Freedom or Religion

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



lord xyz
Okay, first you'll ask, "How can you say such a thing? People can still be free with religion. **insult** " so to avoid that, I'll explain if anyone says 'religious freedom' it will be classed as an oxymoron.

First I'll talk about freedom.

Freedom

According to dictionary.com, freedom has over 9 definitions.


They're all pretty much saying 'To do whatever you want.' or more commonly known as 'Independant.'.
Unfortunately no one can be truly 'independant' because we rely on farmers, workers, and the government. So just take note,
"No one can be independant."
So maybe freedom just means, no oppression, no deceit, no discrimination, 'Being treated EQUALLY.'. Now you're probably thinking, "That must mean religion means 'Not treating equally.'.". Well, lets see.

Religion


Now 1, 2 and 4 are irrelevant. (If not, please state why.) But no. 3 is saying "Beliefs based on a leader." But how can you be sure that the beliefs are by the person you think? Did Jesus say, "All blacks and slaves are inferior?" Did Muhammed say "Kill the non-believers"? I don't think so. Religion has evolved from a philosophical theory, to a stubborn belief system. It being stubborn would suggest they only believe the first assumption, and if that assumption is wrong, then we're screwed. But how can the assumption be wrong in the first place? Well here's a little demonstration I made.

1. I believe this fascinating person is right and you don't so I'm right.
2. If I make you believe him you are right, but until then you are wrong.
3. If you are wrong and I am right, I must be better than you.

That is discrimination. Which could lead to segregation, slavery, and detention. Anyone can see that that is against freedom. So now we can say,
"Religion is an antonym of freedom."

Question

So which is it? Are you willing to give up your beliefs for freedom? Or are you going to give up your freedom for what you believe in.? Or others freedom? Choose wisely and give your reasons. Or if you think I'm talking bullshit, please explain why. Thank you.

Mindship
Your presentation seems to be an indictment against religionism (and I do not entirely disagree). That aside, aren't we free to choose our religious beliefs?

Alliance
I say yes...as long as they allow for plurality.

Trickster
Mindship - what's religionism?

docb77
As far as freedom goes, the #1 argument is fairly impossible. Example: I can be free to take drugs, but it I do they themselves restrain me by addicting me to them. Many laws/rules actually increase liberty by getting you to avoid a consequence that would harm you or take away your ability to choose.

for religion - def #2 may be the only definition that agrees with your argument, but the others are all still valid. There are many religious people who fail to live up to the rules of their beliefs. They are still religious, they are still free to either choose to follow those laws, or not. Religion is about beliefs. That's all, there may be rules involved, but there doesn't have to be.

So, does the one preclude the other? I say no. In fact I would say that at some degree they are almost intrinsically connected. If people didn't believe that others had the right to believe as they chose (which could be part of religion by the definition given), The freedom of others could, and possibly would be greatly curtailed.

Mindship
Originally posted by Trickster
Mindship - what's religionism?

Religionism is religion 'gone bad,' what most people think of when discussing (usually organized) religion and/or religion used as a reason to persecute/hurt/kill others. In effect...

Religion is truth-serving and ultimately self-transcending.
Religionism is ego-serving and ultimately self-contradicting.

At least, this is how I see it. Not everyone would agree.

Trickster
Ah, I get what you mean. And no, I don't totally agree with you.

lord xyz
Originally posted by docb77
As far as freedom goes, the #1 argument is fairly impossible. Example: I can be free to take drugs, but it I do they themselves restrain me by addicting me to them. Not if you take control, it IS possible, it HAS been done. There are various ways, (no, I'm not refering to a 12 step program,) things like therapy can help you beat drugs. But this should really be talked about in the drugs thread.
Originally posted by docb77
Many laws/rules actually increase liberty by getting you to avoid a consequence that would harm you or take away your ability to choose. Again, this is irrelevant but anyway, the government ordering you what to do is not a way of obtaining freedom, I guess next you'll say "We need to give up our liberties for our freedom." so I'll say this now. THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT A BABYSITTER. The law is like a set of rules to keep people safe. If I **** myself up, I'm not hurting anyone else so it's not the government's issue. The government taking that away is taking away my freedom.

Now back on topic.

