enternal hell bothers me

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
Now that I have confirmed you are a young pup, I thought you might need a big brother type guy here for a while.

[/ QUOTE ]

Confirm implies removal of all doubt.

It's a big word.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Now that I have confirmed you are a young pup, I thought you might need a big brother type guy here for a while.

[/ QUOTE ]

Confirm implies removal of all doubt.

It's a big word.

[/ QUOTE ]

Would you rather me think you a ...well, a Dan Quayle, for not knowing what I was talking about yesterday? I trust is was because you were too young to remember.

www.historychannel.com/speeches/archive/speech_222.html

And don't even think about correcting my paraphrasing the quote.
(Ok, I'll admit, it was a misquote.)

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]

Would you rather me think you a ...well, a Dan Quayle, for not knowing what I was talking about yesterday? I trust is was because you were too young to remember.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you think that reaching a conclusion based on a speech in US politics is sufficent & conclusive proof of age?

[RJT]

SDM

I don't think you get how I was referencing the quote. You were comparing (not actually comparing) yourself to Jesus. When you said Jesus talked in parables - or whatever you said exactly. You were anwering why you, yourself, wouldn't answer a direct question, directly.

So, after you juxtaposed yourself with Jesus, I then alluded to the same type of scenario. (Qualye is no JFK. Btw, Qualye is not the brightest bulb on the tree, that information should give you a context of what I meant in my last post referencing him.) It is a realtively famous quote, that most people who were of age at the time - especially educated folk, which I assume you are (Do I assume too much again?) - would have known what I was saying. Ergo, you are a young pup.


Regards,

RJT

[Aytumious]

He's certainly not 33 and I think it can be inferred he is in college based on his posts in the Kidluckee thread he made.

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]

It is a realtively famous quote, that most people who were of age at the time - especially educated folk, which I assume you are (Do I assume too much again?) - would have known what I was saying. Ergo, you are a young pup.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like that you're "showing your work" (in the mathematical sense) in your reasoning, but could you clarify these points please?

1. Definition "most people"
2. Definition "of age"
3. Definition "educated folk"

Cheers,
SDM

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

It is a realtively famous quote, that most people who were of age at the time - especially educated folk, which I assume you are (Do I assume too much again?) - would have known what I was saying. Ergo, you are a young pup.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like that you're "showing your work" (in the mathematical sense) in your reasoning, but could you clarify these points please?

1. Definition "most people"
2. Definition "of age"
3. Definition "educated folk"

Cheers,
SDM

[/ QUOTE ]

1. The majority of ADULTS.
2. Those folk who no longer have their head up their a...
3. Was superfluous to the “proof”; merely inserted to show the “new” me and how I decided to put up with your pesky self, Beaver.


Now, get to bed.

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

It is a realtively famous quote, that most people who were of age at the time - especially educated folk, which I assume you are (Do I assume too much again?) - would have known what I was saying. Ergo, you are a young pup.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like that you're "showing your work" (in the mathematical sense) in your reasoning, but could you clarify these points please?

1. Definition "most people"
2. Definition "of age"
3. Definition "educated folk"

Cheers,
SDM

[/ QUOTE ]

1. The majority of ADULTS.
2. Those folk who no longer have their head up their a...
3. Was superfluous to the “proof”; merely inserted to show the “new” me and how I decided to put up with your pesky self, Beaver.


Now, get to bed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would I go to bed now?

My take, sry for any redundancy.

When thinking about eternal Hell, it should bother anyone with a brain who hasn't proven that God doesn't exist.

[ QUOTE ]
One of the main points of Christianity is that God is benenifient. I believe this too.

[/ QUOTE ]
So you believe in God? I'm ignorant when it comes to Hinnduism, so I'm not sure if you're referring to the same God that Christians are.

[ QUOTE ]
why would God send us to eternal hell for mistakes we make in our mortal lives. It simply does not make sense to me. If this is the case, than God cannot be beneficient.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, God can't be beneficent b/c people get raped, murdered, or have their entire lives ruined by hurricanes. Since He allows that to happen, He can't exist or He must actually be a bad dude. Sarcasm off: I think that God leaves it up to each person to reject Him or not rather than the other way around, assuming you don't believe in predestination.

[ QUOTE ]
I think the idea of eternal hell is extremely nonsensical and goes against everything Christianity should stand for (Love, caring, forgiveness, righteouness, etc)

[/ QUOTE ]
Those moral attributes are in many religiouns, not just Christianity. My understanding is that God allows some people a chance to accept Him through Jesus. If you reject that, then you are destined for an eternity minus God's presence, which is Hell. If you accept, you go to Heaven, where God's presence exists.

[wdeadwyler]

Very good post. Sorry it took me so long to respond.

Firstly, you are right, I am young, and idealist, and it seems have not researched this as much as you.

That beind said I still have some disagreements with you.

-God is omnipotent, is he wasnt, he would be God, he would be some sort of a demi-god.

-I think it is fairly obvious God did not create man so that man could argue and squabble about who/what God is. Why? Good question. It just rings as an obvious truth to me, and many others. As for the beneficience of God, do you doubt this? What would make you think God is not Beneficient?

-Your point about Mohammed. Good one. Never heard that before. No response by me.

-Your point about using science to judge religion.
I think this is a dangerous path to tread. All science does is describe what we can comprehend about the world. God, by nature, is incomprehensible, so using science to try to pin him down as this or that does not seem like a good idea to me.


--Finally, How do you itemize quotes like that? I couldnt get it to work, it was just quote within quote ad nasuem.