R u uneasy with the fact that non-Christians r going 2 hell
-
I am the only Christian in my family. And there is this girl who has a very good heart and character, I like her becoz of that. I'm afraid shes going to hell as well. I feel very uncomfortable.
How do Christians cope with knowing there r many good people going to hell?
-
full of crap, holy shit.
-
Originally posted by imacattt:
I am the only Christian in my family. And there is this girl who has a very good heart and character, I like her becoz of that. I'm afraid shes going to hell as well. I feel very uncomfortable.
How do Christians cope with knowing there r many good people going to hell?
Because the gal surely gt sin before so she will go to hell. Who in this world did not lie for example or sin before.We dun cope with knowing many good people go to hell. There's no good people only sinners.
-
信者有, ä¸�ä¿¡è€…æ— !!!
-
All the good and bad are in human standards leh. Not God's standard of holiness.
Break one law in ten commandments and u go to hell. Break one law equals to break all the laws.
-
Originally posted by dragg:
信者有, ä¸�ä¿¡è€…æ— !!!
yes and no.
-
Originally posted by Rooney9:
full of crap, holy shit.
-
Originally posted by imacattt:
I am the only Christian in my family. And there is this girl who has a very good heart and character, I like her becoz of that. I'm afraid shes going to hell as well. I feel very uncomfortable.
How do Christians cope with knowing there r many good people going to hell?
Then stop thinking just because she isn't Christian, she is going to hell.
Change your mindset first!
-
*sayang*
She won't go to hell one la. You are just having a nightmare.
-
Originally posted by imacattt:
I am the only Christian in my family. And there is this girl who has a very good heart and character, I like her becoz of that. I'm afraid shes going to hell as well. I feel very uncomfortable.
How do Christians cope with knowing there r many good people going to hell?
If you like her, respect her views on religion. Dont condem people to go to hell. Simple as that.
-
no wonder why alot of people from other faiths loathe this religion. full of inconsistencies and paradoxes, not to mention dogmatic.
-
Like i said, to accept one, you must first reject one. They take their oath, and must be serious about it.
-
hmmm seem like there is not much free will here. see, so much for its inconsistency here. say what god give free will, but then you need to give up other religions? whats with the free will about this? so much for being free will
-
They said that ? I dono, you have a choice in what you belief in. Thats all
-
Originally posted by TTFU:
They said that ? I dono, you have a choice in what you belief in. Thats all
yes, he's saying there's a paradox
-
Anyway i shall nt comment too much on it. Iam not a christain anyway
-
Free will
lol.
Paradoxes ?
Free will to touch the fire or not is up to you. But I told you that the fire is hot and u will get hurt and get burnt.
Now u have the free will to choose to listen to me, or you can touch the fire. Its up to you. THAT is called free will. The free will for you to choose and do what u think you must. But like all actions there will be consequences. Just dont come bitching back to me saying that the fire is hot and I didnt tell you so.
If by thinking that my advice to u is restricting your autonomy then you can do exactly the opposite by touching the fire. Before even attempting to talk about free will and paradoxes, maybe one should understand what exactly is free will.
This implies that man is a responsible being, possessing freedom of choice to obey or disobey. Man's actions, emanating from his will, are his own, for which he is, therefore, accountable.
But then what is free will ? Below will just be cut n paste.
Judaism -
God tells Cain that although he is subject to powerful emotions and sin "couches at the door; its urge is toward you, yet you can be its master" (Gen. 4:7). After reviewing their history, Moses tells the people of Israel that the key to their national destiny is ultimately in their own hands: "I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse, therefore choose life" (Deut. 30:19).
This principle of man's freedom of will has been described as "a great principle and pillar of the Torah and the Mitsvot (Maim., Yad, Teshuvah 5:3). The entire concept of repentance, Teshuvah, which is taught in the Pentateuch (Deut. 4:30, 31, 30:11-14), emphasized by the prophets (e.g. Hos. 14:2-3), and is the heart of the Day of Atonement service, presumes freedom of the will. This constant call to man to return to God with the promise of Divine forgiveness assumes that man has the power to free himself from his past, from his set ways, and change completely. Indeed, God wishes man to come to Him voluntarily, out of free choice. God does not overwhelm but waits for man's response (Ex. 19:8)
Biblical law clearly distinguishes between intentional and unintentional acts (Num. 35:1-34). Jewish law treats at length the limits of legal and moral responsibility and the effects of various degrees of compulsion upon the individual (BK 8:4).
Not all Jews accepted human free will. The Essenes believed in predestination and held that everything was predetermined by the Divine will, while the Sadducees denied Divine Providence and felt that everything occurred by chance. The rabbis reiterate the biblical concept of man's freedom: "All is in the hands of heaven except the fear of heaven" (Ber. 33b). "The angel appointed over conception takes a seminal drop, sets it before the Holy One, Blessed be He, and asks, 'Sovereign of the universe, what is to become of this drop? Is it to develop into a person strong or weak, wise or foolish, rich or poor?' But no mention is made of its becoming wicked or righteous." This is left to the person himself (Nid. 16b).