Originally posted by docb77
for religion - def #2 may be the only definition that agrees with your argument, actually it was #3, and I already said that.
Originally posted by docb77
but the others are all still valid. There are many religious people who fail to live up to the rules of their beliefs. They are still religious, they are still free to either choose to follow those laws, or not. no, the 'laws of a religion' are like 'the laws of physics' if you go against those 'laws' you're going against your religion and therefore you aren't a part of that religion. You are still religious, but not part of the religion. It's kinda complex, and I'm not very good at explaining.
Originally posted by docb77
Religion is about beliefs. That's all, there may be rules involved, but there doesn't have to be. wrong, wrong and wrong. Philosophy is about belief. Religion is where you choose to use those beliefs to explain things you couldn't, and you prefer beliefs, not knowledge. Religious people are Fundamentalists.

Originally posted by docb77
So, does the one preclude the other? I say no. In fact I would say that at some degree they are almost intrinsically connected. If people didn't believe that others had the right to believe as they chose (which could be part of religion by the definition given), The freedom of others could, and possibly would be greatly curtailed. You're confusing religion with philosophy, which I personally don't have a problem with. You can have philosophy, (beliefs) but not in a fundamental way. Or in a way that suggest it's fact and right which iis caused by the teachings of religion. And I've already demonstrated how that can lead towards discrimiation, deceit and slavery. (The opposite of freedom.)

I think that's cleared things up for you. wink

Lord Urizen
I am for BOTH.

Freedom OF Religion, and Freedom to not have a religion.

docb77
Originally posted by lord xyz
Not if you take control, it IS possible, it HAS been done. There are various ways, (no, I'm not refering to a 12 step program,) things like therapy can help you beat drugs. But this should really be talked about in the drugs thread.
Again, this is irrelevant but anyway, the government ordering you what to do is not a way of obtaining freedom, I guess next you'll say "We need to give up our liberties for our freedom." so I'll say this now. THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT A BABYSITTER. The law is like a set of rules to keep people safe. If I **** myself up, I'm not hurting anyone else so it's not the government's issue. The government taking that away is taking away my freedom.

I didn't mean to imply that all laws or rules helped one have more liberty, just that many do.


Originally posted by lord xyz
Now back on topic.

actually it was #3, and I already said that.
no, the 'laws of a religion' are like 'the laws of physics' if you go against those 'laws' you're going against your religion and therefore you aren't a part of that religion. You are still religious, but not part of the religion. It's kinda complex, and I'm not very good at explaining.
wrong, wrong and wrong. Philosophy is about belief. Religion is where you choose to use those beliefs to explain things you couldn't, and you prefer beliefs, not knowledge. Religious people are Fundamentalists.

You're confusing religion with philosophy, which I personally don't have a problem with. You can have philosophy, (beliefs) but not in a fundamental way. Or in a way that suggest it's fact and right which iis caused by the teachings of religion. And I've already demonstrated how that can lead towards discrimiation, deceit and slavery. (The opposite of freedom.)

I think that's cleared things up for you. wink

Actually I still stand by most of what I said. I made a mistake in which definition I was quoting, but the rest was still a fairly accurate representation of my veiwpoint.

Perhaps an example would best illustrate the point I was trying to make. My religion teaches that sex outside of marriage is wrong. Does that preclude me from having sex without being married? No. I still believe that it is wrong, but if I chose to do so I still have that freedom. However, there are consequences that come with every decision. The simplified version of the religious consequence is hell. I want to avoid hell, so therefore I want to avoid sin. Again this is my choice. Religion doesn't preclude freedom, rather it directs you in how to use freedom that is innate to you.

To put it another way, here's a scripture from the Book of Mormon:

2 Nephi 2:26-27
26 And the Messiah cometh in the fulness of time, that he may redeem the children of men from the fall. And because that they are redeemed from the fall they have become free forever, knowing good from evil; to act for themselves and not to be acted upon, save it be by the punishment of the law at the great and last day, according to the commandments which God hath given.
27 Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh; and all things are given them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal glife, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself.

Regret
Originally posted by lord xyz
Not if you take control, it IS possible, it HAS been done. There are various ways, (no, I'm not referring to a 12 step program,) things like therapy can help you beat drugs. But this should really be talked about in the drugs thread.


It IS impossible to escape the effects of drugs.

