what happens to non-christians after death
-
I repeat:Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:Why do people assume that there is something after death?
There is totally no evidence of that. On the other hand, when someone can make you believe it, they can control you so that you do what they want. -
from the POV of this forum??? non-Christians go to hell.
however I do agree with APKY that there is no evidence. the Bible contains a parable where a man goes to hell and wants to return to earth to warn his brothers.... however such is not possible.
at the end of the day, you die, you die.... habis. what comes after that cannot be proven. -
Was watching Constantine a few weeks ago and it remind me of this....
Even if u are a mess robber or rapist, but juz b4 u die, u repent and believe in god, u still get redemption. Yet if u did all the good in the world but are non-Christian... u go to hell. Correct me if i'm wrong.
-
yeap.. u're right. i guess its how u look at it.Originally posted by EarlNeo:Was watching Constantine a few weeks ago and it remind me of this....
Even if u are a mess robber or rapist, but juz b4 u die, u repent and believe in god, u still get redemption. Yet if u did all the good in the world but are non-Christian... u go to hell. Correct me if i'm wrong.
is it unfair? nope, cuz everyone is given the same sentence cause we're all not perfect, and sinful.
is it fair? yep, salvation is given by grace, not by works, so we don't have to do anything to earn it, its entirely accomplished on the cross.
christians earn credit for getting salvation? nope, cuz we received it as a gift, we didn't earn it, glory don't come to us. we didn't do anything special. -
It's ironic how most self-proclaimed "Christians" I know are in only because of the "Free ride to Heaven if you pick up God in your life! Only for $9.95!" factor. It sickens me, honestly. If one thinks like that, then why not go to the extreme and call yourself a believer in all religions?
Christianity isn't about Church or rituals. It's about a personal relationship with God, and our God is the Lord of the Living, not the Lord of the Dead.
In any case, I'm ready to assume that all will be given a chance for redemption at the Second Coming (if it's going to happen anytime in the near future, that is). No one will be able to cheat or lie their way in, because He would know. So, no worries!
-
hell no telco signal issit?Originally posted by Chin Eng:however I do agree with APKY that there is no evidence. the Bible contains a parable where a man goes to hell and wants to return to earth to warn his brothers.... however such is not possible. -
Originally posted by Chin Eng:from the POV of this forum??? non-Christians go to hell.
however I do agree with APKY that there is no evidence. the Bible contains a parable where a man goes to hell and wants to return to earth to warn his brothers.... however such is not possible.
at the end of the day, you die, you die.... habis. what comes after that cannot be proven.
QUOTABLE QUOTESOriginally posted by SturmDerSchatten:It's ironic how most self-proclaimed "Christians" I know are in only because of the "Free ride to Heaven if you pick up God in your life! Only for $9.95!" factor. It sickens me, honestly. If one thinks like that, then why not go to the extreme and call yourself a believer in all religions?
Christianity isn't about Church or rituals. It's about a personal relationship with God, and our God is the Lord of the Living, not the Lord of the Dead.
In any case, I'm ready to assume that all will be given a chance for redemption at the Second Coming (if it's going to happen anytime in the near future, that is). No one will be able to cheat or lie their way in, because He would know. So, no worries! 
-
The system is flawed unless you accept the predestination and election doctrines.Originally posted by dumbdumb!:yeap.. u're right. i guess its how u look at it.
is it unfair? nope, cuz everyone is given the same sentence cause we're all not perfect, and sinful.
is it fair? yep, salvation is given by grace, not by works, so we don't have to do anything to earn it, its entirely accomplished on the cross.
christians earn credit for getting salvation? nope, cuz we received it as a gift, we didn't earn it, glory don't come to us. we didn't do anything special.
So far, none of you can explain my challenge last time - is salvation conditional upon Jesus dying for your sins or conditional upon you accepting the gift? Opps .. did I issue such a challenge?
Most of you take the stand with the inescapable conclusion that salvation is conditional upon you accepting the gift. It must be so, since according to you, Jesus died for the whole world but this is useless if, hypothetically, no one accepts the gift. -
Why do you pick this particular loop-hole? There so many irrefutable loop-holes that you can choose from and IMHO The Problem of Evil since it is so widely debated, would be conclusive.Originally posted by Icemoon:The system is flawed unless you accept the predestination and election doctrines.
So far, none of you can explain my challenge last time - is salvation conditional upon Jesus dying for your sins or conditional upon you accepting the gift? Opps .. did I issue such a challenge?
