Christians?

Christians?

In the bible, where is hell? Center of the earth? Some other plane of existence? Is it a physical realm?

He’ll exists amongst us already. In revolutions it states that god will open a lake of fire and cast the damned into it. He’ll (from my understanding) is earth.

Revelations

So a literal lake of fire? So does that mean Satan is in a volcano somewhere?

Sounds like Scientology.

You will know when you go there

What a terrible response. Quiet, coke-guzzling middle-American who lives in an irrelevant fly-over. Answer my fairy tale question or leave.

>2017
>Calling Christianity a fairy tale
Kill yourself kid

>2017
>not calling Christianity a fairy tale
Even Christians will tell you that the stories in the Bible are allegories instead of literal.

No, not physical. Not a place at all, since exists outside spacetime.
Should add, I'm not a Biblical literalist, unlike fundamentalists and atheists.

Quick question: do you believe that God literally exists as some sort of entity or is God just a metaphor?

Definitely that he exists, but I don't kid myself that I can say much more about an infinite mind. I mean, I believe human beings have a certain dignity, but a brain that would fit inside a salad bowl will never grasp the ineffable Being that keeps all that exists in a state of being.

>kill yourself kid

Very Christian of you.

IT'S THE CURRENT YEAR
IT'S THE CURRENT YEAR
IT'S THE CURRENT YEAR
IT'S THE CURRENT YEAR
IT'S THE CURRENT YEAR

Just checking. So you do take some parts of the Bible literally.

hehl is a harmony of fire and water in astrology , so the tropics , .

Inside your mind.

Yeah, but I don't find it very difficult to distinguish genres, so, for example, I can tell a parable from a poem from a legend from straight history. So, when some book in the OT goes on for pages listing all the families that were part of a particular settlement, I interpret it not as a fairy tale but as a proto-census. (Frankly, it's too dull to be a fairy tale.)
I'm actually reading the Bible right now on a one-year plan to read the whole thing. I'm coming up on 8 months in, and I have never run into a difficulty, but I'm flexible, as you have to be when reading what isn't one book but scores of different books. Asking if someone reads the Bible literally is like asking is someone reads a library literally.

Hell, as in the place where people are tortured forever, isn't really in the Bible. It's a confused interpretation of Sheol which simply means the grave and the prophecies of Revelations, like the lake of fire etc.

I run into a difficulty with the first sentence, as there's no good reason to believe that there is such an entity as God.

I think there are many good reasons to believe in God, but the Bible isn't a work of apologetics. It's not speaking to non-believers making the case for why they should believe. It is a work for people who already believe. I think that's fairly self-apparent.

You’re soaking in it desu senpai

Well I definitely don't agree with that first part. Also, if the Bible is a work for people who already believe, why is it used by missionaries and such who are trying to convert non-believers?

>the year of our lord 2017
>not realizing that reality is a hologram
Physical reality is simply one collective congregation of souls, hell, presumably, would be another.

None of it exists. Nothing happens when you die. Get used to it

I'm no missionary, but I suspect they're doing what Paul does in Athens in Acts of the Apostles - saying, "You already believe in God, but you're confused about who He is. Let me show you."
To be honest, it's easier by far to believe in God and to believe in many premises about God that you can derive from reason, a la Aquinas. Revealed religion is a whole 'nother can of worms. I have a few theories about it, but in short I think it is mostly intuitive. What rings true. I read something yesterday where someone said, I paraphrase, 'life is fucking hard and painful and full of suffering, and I would find it hard to believe in or champion a god who felt none of that." So for that person, the crucifixion had the ring of truth.

Just curious: why would that view be preferable, even if true, to a view that says there is an afterlife?

Hell is Sup Forums

Well I certainly agree that many people find it easier to believe in God. It often provides a sense of comfort to them.

As for reason, a sound argument for the existence of God has yet to be demonstrated. All of Aquinas' arguments attempting to do so fail, as do their many modern reworkings.

