sins to send you to hell (FAO keyplus especially)

[kryptic]

In this thread http://www.theanswerb.../Question1013029.html
I asked // Is hell a just punishment? (an eternity of suffering for finite sins) //
keyplus replied

// Now to answer your question in SIMPLE words.

1 - yes for certain sins. //

birdie responded with
// Are there sins for which you don't go to Hell? Can you give me an example of a sin that doesn't condemn you to Hell? //

To my knowledge, keyplus hasnt responded yet to birdies Q, just evaded the Q.
So I will ask, what sin DOESNT condemm me to an eternity of suffering at the hands of Allaha (or Jehovah, jesus, zeus et all)

[Cowtipper]

Lol. I haven't read the Jehovah Witness bible. I did try to do the Mormon bible but it was as blank to me as the Koran. People do the best that they can with what they have to work with, myself included. The crack at King James wasn't fair and was a bit of tongue in cheek. As more and more old works are translated we continue to grow in our understanding. Baptism is a transliterated word from Greek. It means "dunk" but when a political figure is a sprinkler and the word means "immerse" then it doesn't get translated as such. Its best not to irritate the man that writes the paychecks. The "thee" and "thou" used in it didn't even match the patterns of speech when it was written but it was translated that way. The old Greek of the New Testament isn't really hard to read.

[mike11111]

I have a copy of the New Testament in Greek which I had to purchase as part of my Greek studies as a schoolboy way back in the 60s. I also have two copies of the AV of the Bible, one which I was awarded as a school prize and one which I inherited from a late uncle. I also possess a finely bound edition of the Book of Common Prayer (1662) presented to me after my confirmation in 1960. I have no further use for any additional texts. That which sustained my forefathers also sustaineth me.

[Cowtipper]

We certainly don't get that sort of education here. If I hadn't hated school so much I'd wish I had some of yours.

[WuTang]

Hell is other people

[mike11111]

You mean, "L'Enfer, c'est les autres". Jean-Paul Sartre.

[WuTang]

I guess

[beso]

CowTipper//
the Old King Jimmy isn't as accurate as it should be. Politics instead of religion unfortunately.//

Religion IS Politics. Manipulating the version and interpretation is par for the course. Realise they are all books written and reinterpreted by ignorant, bigoted, misogynist, self-aggrandised men for their own power.

//Yes there are people that manipulate others for their own gain and will use whatever tools available to do it.//

The presence of alternatives to religion to manipulate people in no way excuses the provision of such tools by religion.

//If you want insanity look at how many people have died and are dieing over an atheist's society like communism. //

I get so tired if this stock response from the religious apologists. Communism doens't believe in a fictional sky man but is a religious belief none-the-less and suffers the same weakness as the deist varieties. They have a centrally decided unquestionable philosophy and an ends justifies the means mentality.

Moreover atheism being part of a communist doctrine does not make communism the model for atheism. I no more support communist rule than I do religious rule.

[mike11111]

Language is interesting. The singular form of the second person pronoun "thou" and its derivatives has disappeared from modern English yet is retained in most European languages as a familiar form used to address children, relatives and close friends. It is considered impolite to use this form when addressing a stranger or anyone perceived to be of higher standing than the person speaking, yet is used to address God.

[Cowtipper]

So politics are religion? No wonder you hate it. "They have a centrally decided unquestionable philosophy and an ends justifies the means mentality." I'm pretty sure that's every government in the world.

You have an unquestionable opinion on God and that's your opinion. Would you force others to conform to your belief if it got rid of any belief in a higher power?

[beso]

The difference between political or religious regimes and democracy is that with the latter the society has the right to elect those who make the rules.It is certainly no unquestionable.

Incredible you could not see that difference yourself. But then religion only paints two concepts of government. The flawed Rule of Man and the perfect Rule of the Lord.

I certainly would never prevent another from the right to believe in whatever they want. What I will not tolerate is such people demanding that they be immune from having their philosophy openly criticised, particularly while they continue to flood the world with their propaganda.

