Originally posted by Deja~vu
The way Judgment day is presented is that the dead and the living will be judged before god. If people were sent to hell they would get a re-sentence (which doesn't make any sense, but hey it's a small break from the flames) The goats on the left and sheep on the right. The sheep get to go to heaven the goats go back into hell, the living will also be sentenced to hell, if you're in the goat line. lol
^ Biblical or Koranic?
Originally posted by 0mega SpawnThis is pretty much exactly why I think it is stupid to believe that everyone who doesn't believe, to be damned, it just doesn't make sense.
YouTube video
Re: Is there a chance a non-believer will go to heaven?
Originally posted by SamZEDthey go the elysian fields, but they wont get to hang with moses cause jesus took all the really cool non christians out to party with him in heaven
A question to religious people only (obviously).Most religions believe that people who worship other Gods or do not believe in God at all will go to hell. So my question is - is it possible for a nonbeliever to go to heaven?
For example, someone lives in some village. Never even heard of cellphones, let alone religions but is generally a very good person. Works hard, doent steal, kill etc. Maybe even saved many peoples lives etc. But he'll go to hell because he's never even heard of Christ or Allah?
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
there's no such thing as heaven.and to me, a non-believer is a person whom doesn't believe that there isn't a god which there isn't factually.
Incorrect. You cannot prove that God does not exist. At best you can show it isn't likely He exists, but not even that has been accomplished I say.
I don't know he anyone has said it yet, but God has blinded most of the world to the truth. They wouldn't believe if god himself came down and gave em a tittie twister. Which is why you christians need to lay off the atheists. It's not their fault. They will have their shot during the millenium. Same with the people of wro faiths.
Originally posted by leonheartmmIf you thought what he did was rude then why would you go and do the exact same thing? Cultlike? 😆 (it's still funny) seriously though it's easier to believe that even with all that you've learned from your readings that you're the one who doesn't offer any supernatural authority.
rude much? you dont even know me, yet you think u know enough about me to claim that im not familiar with the subject, and then go on to tell me why i beleive what i do.your approach to relegion is zealous and cultlike and you are going by your own rather selective interpretation. i ave read more gospel and indeed more gospelS than you have. i study theology and history, two things which you seem to have no interest in. the bible is an imperfect compilation, as such, it describes a wide variety of different and often contradictory dogmas and ideas. there is no one truth in it. and there is no SCRIPTURAL PROOF, thats an oxymoron, scriptures are about myths/aspirations/dogma and a reflection of the niches in socity at the time. it doesnt offer any supernatural authority.
Originally posted by Deja~vuIt doesn't make sense because the bible doesn't say that. Hell, or Hel isn't in the bible. Mainly because it's a pagan word. There are three words that are translated hell: Sheol, Geheena and Tartarus. There are three diff words because they mean three diff things. Gehienna is the lake of fire. Tartarus is where the fallen angels are and Sheol are where those who didn't make it, for whatever reason, maybe atheists, are held. Geh, i.e lake of fire is where the evil ones as well as Sheol and Tartarus are destroyed after judgment Those currently in holding in sheol aren't damned, they will in through the millenium where they are taught the truth by christ himself. They can still make it. But those angels in Tartarus are damned.
Biblical. More the protestant church and fundamental movement.What never made sense to me is that the people in hell would be brought up and rejudged and sent back to hell. Why all that? Is it some tease?
Originally posted by MRasheedTell me this...
When the Most Knowledgable, Most Understanding being in all of existence says that truly the worst crime/sin is to disbelieve in the One who made you, but little menokokoro, who is not the most knowledgable, most understanding being in existence, and is still trying to figure out the little corner of life in his control, says that disbelief in the One who made me is a trivial matter...
...which one should I give the benefit of the doubt that they know what they are actually talking about?
Then I would say that that God is petty and has his/her priorites mixed up, and not worthy of judging anyone. It truly is a trivial matter, especially if said person is in all other aspects, a good person.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
The Koran actually addresses that apparent loophole, for "those who hath not heard the word". On the Day of Reckoning (in the Koran) people who lived before Islam and others who never had the option to hear and accept it or turn it down (eg: lost Amazonian tribes) will all be gathered before the Lord. Allah will speak unto them, deliver an ulitmatum, and then judge them accordingly."Of all who plot, it is He who plots best".
Gee, I kinda wish I was born in the time before Islam. He wouldn't have to give me an ultimatum if I knew he/she existed. lol It's a lot easier to believe when you know something is real.
Originally posted by socool8520
Then I would say that that God is petty and has his/her priorites mixed up, and not worthy of judging anyone. It truly is a trivial matter, especially if said person is in all other aspects, a good person.
You are doing the same thing the quote you are replying to was addressing.
You consider it petty and mixed priorities. But it's your word against an all loving, all just God. Between those two, who is more likely to have a true understanding of justice?
Originally posted by TacDavey
You are doing the same thing the quote you are replying to was addressing.[B]You
consider it petty and mixed priorities. But it's your word against an all loving, all just God. Between those two, who is more likely to have a true understanding of justice? [/B]
But we only have your word that God is all loving and all just.
It's not his definition vs Gods.
It's his definition vs yours and yours includes torturing people for no reason.