There are various ways, (no, I'm not referring to a 12 step program,) things like therapy can help you control your addiction to drugs.

If you ever were an addict, you will always be an addict. Ask any psychologist, this is the view held by the scientific community.

Physiologically your brain is altered when a drug is taken, this is impossible to avoid, you are not the same physiologically ever again. One exposure is all it takes for you to be unable to make a statement about that drug that is not effected by that exposure.

This is scientific fact, not scientific hypothesis, or even scientific inference, it is fact.


Now, as far as definitions go. If a term has multiple definitions, as long as the use of the term fits one of the definitions the term still fits.

Originally posted by lord xyz
They're all pretty much saying 'To do whatever you want.' or more commonly known as 'independent.'.
Unfortunately no one can be truly 'independent' because we rely on farmers, workers, and the government. So just take note,
"No one can be independent."
So maybe freedom just means, no oppression, no deceit, no discrimination, 'Being treated EQUALLY.'.

First, a definition must be straightforward. They are not pretty much saying anything. Each definition is literally saying something. The definitions do not have to be in any way related, and often they do not relate. The grouping, or combining, of definitions is not a wise decision.

Second, nowhere in those definitions did I find a statement that suggested the avoidance of the consequences of actions taken in the use of said freedom.

Third, independent is only used in the 3a definition, yet you use it as the main combined definition. This is inappropriate, if it could be boiled down to your pretty much definition, it would be.

Fourth, it is not "pretty much saying 'To do whatever you want.'" It is saying you have the ability to do whatever you want. Freedom is not doing whatever you want.

Religion
Originally posted by lord xyz
A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

If someone chooses these beliefs, which is what this is stating, they are free to change these beliefs. It is a choice made, freedom by your definition supports such a choice.

Freedom does not come into conflict with discriminatory beliefs. The ability to discriminate is a freedom, and is protected by your definition of freedom. The ability to persecute others is protected by your definition of freedom. Religion and freedom are not antonyms.

Religions do not limit freedom, they just describe the consequences of actions. I know of few religions that in and of themselves are capable of limiting your freedom. Now some governments have been theocracies, but it was the governmental authority that was able to limit freedom, not the religion.


I don't have to choose, if I choose freedom, I can still be my religion. If I choose my religion, I am as free as I have chosen to be.

lord xyz
Originally posted by docb77
I didn't mean to imply that all laws or rules helped one have more liberty, just that many do. uh huh.
Originally posted by docb77
Actually I still stand by most of what I said. I made a mistake in which definition I was quoting, but the rest was still a fairly accurate representation of my veiwpoint. noneup
Originally posted by docb77
Perhaps an example would best illustrate the point I was trying to make. My religion teaches that sex outside of marriage is wrong. Does that preclude me from having sex without being married? No. I still believe that it is wrong, but if I chose to do so I still have that freedom.What freedom? You just said married people can't have sex outside of it. How is that free?
Originally posted by docb77
However, there are consequences that come with every decision. The simplified version of the religious consequence is hell. I want to avoid hell, so therefore I want to avoid sin. Again this is my choice. Religion doesn't preclude freedom, rather it directs you in how to use freedom that is innate to you.ermm There is no hell. They made that up to motivate you; You believing that makes you delusional and now you aren't free to do what you want because you have been tricked into thinking some things are wrong. Nice. no expression
Originally posted by docb77
To put it another way, here's a scripture from the Book of Morons:

