not certain things in the Bible happened as they were described. The rabbi agreed that Adam and Eve were parables but said he believes the Exodus really happened. However, the rabbi would then say, "But so what?" and tried to take the conversation in the direction of what the stories mean. The atheist had no interest in that discussion. What he cared about was whether or not there's any hard evidence that it happened.

Interesting situation. I think from an atheist/agnostic perspective the "proof" of something happening or being real is really their top priority. So a discussion like that where one side is looking for proof and the other side is trying to decipher meaning and doesn't care if it was real or not is always going to be talking past each other a bit.

Especially when the book(s) in question are supposed to be the path/rules to your eternity. This brings up another point that makes no sense to me. Why would an all knowing, all seeing, all powerful God provide the rules to your eternal existence that are left to such a wide range of interpretations, especially 1000s of years later through multiple language changes? Your literal souls eternity hangs in the balance. That seems fraught with flaws and problems for an all knowing God to set up, especially if he loves us so much and just wants us to “succeed” and be with him.

 

[dgreen]

I’m at work and thus quickly reading vs deep thinking/interpreting your reply’s so forgive me if we are talking past each other. But I’m speaking to what the average person walking down the street would say or understand the concept to be. I believe (maybe wrongly so) that the majority of people’s interpretation of Christianity is that you must accept Jesus as your lord and savior to gain access to heaven. Especially if we were able to ask this question across the people of the past 200yrs. Now would I allow that the faith continues to evolve and adapt thus many(most?) Christian Churches in 2025 don’t teach that, sure, maybe.

But also doesn’t your ChatGPT answer below agree with my point….

Thus, salvation became equated with:

Mental agreement that Jesus is God,


*if I misinterpreted please see my point above about working

is a specific interpretation of Christian theology—especially common in modern evangelical Protestantism

Yes, I agree that the idea of mental agreement is common in modern evangelical Protestantism. One of my points is that modern evangelical Protestantism isn't necessarily common despite it being what many of us are familiar with. It looks like 1/3 of American Christians fit within evangelical Protestantism. So, 2/3 of American Christians are something else. Geography is going to play a big role in what the average person walking down the street thinks, since evangelicalism is huge in the South and less-so elsewhere.

And that's just the United States. I would think the odds of finding a random Christian who thinks this gets less likely as you travel around the world.

 

[fatness]

We take this information about which specific denomination respondents identify with and then we categorize Protestants into one of three major Protestant traditions – the evangelical tradition, the mainline tradition or the historically Black Protestant tradition. These divisions within Protestantism are important, because each has a distinctive combination of beliefs, practices and histories.

All three of these Protestant traditions have declined, at least a little, as shares of the U.S. adult population since the first RLS was conducted in 2007. The mainline Protestant category has exhibited the sharpest drop, declining from 18% of U.S. adults in 2007 to 11% in 2023-24. Evangelicalism remains the largest tradition within Protestantism, but the evangelical share of the adult population also has ticked down, going from 26% in 2007, to 25% in 2014, to 23% in 2023-24. Respondents in the historically Black Protestant tradition accounted for 7% of respondents in 2007 and 5% in 2023-24 (after rounding to the closest whole number). Because of the steepness of the decline in mainline Protestantism, evangelicals have risen as a share of all Protestants (even as evangelicals have fallen as a percentage of the overall adult population).

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2025/02/26/religious-landscape-study-religious-identity/

 

[dgreen]

We take this information about which specific denomination respondents identify with and then we categorize Protestants into one of three major Protestant traditions – the evangelical tradition, the mainline tradition or the historically Black Protestant tradition. These divisions within Protestantism are important, because each has a distinctive combination of beliefs, practices and histories.

All three of these Protestant traditions have declined, at least a little, as shares of the U.S. adult population since the first RLS was conducted in 2007. The mainline Protestant category has exhibited the sharpest drop, declining from 18% of U.S. adults in 2007 to 11% in 2023-24. Evangelicalism remains the largest tradition within Protestantism, but the evangelical share of the adult population also has ticked down, going from 26% in 2007, to 25% in 2014, to 23% in 2023-24. Respondents in the historically Black Protestant tradition accounted for 7% of respondents in 2007 and 5% in 2023-24 (after rounding to the closest whole number). Because of the steepness of the decline in mainline Protestantism, evangelicals have risen as a share of all Protestants (even as evangelicals have fallen as a percentage of the overall adult population).

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2025/02/26/religious-landscape-study-religious-identity/

I was lazy and just went with Google AI's response of 1/3. So, evangelical Protestantism is even smaller than I thought.

ETA: Actually, I was looking for the percentage of US Christians who are evangelical and these Pew numbers are the percent of the US adult population. So, I guess the 1/3 number could still be accurate.

 

[massraider]

I watched an atheist debate a rabbi. All the atheist wanted to talk about was whether or not certain things in the Bible happened as they were described. The rabbi agreed that Adam and Eve were parables but said he believes the Exodus really happened. However, the rabbi would then say, "But so what?" and tried to take the conversation in the direction of what the stories mean. The atheist had no interest in that discussion. What he cared about was whether or not there's any hard evidence that it happened

We've had people argue previously in here that stories from the Bible were true. The owner of the site, who said that accurate record keeping was of paramount importance, as well as the original poster, who has made it clear This is The a Literal Truth.
No one needs to get an atheist and a rabbi together. Just get 4 Christians from 4 different churches in 4 different parts of the country. They'll agree that Jesus is pretty awesome, and not much else

 

[Joe Bryant]

The owner of the site, who said that accurate record keeping was of paramount importance, as well as the original poster, who has made it clear This is The a Literal Truth.