>autistic screeching
Hell is other people

Found the rick and Morty fan

You're wrong about Aquinas. In fact, you couldn't be right, since arguments from logic are not like math equations. Because not everyone is persuaded by an argument does not make the argument faulty. And don't mistake me: I didn't say it was comforting to believe in God. I can think of many ways in which atheism is more comforting. I'll never pay for what I've done, etc.

As a christian and a follower of the judeo-christian Yaweh (god of war originating from ancient semetic polytheism), I can say 95% of the bible is complete and utter BS that was written to control people. But Christianity can also teach people to be good WITHOUT opressing them. Its called religious freedom.

>95% of comparative reliigion claims are complete and utter BS

Actually, arguments are very much like math equations. If you accept the premises and the structure is valid, then you must accept the conclusion in order to be rational. If you do not accept the premises or the structure is invalid, then there is no reason to accept the conclusion.

There are religions, including Christianity, which include concepts of never paying for what you've done. Jesus died for your sins, so as long as you repent and accept him you'll never pay for whatever it is you did. Someone else is paying for what you've done.

The bible literally says YHWY was a son of el. This is part of the 5%, if that statistic is even true. What likely happened is some guy claimed Yaweh was better than the other gods and convinced everyone due to the money and power he held. Thats how a lot of these ainceint polytheistic relgions worked.

go down in that famous google russian hole that you will find hell. People say they stop escavating because they heard screams

Queretaro, nameless named, only for two, though, its just a shitty Mexican city for the rest

Americans on the whole generally haven't got a clue about Christianity. Jesus was essentially a socialist, and a peaceful one at that. America is a violent, rampantly capitalist society and Jesus would be utterly horrified by it. It's just used as a political tool. But shutting church doors in the face of the needy, using Christianity to make money from the gullible, and having an aneurysm at the idea of universal healthcare are all the complete fucking opposite of what Jesus stood for. So if there is a hell (Which there obviously isnt) half the "Christians" in America will be heading down there.

Well, yes, they are like math equations in that sense, but not in the sense that the numerals in a math equation require assent. When I say 2a + 2a = 20, so therefore a = 5, you are not tasked with determining whether or not 2 is true.
In short, there has never been a meaningful argument from logic/reason that every person, by force, has felt required to believe. But the fact that a certain percentage disagree with the argument doesn't mean it has failed.
Also, I think you misstate how Christians understand being saved. For example, Catholics and other orthodox churches believe in Purgatory. It's largely only the fundies who think faith is a get-out-of-jail-free card. Too, faith isn't understood as a way out of suffering but a joining with, so you hear as a refrain that the believer "takes up his own cross," and those with heroic faith often suffer or die for it.

Because he's a scared normie faggot who can't handle the possibility that this mundane reality isn't the only reality, and that he might end up somewhere incomprehensible to us humans

>2017
>believes the bible
How old are you? Did they not teach science in your highschool? Or history? Shit, even math disproves the bible, retard.

>The bible literally says YHWY was a son of el.
Um, no.

>Jesus was essentially a socialist
Jesus espouses no political program at all and, as a point of fact, articulates a separation of church and state.

This kind of atheism is surely an embarrassment to most atheists.

Same goes in every holy book

I meant in terms of attitude towards others, not necessarily politics.

True, disagreeing with an argument does not mean it has failed. However, demonstrating how the structure is invalid or how a premise is unjustified or outright false does.

Substitutionary atonement seems pretty central to much of mainstream Christianity to me. It is not a fringe view only embraced by fundamentalists.

Who created everything then?

Not even a fucking athiest

Where did you get "believes the Bible" from that comment?

>athiest

In Quran, Hell as a place is on the seventh sky

Why do you assume that there is a who which created everything?

Genesis 14:18-20 Abraham accepts a blessing from a phrophet of el. El in aincient hebrew was not used to refer to a specific god, it was used to describe multiple gods. The fact that abraham went to a prophet of EL shows that the term yaweh was not popularized at that point. Also it is believed (though not proven) that yaweh was the god of the city state of salem, which was were Abaraham recieved his blessing. But if you wanna deny all that blatent evidence go ahead.