2 Nephi 2:26-27
26 And the Messiah cometh in the fulness of time, that he may redeem the children of men from the fall. And because that they are redeemed from the fall they have become free forever, knowing good from evil; to act for themselves and not to be acted upon, save it be by the punishment of the law at the great and last day, according to the commandments which God hath given.
27 Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh; and all things are given them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal glife, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself. How does this make religion seem free?
Originally posted by Regret
It IS impossible to escape the effects of drugs. What about recovering alcoholics and people who've quit smoking?
Originally posted by Regret
There are various ways, (no, I'm not referring to a 12 step program,) things like therapy can help you control your addiction to drugs.
If you ever were an addict, you will always be an addict. Ask any psychologist, this is the view held by the scientific community. Could you please show me evidence to support this?
Originally posted by Regret
Physiologically your brain is altered when a drug is taken, this is impossible to avoid, you are not the same physiologically ever again. One exposure is all it takes for you to be unable to make a statement about that drug that is not effected by that exposure. Well I've had quite a few drugs. I've had rushes of adrenaline and other bodily fluids. I see what you're getting at where drugs are permanent changes, but you can reduce that change. Ecstacy for example, makes you incredibly happy and incredibly thirsty. But that only happens for a while. Not forever.
Originally posted by Regret
This is scientific fact, not scientific hypothesis, or even scientific inference, it is fact. Evidence?
Originally posted by Regret
Now, as far as definitions go. If a term has multiple definitions, as long as the use of the term fits one of the definitions the term still fits. ??? Meaning....?
Originally posted by Regret
First, a definition must be straightforward. They are not pretty much saying anything. Each definition is literally saying something. The definitions do not have to be in any way related, and often they do not relate. The grouping, or combining, of definitions is not a wise decision. Which is why I didn't. I don't understand what you're getting at here. The other definitions are irrelevant because they aren't to do with freedom.
Originally posted by Regret
Second, nowhere in those definitions did I find a statement that suggested the avoidance of the consequences of actions taken in the use of said freedom. Like I said,
"how can you be sure that the beliefs are by the person you think? Did Jesus say, "All blacks and slaves are inferior?" Did Muhammed say "Kill the non-believers"? I don't think so. Religion has evolved from a philosophical theory, to a stubborn belief system. It being stubborn would suggest they only believe the first assumption, and if that assumption is wrong, then we're screwed. But how can the assumption be wrong in the first place? Well here's a little demonstration I made.

1. I believe this fascinating person is right and you don't so I'm right.
2. If I make you believe him you are right, but until then you are wrong.
3. If you are wrong and I am right, I must be better than you.

That is discrimination. Which could lead to segregation, slavery, and detention. Anyone can see that that is against freedom."

Originally posted by Regret
Third, independent is only used in the 3a definition, yet you use it as the main combined definition. This is inappropriate, if it could be boiled down to your pretty much definition, it would be.
???
Originally posted by Regret
Fourth, it is not "pretty much saying 'To do whatever you want.'" It is saying you have the ability to do whatever you want. Freedom is not doing whatever you want. Wait, what?
I have the ability to do whatever I want. Okay, (this is refering to what I said to docb77) how can you have that ability if you've been tricked into believing something which LIMITS you from doing certain things?
Originally posted by Regret
Religion


If someone chooses these beliefs, which is what this is stating, they are free to change these beliefs. It is a choice made, freedom by your definition supports such a choice. Maybe if I say religion is a drug, you'll understand how religion affects people.
Originally posted by Regret
Freedom does not come into conflict with discriminatory beliefs. The ability to discriminate is a freedom, and is protected by your definition of freedom. The ability to persecute others is protected by your definition of freedom. Religion and freedom are not antonyms.
WHAT?!?! We are allowed to discriminate? Freedom means discrimination? You are seriously ****ed in the head if you think that. blink
Originally posted by Regret
Religions do not limit freedom, they just describe the consequences of actions. Yeah, if I told someone they will get tortured because they're doing something I don't like, that wouldn't be free would it?
Originally posted by Regret
I know of few religions that in and of themselves are capable of limiting your freedom. Now some governments have been theocracies, but it was the governmental authority that was able to limit freedom, not the religion. "I know of few religions that in and of themselves are capable of limiting your freedom."
"Now some governments have been theocracies, but it was the governmental authority that was able to limit freedom, not the religion."

Nice double talk you have there. roll eyes (sarcastic)
Originally posted by Regret
I don't have to choose, if I choose freedom, I can still be my religion. If I choose my religion, I am as free as I have chosen to be. Gee, I hope you don't run for president. blink

Regret
Originally posted by lord xyz
What about recovering alcoholics and people who've quit smoking?

Could you please show me evidence to support this?

Well I've had quite a few drugs. I've had rushes of adrenaline and other bodily fluids. I see what you're getting at where drugs are permanent changes, but you can reduce that change. Ecstacy for example, makes you incredibly happy and incredibly thirsty. But that only happens for a while. Not forever.

Evidence?

