Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!bcm!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: lindborg@cs.washington.edu (Jeff Lindborg) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Soul winners Message-ID: Date: 8 Feb 91 07:53:26 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: University of Washington Computer Science Lines: 69 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article billy@tcom.stc.co.uk (Billy Khan) writes: > > Fine. It might sound as if God is spiteful etc. in leaving people >t go to hell because they won't accept him. However I tend to think of >Hell as a place simply devoid of the presence of God. A place where there >is no love, friendship, compassion, mercy, kindness or anything normal >assiociated with being 'nice' (Not a good word i know, but English is sort >of a second language to me!) But Christ seems to indicate that hell is a place of punishment, not just mere separation from the perfection of God. The place is described a number of times throughout the New Testament as being somewhat more horific than that... > I tell you one thing for free. If there was no love, friendship, >compassion, mercy and kindness around me at all I would go crazy pretty >quick. Emotional deprivation aint something thats nice to experience >I shouldn't think. Nor would I! Which is why I prefer to believe that we cease to exist when we die... No senses, no sensory deprivation. > If Hell is a place mere devoid of Gods presence, thats fair enough. >Non-christians turned their backs on God when he offered them salvation, so >I think he's entitled (after trying just about everthing to turn them to >him) to turn away from them and leave them with out his presence, IE in >hell. I must, of course, take exception to your perception that God "did just about everything" to turn men to Him. I see no evidence of even the existence of God (or any god) today or throughout objective recorded history. If God were truely interested in saving as many humans from hell (of course he has the power to 'save' them all since he created hell in the first place) he would *at least* offer compelling evidence of his existence (he gave some of us very skeptical minds...). From there we could make a decision to 'accept' or 'reject' Him. I choose to 'reject' him because I beleive He is a fabrication of men. > Turning to the subject of religious wars, i'd like to ask a >question. Jesus mentioned turning the other cheek and the commandments >tell us not to murder. Is there then any precident for having a war >in the 'prince of peace''s name? I think not. Christianity has been >given a bad reputation by people using it as a banner. People like the Church itelf? Further, I'd have to ask where it says in the Bible that its ok to repress people for not being Christian. We see a lot of that throughout history and even today (up until the late 1950s, teachers of religions other than Christianity were not allowed to immigrate to the United States) Again, you could agrue that these people are not "true" Christians and are just "using" the name. But at some point it becomes so prevelant that one must ask if there is a basic flaw in the Christian "ethic" that allows these kinds of activities to be readily rationalized... > You won't find me fighting anything but ignorance and misunderstanding. Me too! > Drew. Jeff Lindborg He that is slow to believe anything and everything is of great understanding, for belief in one false principle is the beginning of all unwisdom. Infernal Diatribe II:7 (Satanic Bible)