I'm Kirk, please don't Post more than twice in a row. It's considered Spamming under board rules. You can use 'Edit' or 'Multi Quote' to combine responses. Thank you.
Why would God send someone to hell over suicide?
- Thread starter Jayson
- Start date
You are supposed to jump off a talk structure so on the way down you can "find jesus and repent your sins" and you WILL go to heaven.
I've never, ever gotten this Hell stuff. To me, it's flat-out illogical: why would a loving God create an eternal torture pit for those that don't believe in him or do something which he doesn't like? I've stated it numerous times elsewhere, but as I've never stated here I shall say it once more. I guess it's something that Jews just can't see the sense in.
This kind of renders the question moot for me, really. Since there is no Hell, thus God cannot send people who commit suicide there. I would think God would understand and forgive more than anything else.
This kind of renders the question moot for me, really. Since there is no Hell, thus God cannot send people who commit suicide there. I would think God would understand and forgive more than anything else.
Though I'm not religious and no longer Christian, I think these are some valid points if some aspects of they commonly describe God are to be considered accurate.
In reference to your last point, how would you explain the observation that some (perhaps all) of the bad stuff in the world apparently happens because God allows it to? There's a pretty considerable difference between facing the consequences of making poor choices (which could include suicide), and suffering simply because you're in the wrong place at the wrong time. One can't simply dismiss all bad events as products of free will, as some Christians try to do.
6of9: Traditionally, God is big on martyrdom. This is something most major Christian denominations can agree on, to the best of my knowledge. Certainly, Catholicism is pretty big on the idea - a lot of saints were those who died for the church.
And choosing to die for the greater good rather than doing something else... well, isn't that what Jesus did in Christian theology, simply put?
So suicide tends to be frowned on when people kill themselves in a manner that does not entail going out for a noble cause. There's a grey area - and indeed, straightforward martyrs may well have felt suicidal - but it's mostly a position that makes sense.
Granted, it does seem a little silly to me that the axe is political rather than religious - it'd make more sense if it came out of a specific conservative religious movement, but perhaps those are becoming increasingly conflated anyway. One assumes that the members of Conservapedia all ascribe to essentially the same brand of (Protestant?) Christianity for the project to make any kind of sense - conservative Catholics and Mormons need not apply, I'd assume, or there'd be all sorts of kerfuffling.
Textual religious conflict sounds inordinately more interesting when referred to as a kerfuffle. That is my conclusion after years of knowing about this stuff for some arcane reason - it fascinates me, as indeed do King James Onlyists like I'm Kirk.
And choosing to die for the greater good rather than doing something else... well, isn't that what Jesus did in Christian theology, simply put?
So suicide tends to be frowned on when people kill themselves in a manner that does not entail going out for a noble cause. There's a grey area - and indeed, straightforward martyrs may well have felt suicidal - but it's mostly a position that makes sense.
I don't even see it as particularly controversial. Translating Bibles with a given axe to grind is at least as old as the Reformation (where, in the English language, we got the Catholic Douay-Rheims and the Calvinist Geneva Bible, fer instance).
Granted, it does seem a little silly to me that the axe is political rather than religious - it'd make more sense if it came out of a specific conservative religious movement, but perhaps those are becoming increasingly conflated anyway. One assumes that the members of Conservapedia all ascribe to essentially the same brand of (Protestant?) Christianity for the project to make any kind of sense - conservative Catholics and Mormons need not apply, I'd assume, or there'd be all sorts of kerfuffling.
Textual religious conflict sounds inordinately more interesting when referred to as a kerfuffle. That is my conclusion after years of knowing about this stuff for some arcane reason - it fascinates me, as indeed do King James Onlyists like I'm Kirk.
A
Amaris
Guest
At it's core, Christianity has always been political. I'm not talking specifically of the words of Jesus, but the religion itself? Very political in nature. Once it managed to ensconce itself in the halls of Roman authority, it was a juggernaut, and would only begin consuming more power and authority (both political and religious) over time.
J.
So?
There's a difference between conservative theology and conservative politics, though naturally they can be expected to overlap. The doctrine of papal infallibility is a requirement for one (in the Catholic sense) while believing in God isn't a requiste for the other (though it certainly doesn't hurt).
Since even America's religious right to the best of my knowledge encompasses a broad range of conservative religious groupings - Protestants, Catholics, Mormons, etc. - it's rather different from a religious movement per se. They may agree on points of ideology as to the sort of society America may be, but not the specifics of religious doctrine.
A
Amaris
Guest
So politics and religion are not a wise combination.
They can agree on a common enemy.
J.
Naturally, but are you reading my posts or not? My point was that, given the differing theologies that exist within the religious right as a movement a 'conservative' Bible does not make a lot of sense. The axes they have to grind politically are not the same as the axes to grind theologically, so it'd have to define conservative as within a specific religious tradition, presumably Protestant.
Yup. Josephus is a very obvious forgery. Just Google it.
A
Amaris
Guest
I am reading your posts, which is why I answered as I did. Christianity's politics are tied directly into it's theology. The theology has changed somewhat and has been adapted to make it fit more snugly in the hands of power and authority.
J.
To me, I look upon the bible as Marlyn Manson once said, "I like the bible as a book, like the Cat in the Hat.
A
Amaris
Guest
Personally, I find Richard Dawkins' take on it quite accurate:
Richard Dawkins said:
While I find George Carlin's reasoning to be right on the money (I have posted this before):
George Carlin said:
J.
How can it be a forgery? He was an actual person and the events he writes about were also written about by others in other cultures..you mean you believe everything you google? Surely not..
The bible is clear on it. Hell was not created for us but for Satan and his followers..we send ourselves there by not accepting Jesus as Savior...if I'm wrong about Him then I have nothing to lose, I just die..if I'm right I have everything to gain.
A
Amaris
Guest
To be fair, you believe there's an invisible man in the sky because a book told you so. So no stones, okay?
The accounts of Jesus in the Testimonium Flavianum are considered to be forgeries.
Here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus
Granted, it's Wikipedia, but it has a crapload of references should you doubt it's accuracy.
So it's fire insurance?
Perhaps you should also consider yourself Muslim or Hindu, just in case.
J.
Josephus was an actual person but his mention of Jesus was added by forgers. Nobody should take my word for it - not only am I not a scholar, history isn't even much of an interest of mine as a layman. But I can read.
No, I don't believe everything I find through Google but I do put a lot of stock in people who actually are expert in their fields. Scholars almost universally agree that the Josephus mention of Jesus is not only a forgery but a ridiculously transparent one.
Let's cut the crap. If you want to sell anyone on the historicity of Jesus, the most sure way to destroy your credibility is to cite Josephus. Anyone even casually familiar with it knows that it is bogus. The facts are easily available for anyone to find. Citing Josephus is an obvious sign that you either don't know what you are talking about or worse still, are being deliberately deceptive.
Last edited:
TheLonelySquire
Vice Admiral
He's changed his tune many times these past few years, that's for sure.
A
Amaris
Guest
There are Christians who will say "a little white lie" because as long as they can get someone to look into it, the ends justify the means. I have witnessed this firsthand. Not saying I'm Kirk is doing so, just saying they do exist and it is a frequent practice.
J.
TheLonelySquire
Vice Admiral
You seem pretty resolute, J. I would have to say though that if you are now an atheist you were never touched by Christ in the first place. Would you agree? If so, what made you believe in Him before?
Similar threads