No, these chemical substances do not just alter your emotional state. These substances alter the synaptic region of the neurons they come into contact with. This alteration is permanent. It will never be as it was before. I'm not going to look for the references to back this up as it would be extensive and would require you learning sufficient neurobiology to understand. It would be like asking for references to support E=MC^2, it would be to extensive to make a practical attempt on a forum. Also, a decent literature review would be required to support my claim. I will not do that to support the claim on a forum, it takes too much time and effort. I work in the field of psychology, and my secondary emphasis was physiological psychology, this education gives me the knowledge to make these statements.

Originally posted by lord xyz
??? Meaning....?

Meaning that to use the term freedom only one definition must be met, not all the definitions.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Which is why I didn't. I don't understand what you're getting at here. The other definitions are irrelevant because they aren't to do with freedom.

I am still referring to your definitions of freedom, not to the definition of religion.



This was your interpretation based on the group of definitions. It is a grouping or combining of the definitions of freedom, and it is not in keeping with the definitions as a whole. You are adding to the definitions you presented in making your assertion.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Like I said,
"how can you be sure that the beliefs are by the person you think? Did Jesus say, "All blacks and slaves are inferior?" Did Muhammed say "Kill the non-believers"? I don't think so. Religion has evolved from a philosophical theory, to a stubborn belief system. It being stubborn would suggest they only believe the first assumption, and if that assumption is wrong, then we're screwed. But how can the assumption be wrong in the first place? Well here's a little demonstration I made.

1. I believe this fascinating person is right and you don't so I'm right.
2. If I make you believe him you are right, but until then you are wrong.
3. If you are wrong and I am right, I must be better than you.

That is discrimination. Which could lead to segregation, slavery, and detention. Anyone can see that that is against freedom."

You are referring to it against freedom in a rather broad sense, and you are using a slippery slope argument, also termed an appeal to probability, to justify your argument. Appeal to Probability - Possibility of a thing occurring makes the thing true. It is an invalid argument, discrimination does not necessarily lead to segregation, slavery, and detention. So discrimination is not in itself against freedom.

Originally posted by lord xyz
???

Your definition sucks. Independence is not used in any of the definitions other than the political one. Using it in your overall pretty much statement is inappropriate, it doesn't fit the full list of definitions you posted.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Wait, what?
I have the ability to do whatever I want. Okay, (this is referring to what I said to docb77) how can you have that ability if you've been tricked into believing something which LIMITS you from doing certain things?

Belief does not limit. It has no enforcement outside the individual. Freedom is the capability to do. I believe that watching movies with excessive sexuality is a sin, this in no way inhibits my ability to watch said movie. I still have freedom to do as I will. So this reasoning for religion being incompatible with freedom is false.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Maybe if I say religion is a drug, you'll understand how religion affects people.

Voluntary action, that results in a loss of freedom, is not incompatible with freedom. By saying you cannot voluntarily lose your freedom is incompatible with freedom.

Originally posted by lord xyz
WHAT?!?! We are allowed to discriminate? Freedom means discrimination? You are seriously ****ed in the head if you think that. blink

Freedom does not mean discrimination. Freedom allows a person to discriminate. If it does not, then is it as free as you claim? You are putting limits to freedom by stating a person cannot discriminate if he is free. You made the discrimination claim, I am merely pointing out the flaw in using it as an excuse to state that religion and freedom are incompatible.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Yeah, if I told someone they will get tortured because they're doing something I don't like, that wouldn't be free would it?

You are appealing to the idea that God makes the punishment. I personally do not believe that torture is the punishment of sin. I believe that sin causes you to lose freedom, not through God binding you in some way, but by you being incapable of acting as you would be able otherwise. But this is irrelevant. You choose to believe what you want, it is guaranteed by freedom.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Nice double talk you have there. roll eyes (sarcastic)
Gee, I hope you don't run for president. blink

We are talking religion in general, now if you were to say choose freedom as it exists in the western nations or religion as it exists in Iran, then the question would be valid from your arguments. It is not a valid question as you presented it.

I do not believe that life is entirely free, and I do not believe it should be. I do not want people to have the freedom to shoot me should they choose to. I do not want people to be free to hurt and unduly limit others freedoms. I believe there is a fine line at what point limiting freedoms becomes unbearable, and at what point not limiting freedoms impacts the level of freedoms enjoyed. I disagree with discrimination, but I do believe that if my neighbor dislikes me because I am Mormon that is a freedom he should be allowed.