The first challenge to the concept of free will came from the sphere of theology itself, from the concept of God's omniscience or foreknowledge. If God knows everything in advance, how could man have freedom of choice? The talmudic rabbis simply affirmed both principles without attempting any solution: "Everything is foreseen yet permission (freedom) is given" (Avot 3:15). Maimonides (Yad, ibid. 5:5) discusses the problem and suggests that God's "knowledge" is completely different from man's knowledge. This has been interpreted to mean that since God is above time, His is not strictly "foreknowledge." God knows the future intuitively in that He sees the future as part of an eternal present. Hence His knowledge does not conflict with man's freedom of choice. Even when God providentially intervenes in history, He does not interfere with the inner workings of man's volition and the integrity of man's selfhood (Maim. ibid. 5:4). The "hardening of the heart of Pharaoh" (Ex. 4:21) is construed as a restoration of Pharaoh's own free will in face of the coercive effects of the plagues (Naḥmanides).
Judaism's insistence upon the existence of human freedom would seem to conflict with the implications of much of contemporary psychology, which sees the mind of man, like the rest of nature, locked into a tight causal nexus. This implies that were enough known about the character, background, and circumstances of any individual, all of his decisions could be predicted. The biblical-rabbinic concept of moral responsibility, on the other hand, seems to be compatible only with a libertarian concept of contra-causal freedom and incompatible with any sort of deterministic theory.
Modern Jewish thinkers have suggested, in reply to this challenge, that if man, alone of all creatures, possesses categorical freedom in which the self can originate changes, then this provides a dramatic manifestation of man's having been created "in the image of God" (Gen. 1:26). Even as God, the Prime Mover, created the world "out of nothing," so does man, each time he makes a moral decision, act as a self-originating creative power.
These thinkers hold that with each moral decision man experiences his selfhood, his ability to feel and act as an "I." Furthermore, with each such decision, he builds and extends his own character and personality. In short, in making moral choices in freedom, man works his tselem ("image of God") into demut (likeness of God) (ibid.) and thus fulfills his humanity (see also Ethics).
Philosophical Dictionary - Free Will
The problem is to reconcile our everyday consciousness of ourselves as agents, with the best view of what science tells us that we are. Determinism is one part of the problem. It may be defined as the doctrine that every event has a cause. More precisely, for any event e, there will be some antecedent state of nature, N, and a law of nature, L, such that given L, N will be followed by e. But if this is true of every event, it is true of events such as my doing something or choosing to do something. So my choosing or doing something is fixed by some antecedent state N and the laws. Since determinism is universal these in turn are fixed, and so backwards to events for which I am clearly not responsible (events before my birth, for example). So no events can be voluntary or free, where that means that they come about purely because of my willing them when I could have done otherwise. If determinism is true, then there will be antecedent states and laws already determining such events; how then can I truly be said to be their author, or be responsible for them? Reactions to this problem are commonly classified as:
(i) hard determinism. This accepts the conflict and denies that you have real freedom or responsibility.
(ii) Soft determinism or compatibilism. Reactions in this family assert that everything you should want from a notion of freedom is quite compatible with determinism. In particular, even if your action is caused, it can often be true of you that you could have done otherwise if you had chosen, and this may be enough to render you liable to be held responsible or to be blamed if what you did was unacceptable (the fact that previous events will have caused you to choose as you did is deemed irrelevant on this option).
(iii) Libertarianism. This is the view that, while compatibilism is only an evasion, there is a more substantive, real notion of freedom that can yet be preserved in the face of determinism (or of indeterminism).
In Kant, while the empirical or phenomenal self is determined and not free, the noumenal or rational self is capable of rational, free action. But since the noumenal self exists outside the categories of space and time, this freedom seems to be of doubtful value. Other libertarian avenues include suggesting that the problem is badly framed, for instance because the definition of determinism breaks down; or postulating a special category of uncaused acts of volition; or suggesting that there are two independent but consistent ways of looking at an agent, the scientific and the humanistic, and it is only through confusing them that the problem seems urgent. None of these avenues has gained general popularity. It is an error to confuse determinism and fatalism. See also dilemma of determinism.
Columbia Encyclopedia - Free Will
Free will, in philosophy, the doctrine that an individual, regardless of forces external to him, can and does choose at least some of his actions. The existence of free will is challenged by determinism. A denial of free will was implicit in Plato's argument that, because no one would deliberately choose a worse over a better course of action, people's decisions are determined by their understanding (or ignorance) of what constitutes the good. Aristotle disagreed; he distinguished between reason and desire, pointing out that people sometimes do what they desire even when they know it will harm themselves or others. Some Stoics sought to adapt the idea of free will to their rigorous form of determinism; Chrysippus emphasized that action could be produced by choice which itself had antecedent causes.