Well, yes, he demands charity. Socialism is actually antithetical to charity in many ways.

This.

Hell is not mentioned in the Bible otherwise, at least not in the sense of an afterlife of punishment. Even in John 3:16, by "perish" it means the soul dies with the body.

Yeah.. I was replying to the dude above that post and fucked up.

Ever hear of the continuum? Nothing made god, he simply has always been, and always will be, like the real line.

Nice 1 user. Finally someone who knows his stuff

It's in the spiritual world and it's under heaven and under the earth so yes in the center of the earth. I believe the Bible also says the earth hangs over nothing and it's a sphere so where else would it be it everything above the sphere is heaven in the spiritual world

My foot isn't in your ass rn because I didn't do it yet. This example teaches us that things don't happen or appear from nowhere unless you make them. So tell me who created earth? Or simple one how earth has been created?

Substitutionary atonement is indeed mainstream, but it doesn't mean everyone gets a ticket to heaven. Far from it. Not even Paul thinks he has a lock on heaven: he works out his salvation in "fear and trembling," well aware that a good afterlife isn't guaranteed just because he believes. As, I believe, the letter of James says, paraphrase: Do you believe? Great, so do devils.

I should add that I don't believe the structures of Aquinas' arguments have been shown false. For example, all I have heard in response to his Prime Mover argument is the assertion that the universe has always existed, itself an unprovable premise.

>This example teaches us that things don't happen or appear from nowhere unless you make them.
It doesn't. Your foot and my ass already exist. Nothing is appearing from nowhere, things are appearing from somewhere.
>Or simple one how earth has been created?
Gravity acting on matter during the formation of the solar system.

My point is, a large amount of Americans identify as Christian, and yet selfishness and wealth inequality pervade American society. Lots of Christians are quick to scream socialism at ideas and measures that Jesus would quite obviously be in favour of.

Well, I understand that a lot of academic marxists and materialists are making these kind of unsubstantiated claims in religious studies departments, but in the end, saying that the ancient Israelites didn't know everything about God and received a gradual revelation of who he was is not very controversial. They obviously go from seeing God as one of many gods to seeing God as the sole deity. Instead of treating that as somehow a scandal, one might rather treat it as how revelation works - Israel knows God more and more until it meets him face to face in the person of Jesus. No orthodox believer would doubt that. What we would reject is the materialist interpretation, which begins with the premise that it's all bullshit.

You know the so called bible nowadays isn't the same version that was with Jesus. You know it has been changed or altered

Excellent who created gravity?

Quick question.. Any of u Sup Forumstards ever read the egg?

I am curious what political programs you think Jesus would be in favor of. I mean, he tells a follower to sell all his belongings and give it to the poor, not to the state.
As for "a lot of people are hypocrites," indeed. That is what a fallen world looks like.

You can take up your doctrinal differences with other believers if you like. The fact remains that are many people who identify as Christians who believe other than you do.
The Prime Mover argument, in its original form, fails in multiple ways. "Nothing moves without a prior mover." is an unjustified premise, and you do not have to appeal to the universe always existing to say so. Stationary objects can move one another for instance (e.g. gravity).
Additionally, the argument itself is contradictory. If nothing moves without a prior mover, then God must have a prior mover in order to move. If God does not need a prior mover in order to move, then clearly something can move without a prior mover.

Why do you assume a who created gravity?

One thing I notice in a lot of discussions about religion is people saying, "well this isn't in the bible," as if that is conclusive.
That seems to assume the Lutheran doctrine of sola scriptura, which turns 500 in 4 years. It is not the majority view of Christianity, though.

My bad lemme be more clear. The universe has not always existed. It had a start...what caused that?