[beso]

mike11111
/// Language is interesting. The singular form of the second person pronoun "thou" ...[is] ... considered impolite to use this form when addressing a stranger or anyone perceived to be of higher standing than the person speaking.///

One place in English were we do change pronoun in an unexpected way is the change to third person (well not even person for that matter) when introducing oneself on the phone.

We don't say as might be expected " I am whomever" but "It is whomever".

What happens in other languages in this situation?

[Cowtipper]

"They have a centrally decided unquestionable philosophy and an ends justifies the means mentality." "The difference between political or religious regimes and democracy is that with the latter the society has the right to elect those who make the rules."

Lets break this down...
Your government doesn't accept challenges to the status quo and I assure you there is a philosophy. Go ahead and try to change the form of government you have. You may think that you have some control over who gets to be in the central government, but as you said entrenchment keeps it going. Whoever is in power is right and if you buck that you'll find out how quickly you're wrong. You may have rights to Fosters and moan in public but martial law is a signature away.

"What I will not tolerate is such people demanding that they be immune from having their philosophy openly criticized, particularly while they continue to flood the world with their propaganda. "

You vehemently defend your position. Why? You have absolutely no idea if you're right. Nothing but you and your belief is important in your eyes.

"What I will not tolerate is such people demanding that they be immune from having their philosophy openly criticized"
I think I've taken enough criticism from you and your ilk to last a lifetime. I've described several benefits of religion and you haven't accepted a single one of them as valid.

I'm finished talking to you because I'll never be able to find common ground and you don't have room for compromise. You refuse to accept that something good has come from man believing there is more to life than just what he can touch.

I took a tongue in cheek approach and you responded with
"This kind of rubbish is the best the theists can manage as an argument to back their delusion." That should be a question mark, by the way. That's a pret

[Cowtipper]

pretty vehement response to challenging your belief.

[beso]

Once again you instinctively connect any sense that there is more than what we see as automatically belonging to religion. Same as you do with morality as though there would be no morality without the doctrine of the church.

Religions have always assumed authority over spirituality. Some assume that a person without religion is a person with a sense of spirit. Spirit means many things to many people and many of these ways bear little or no resemblance to the Abrahamic traditions.

"Religion is man's way of protecting himself from spiritual experience."

What religious leaders fear most is for the ordinary person to take control and responsibility of their own spirituality because it would make their doctrine irrelevant and irrelevant doctrine means irrelevant oligarchs.

[jomifl]

Cowtipper..The kind of communism that existed in soviet russia was just as much a religion as christianity or any other recognised religion. The part dogma took precedence over everything, people were sacrificed to the party ideals. It was a religion without a god just as some people believe in god without religion.

[Cowtipper]

I thought this was cool:
The Moral Code of the Builder of Communism (as reported on Wikisource):

1. Devotion to the cause of Communism, love of the socialist Motherland and of the socialist countries.
2. Conscientious labor for the good of society: he who does not work, neither shall he eat.
4. High sense of public duty; intolerance of actions harmful to the public interest.
5. Collectivism and comradely mutual assistance: one for all and all for one.
6. Humane relations and mutual respect between individuals: man is to man a friend, a comrade, and a brother.
7. Honesty and truthfulness, moral purity, unpretentiousness and modesty in social and private life.
8. Mutual respect in the family, concern for the upbringing of children.
9. Irreconcilability towards injustice, parasitism, dishonesty, careerism, and profiteering.
10. Friendship and brotherhood among all peoples of the USSR, intolerance of national and racial hatred.
11. Intolerance towards the enemies of communism, peace, and freedom of nations.
12. Fraternal solidarity with the working people of all countries, and with all peoples.

[jomifl]

So then ..12 commandments must be 20% better than christianity...

[Cowtipper]

Religion puts God first.
Communism puts the state first.
The atheist puts themselves first.
Right?

[mike11111]

Judaism has 10 commandments, Christianity has only 2.

[birdie1971]

Cowtipper - “Religion puts God first. Communism puts the state first. The atheist puts themselves first. Right?”

Wrong. Because it depends on the individual atheist. Personally, I would put the human race first as a general principal.