I've made it clear I believe it's the truth, and it happened.

As much as I'd like to be, I'm not some sort of decider or declarer of all truth.

Also, as "owner of the site", my opinion on this matters exactly zero more or less than anyone else's.

 

[Captain Cranks]

I watched an atheist debate a rabbi. All the atheist wanted to talk about was whether or not certain things in the Bible happened as they were described. The rabbi agreed that Adam and Eve were parables but said he believes the Exodus really happened. However, the rabbi would then say, "But so what?" and tried to take the conversation in the direction of what the stories mean. The atheist had no interest in that discussion. What he cared about was whether or not there's any hard evidence that it happened.

I think I'm realizing that I'm trying to insert the discussions I care about into the discussions other people are having and that's probably not fair to the discussion.

What was the purpose, in your opinion, of steering the conversation to the stories' meanings? In other words, what point was the rabbi trying to make?

 

[dgreen]

I watched an atheist debate a rabbi. All the atheist wanted to talk about was whether or not certain things in the Bible happened as they were described. The rabbi agreed that Adam and Eve were parables but said he believes the Exodus really happened. However, the rabbi would then say, "But so what?" and tried to take the conversation in the direction of what the stories mean. The atheist had no interest in that discussion. What he cared about was whether or not there's any hard evidence that it happened.

I think I'm realizing that I'm trying to insert the discussions I care about into the discussions other people are having and that's probably not fair to the discussion.

What was the purpose, in your opinion, of steering the conversation to the stories' meanings? In other words, what point was the rabbi trying to make?

Because that’s the reason the story exists. It is trying to convey some meaning/message. My mom used to say, “Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer.” If you ask a text a question it’s not trying to answer, then there’s no telling what erroneous conclusions you might reach. Unless a text is a modern journalistic news article or history textbook, “did this happen exactly as described” is almost never the right question for that text because that’s not the reason the author put pen to paper.

 

[Captain Cranks]

Because that’s the reason the story exists. It is trying to convey some meaning/message. My mom used to say, “Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer.” If you ask a text a question it’s not trying to answer, then there’s no telling what erroneous conclusions you might reach. Unless a text is a modern journalistic news article or history textbook, “did this happen exactly as described” is almost never the right question for that text because that’s not the reason the author put pen to paper.

That's fine, but is the overarching debate theological or philosophical? If it's philosophical, I agree the historical details are irrelevant. If it's theological, then historicity becomes important.

 

[Psychopav]

Thanks, Gemini (see esp the bolded):

The English word "faith" comes from the Latin fides, meaning "trust, confidence, reliance". The Latin word fides derives from the Proto-Indo-European root \*bheidh-, which means "to trust, confide, or persuade". The word entered English in the mid-13th century from Old French (as feid or foi) and has retained its core meaning of trust and loyalty, though it also now includes the sense of belief in something for which there is incomplete evidence. [1, 2, 3]
Origin and Evolution

• Proto-Indo-European Root: The ultimate origin is the PIE root bheidh-, signifying trust and confidence. [3]
• Latin: This root evolved into the Latin fides, which means "trust, faith, confidence, credence". [2]
• Old French: From Latin, the word passed into Old French as feid or foi, carrying similar meanings of trust and belief. [2, 4]
• Middle English: The English word "faith" (or feith) appeared in the 13th century, borrowed from Anglo-French and Old French, and eventually replaced the native Old English term ġelēafa. [2, 4]

Meaning and Usage

• Core Meaning: At its heart, "faith" signifies trust, loyalty, and confidence in something or someone. [1, 3]
• Related to Religion: From the late 14th century, the word became closely associated with belief in religious matters, particularly in a Christian context. [2]
• Comparison to "Belief": Unlike modern "belief," which often implies intellectual assent to a statement, "faith" emphasizes a deeper orientation of commitment and reliance. [1, 2]

Related Words [1, 2]

• The same Latin root fidere gives us words like fidelity (loyalty, faithfulness) and even the shortened form hi-fi (high fidelity), which still reflects the original sense of trust and reliability.

AI responses may include mistakes.

[1] https://ahmedafzaal.com/2011/11/26/faith-and-belief-4/
[2] https://www.etymonline.com/word/faith
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith
[4] https://en.wik
tionary.org/wiki/faith

Those looking for "proof" and the faithful are often talking past each other.

Faith = Trust

 

[BobbyLayne]

New thread title

 

[Gally]

Those looking for "proof" and the faithful are often talking past each other.

Faith = Trust

I mean that is the fundamental concept that pushes this discussion and while there will never be an "answer". Agnostic/Aetheist want proof of God. Religious people believe that Faith(Trust) there is God as the test. Believing without proof shows you are worthy.

It's kind of an impossible bridge to cross because by definition there can never be proof of God otherwise there would be no reason for faith.

 

[Psychopav]

Those looking for "proof" and the faithful are often talking past each other.

Faith = Trust

I mean that is the fundamental concept that pushes this discussion and while there will never be an "answer". Agnostic/Aetheist want proof of God. Religious people believe that Faith(Trust) there is God as the test. Believing without proof shows you are worthy.

It's kind of an impossible bridge to cross because by definition there can never be proof of God otherwise there would be no reason for faith.

Kirkegaard talks about the leap of faith. The thing that atheists miss, as they must, is that on the other side of that chasm is a proof of the heart that can't be measured but only experienced.

I was raised in the faith, but at 54 years old I can tell you that's not why I am faithful. It's because the Lord has proven His trustworthiness in my life time after time. At the lowest points in my life He has been a steady presence bringing peace and guidance. And at the highpoints Hr has likewise been there.

Jesus promises only two things to believers this life: peace, and the cross. And He delivers.