>many people who identify as Christians who believe other than you do
right, we call them heretics
Also, you used gravity to move a stationary object, but of course gravity is engendered by mass, which is caused by...
Also, you mangle the Prime Mover argument, which is not contradictory, because it merely says a chain of cause and effect cannot be infinite. There must be something that causes the first causal link in the chain. That is ALL Aquinas means by God in that proof, nothing more. If there were someone behind God causing him, God would not be the Prime Mover, according to the argument. The thing causing God would be.

Why do you assume it had a cause?

Interesting footnote: when the Big Bang Theory was proposed it was mocked roundly by atheists who had assumed that the universe had always existed, and who called it a bit of religious foolery and creationism. The scientist who proposed the theory was a Catholic priest.
Funny how the theory is now orthodoxy, and his name is obscure. Georges Lemaitre.

Newton first law!

Im not saying Israelites dont know who their god is. What i AM saying is he was not always the ONLY got, even to Israelites.

Right, they believed, for example, Baal existed and was bad, and then they believed Baal was fiction.

>right, we call them heretics
They call you the same I imagine. It's irrelevant to me.
>Also, you used gravity to move a stationary object, but of course gravity is engendered by mass, which is caused by...
Mass isn't motion, therefore it is irrelevant to the argument.
>Also, you mangle the Prime Mover argument
"Nothing moves without a prior mover. This leads us to a regress, from which the only escape is God. Something had to make the first move, and that something we call God."
It is contradictory, which is why modern forms of the cosmological argument look quite different.
>it merely says a chain of cause and effect cannot be infinite
Which is already unjustified.
>There must be something that causes the first causal link in the chain. That is ALL Aquinas means by God in that proof, nothing more.
Then you've set up what I'll refer to as a "God by definition." God is merely being defined as the first causal link in the chain, which seems a bizarre thing to do to a word which carries so much baggage. You could define God as a particular piece of string for instance, thereby proving that God exists by demonstrating that the string exists, but what's the point?

The laws of physics as we currently understand them break down as you approach the beginning of the universe. Try again.

>where is hell?
Dunno. It's just a temporary holding box somewhere.

>Is it a physical realm?
Nah.

You have a very limited understanding of how that kind of thing works.

if god is real, why do i need andy sixx's log of shit down my throat?

No they don't. Basic science!

Because you have free will.

Enlighten me

>They call you the same I imagine.
Probably not. They're not very clear on concepts.
>Mass isn't motion
The Prime Mover isn't about motion
>It is contradictory
No, it isn't. Which is why you haven't shown a contradiction.
And it is not unjustified to say a chain of cause and effect is infinite.
If you don't see the difference between saying God is the reason everything exists and God is a piece of string, I don't know what to tell you.

Because you decided to be fag

This!

I'm not talking about the state. I'm not particularly religious, I don't believe Jesus was the son of God, but I do believe he existed and had some good ideas about how to treat people and live a good life. I find it more than a bit hypocritical for large sections of a society like the US to twist his ideas largely for greed and political gain. The attitude of the Christian right in particular flies completely in the face of what Jesus espoused.

don't bother with that free will shit, humans do not have free will, at least not unrestricted free will, that would imply you could do literally anything you could think about, which obviously isn't true

Do you believe that traveling into the future or back into the past will be possible one day?

>espoused

hurrrrr durrrrr i so smart

Yes, they do. Advanced science. What you're trying to do is akin to applying classical mechanics to subatomic particles.

nigga that shit already possible, try DMT

Without any outside effects, do you believe that it will be possible?

Well, we disagree, but you were calling Jesus a socialist, which is a political term for someone who wants socialism, or the state controlling the means of production and distributing all resources.
As for the Christian right, I don't know that they are less charitable than the Christian left or the secularists. In fact, the studies I've seen (for example, the book Who Really Cares?) say that those who identify as Christian and conservative give a lot more time and money to charity. Perhaps the reason they're called hypocrites is because they don't vote for statist solutions.

Michigan

>free will, that would imply you could do literally anything you could think about
lol, wut