In the Christian philosophical tradition a central question regarding freedom of the will was this: is virtue within the power of the individual or completely dependent on the power of God? St. Augustine, although he argued that God's foreknowledge of human actions (a consequence of his omniscience) did not cause them, did hold that God's omnipotent providence implied predestination: man was wholly dependent on divine grace. St. Thomas Aquinas maintained the freedom of man's will in spite of divine omnipotence, holding that God's omnipotence meant he could do all things possible or consistent with his goodness and reason, which did not include the predetermination of human will. William of Occam affirmed free will but claimed it impossible for any human to comprehend how it is compatible with God's foreknowledge and omniscience, which cannot be distinguished from his role as prime mover and original cause. Martin Luther and John Calvin both followed Augustine's doctrine of predestination, but later Protestant writers disputed their position. Advocates of free will have usually begun with the overwhelming testimony of common practice and common sense: people do believe they in some way determine their actions, and hold each other accountable for them.
Therefore advocates of free will have argued that the human will, unlike inanimate things, can initiate its own activity. This position has been called into question by experiments, first undertaken by American neuroscientist Benjamin Libet in the 1970s, that have shown that brain signals associated with decisions concerning actions occur before a human being is conscious of making a decision.
Free will is the purported ability of agents to make choices free from constraints. Historically, the constraint of dominant concern has been the metaphysical constraint of determinism. The opposing positions within that debate are metaphysical libertarianism, the claim that determinism is false and thus that free will exists; and hard determinism, the claim that determinism is true and thus that free will does not exist.
Both of these positions, which agree that causal determination is the relevant factor in the question of free will, are classed as incompatibilists. Those who deny that determinism is relevant are classified as compatibilists, and offer various alternative explanations of what constraints are relevant, such as physical constraints (e.g. chains or imprisonment), social constraints (e.g. threat of punishment or censure), or psychological constraints (e.g. compulsions or phobias).
The principle of free will has religious, ethical, and scientific implications. For example, in the religious realm, free will implies that an omnipotent divinity does not assert its power over individual will and choices. In ethics, it may hold implications regarding whether individuals can be held morally accountable for their actions. The question of free will has been a central issue since the beginning of philosophical thought.
So before you even want to discuss about the concept of free will under the context of human thought, religion , science (Neurology and psychiatry), Eastern and Western philosophy , the different schools of though within, then perhaps you can understand WHY... and HOW the various thought of free will came about.
Pointless biased assertions without any thought and only able to see one side of the coin just shows how simple minded one is. Even if you are not simple minded, it just proves how intolerant you are. Simple.
Just like how u have to free will to choose to shut the fuck up, and sit the fuck down before even knowing your subject matter well, or choose to be tolerant and opinionate accordingly instead of making sweeping statements with no purpose because you know you can due to the absence of a mod to assert control of your posts.
By this point alone it already shows what kind of person you are.
-
Yes.. long wall of text. Free will to choose to read or not is up to you.
But if you did not read it and think you still know more then you think you know, you are then just another fool and the consequences is that, people can just ignore you because you just simply dont know what the hell you yourself are talking about without even understanding the topic of what you want to say.
-
Originally posted by imacattt:
I am the only Christian in my family. And there is this girl who has a very good heart and character, I like her becoz of that. I'm afraid shes going to hell as well. I feel very uncomfortable.
How do Christians cope with knowing there r many good people going to hell?
i think you better worry for yourself. i read in wb, someone posts true stories that their loved ones who were christians are suffering in ghosts realm. -
Originally posted by imacattt:
I am the only Christian in my family. And there is this girl who has a very good heart and character, I like her becoz of that. I'm afraid shes going to hell as well. I feel very uncomfortable.
How do Christians cope with knowing there r many good people going to hell?
Tell us where is the proof that all christians go to heaven? There are christians in hell. People with third eyes can see wondering spirits of christians. In the book by the christian author Rebecca XXX , read the book many years ago. She wrote that Jesus brought her down to hell to take a look and Jesus and her saw christians in hell.
If that is the way christians function in their brain about hell about non believers, hardly any non believers will want to accept your faith in Christ.
Just cannot stand these christians. yucks! so ugly!
-
Originally posted by Fairyfairy86:
i think you better worry for yourself. i read in wb, someone posts true stories that their loved ones who were christians are suffering in ghosts realm.
I agree. Not all christians end up in heaven. STupid, really , he is stupid and mind is blocked. -
Seriously, I hope the authority will do something to christians trying to incite religious hatred or disharmony.
-
depends on what your version of heaven is.
mountains of degenerated trash, carnivorous plants, crowing roosters all around, fed by over population of religious zealots all in heaven because simply because they're christians? moral confusion, racial impurity, sanctioned unions and some of us won't be there.
have fun.
-
It is your God's WILL that she go to hell.
That's the kind of God you believe in, one who sends good people to hell.
Now, do you feel easy believing in such an evil God?
-
no choice, they are not chosen by God