You are oversimplifying situations, I hope that no one with your views ever comes to power. Oh, wait it's happened in the past. People think they know what's best and make everyone agree with it. It's pretty much how all governments are. Anarchy isn't necessarily freedom.

Justbyfaith
Originally posted by lord xyz
There is no hell.

Really? How are you so sure?

debbiejo
Originally posted by Justbyfaith
Really? How are you so sure? Because in the original language it only means death. There is no teaching of it by Moses at all and you would think that HE WOULD BE SURELY THE ONE to warn those who broke the 10 commandments....

Justbyfaith
Originally posted by debbiejo
Because in the original language it only means death. There is no teaching of it by Moses at all and you would think that HE WOULD BE SURELY THE ONE to warn those who broke the 10 commandments....

Well, whatever we want to call this place it's no fun! The bible teaches there is wailing and nashing of teeth. It is darkness and eternal torment. Not a fun place to joke about. Not to say you did but some do debbiejo. To me, that's foolishness.

debbiejo
Originally posted by Justbyfaith
Well, whatever we want to call this place it's no fun! The bible teaches there is wailing and nashing of teeth. It is darkness and eternal torment. Not a fun place to joke about. Not to say you did but some do debbiejo. To me, that's foolishness. Hell is a new teaching in the NT....It's not taught as a place of torment in the OT at all...Even David welcomed it.....The Jews don't believe in it........and why if it was a real place of everlasting torment wouldn't Moses warn at least ONE TIME about that penality of breaking the law?? Did Moses forget????

Hell/Sheol is only death, pit, grave, sleep, nothingness, darkness.......it only means your body is not consciouses..

Justbyfaith
Originally posted by debbiejo
Hell is a new teaching in the NT....It's not taught as a place of torment in the OT at all...Even David welcomed it.....The Jews don't believe in it........and why if it was a real place of everlasting torment wouldn't Moses warn at least ONE TIME about that penality of breaking the law?? Did Moses forget????

Hell/Sheol is only death, pit, grave, sleep, nothingness, darkness.......it only means your body is not consciouses..


GONG!!! laughing NEXT PLEASE Happy Dance

docb77
Originally posted by debbiejo
Hell is a new teaching in the NT....It's not taught as a place of torment in the OT at all...Even David welcomed it.....The Jews don't believe in it........and why if it was a real place of everlasting torment wouldn't Moses warn at least ONE TIME about that penality of breaking the law?? Did Moses forget????

Hell/Sheol is only death, pit, grave, sleep, nothingness, darkness.......it only means your body is not consciouses..

I partially agree with you. However here are a few ideas to ponder.

- The OT is old, I mean very old, especially the first few books. It is quite possible that there could have been teachings which didn't survive to present day.

- In Psalms David praises God for saving him from the lowest hell. I don't remember exactly the reference, perhaps one of our more theologically inclined friends could point it out. To me this scripture indicates multiple states after death. Considering what David had done if there were a hell in the Christian sense, and he knew about it. It is very concievable that he would write a song about being saved from it.

- God seems to teach people as they have the ability to recieve. He gave the the ancient israelites the mosaic law (which was pretty progressive for its time). Then Milenia later Jesus pointed out that the Mosaic law merely pointed the way toward a higher law. It is concievable that God likewise granted knowledge of the after life piece by piece in the same way.

- Now, even if we throw out the Judeo-Christian concepts. We are still left with the hell-like places of other religions. Many scholars think that the Jews got the present idea of hell from Zoroastrianism. We also still have Tartarus from the Greeks, and hel (one "L"wink from Norse mythology, the opposite of the Elysian fields and Valhalla respectively.

Saying that there cannot be a hell is a bit naive. Assuming an afterlife, and assuming justice goes along with it. It is only logical that the wicked would recieve a different reward than the righteouss.

IceDragon
I will never give up my believe in Jesus Christ, if i had to be tortured, i would. Why avoid torture and then lose your everlasting soul in the process?

Alliance
Apparently you're nto familiar with the prctice of torture. confused

Can you explain why not believein in your god makes you souless?

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.