Most of you take the stand with the inescapable conclusion that salvation is conditional upon you accepting the gift. It must be so, since according to you, Jesus died for the whole world but this is useless if, hypothetically, no one accepts the gift.
Any point that anyone wants to make in The Problem of Evil would have been covered, given how wide and extensive the coverage was.
There is no need, for anyone interested, to reinvent the wheel. -
Most people, believers and unbelievers, emphasize on the "believe" part. Usually redemption is summarized as "believe/accept and you will be saved".Originally posted by EarlNeo:Was watching Constantine a few weeks ago and it remind me of this....
Even if u are a mess robber or rapist, but juz b4 u die, u repent and believe in god, u still get redemption. Yet if u did all the good in the world but are non-Christian... u go to hell. Correct me if i'm wrong.
I think this is a wrong perspective to take. Why should salvation be conditional upon your belief? No wonder we have the last minute robber or rapist conversion scenario, also known as the Hitler-conversion scenario!
Notice when we take the above perspective, the emphasis is never on Jesus dying for your sins. Sure, every Christian says Jesus died for your sins, but I say this is just lip service. The emphasis is on you believing Jesus died for your sins. Notice unbelievers seldom or never ask about the guy called Jesus dying for your sins, instead they are more interested in knowing whether last minute conversions are valid. Everyone is more interested in discussing the ticket to heaven and why some good people just cannot get the ticket, than the reason why God has to die for you in the first place!
The Cross is further cheapened when we realize the inescapable conclusion that salvation is conditional upon you accepting the gift, than the act of God dying on the cross. -
The problem of evil is a problem for all religions, especially monotheistic religions.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:Why do you pick this particular loop-hole? There so many irrefutable loop-holes that you can choose from and IMHO The Problem of Evil since it is so widely debated, would be conclusive.
Any point that anyone wants to make in The Problem of Evil would have been covered, given how wide and extensive the coverage was.
There is no need, for anyone interested, to reinvent the wheel.
It is like when a salesman tries to sell you his company's product. He will talk about the product, why it is good, how it is better than other's etc.
I don't think he will like to discuss why are there salesmen in the first place. -
Here is the reformed position.Originally posted by dumbdumb!:yeap.. u're right. i guess its how u look at it.
http://www.carm.org/questions/Jesus_die_all.htm
If Jesus actually died for the sins of everyone who ever lived, then why does anyone go to hell? This argument holds that if Jesus actually did pay for everyone's sins, including unbelief, then no one should go to hell. The counter argument is that people must believe to be saved. The answer to this is that even disbelief is a sin that has been paid for; therefore, no one should go to hell. But, since people do go to hell, it is logical to believe that Jesus only bore the sins of the Christians. The Reformed theologians would say that though JesusÂ’ sacrifice was sufficient for all, it was not intended for all. -
Church and rituals are the ways you express your personal relationship with God.Originally posted by SturmDerSchatten:Christianity isn't about Church or rituals. It's about a personal relationship with God, and our God is the Lord of the Living, not the Lord of the Dead. -
I can imagine the Iraqi generals sitting around debating how they are going to fight the invading US Army. duh! whatever they come up with is not going to change the outcome is it?Originally posted by Icemoon:The problem of evil is a problem for all religions, especially monotheistic religions.
It is like when a salesman tries to sell you his company's product. He will talk about the product, why it is good, how it is better than other's etc.
I don't think he will like to discuss why are there salesmen in the first place.
So if you cannot refute the problem of evil, any discussion, like the issue you have brought up, can be compared to the Iraqi generals sitting around debating how they should fight the US Army when it is not going to make any difference. -
Actually hor .. actually hor .. the problem of evil has been refuted .. just that you couldn't accept it.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:I can imagine the Iraqi generals sitting around how the are going to fight the US Army. duh! whatever you come up with is not going to change the outcome is it?
So if you cannot refute the problem of evil, any discussion, like the issue you have brought up, can be compared to the Iraqi generals sitting around debating how they should fight the US Army when it is not going to make any difference. -
Originally posted by Icemoon:Actually hor .. actually hor .. the problem of evil has been refuted .. just that you couldn't accept it.
-
[quote]5. Attempted Total Refutations
There are at least three main ways in which one might attempt to show that the argument from evil does not succeed in establishing that evil is even prima facie evidence against the existence of God, let alone that the existence of God is improbable relative to our total evidence. The first appeals to human epistemological limitations; the second, to the claim that there is no best of all possible worlds; and the third, to the ontological argument.
5.1 Human Epistemological Limitations
The most popular attempt at a total refutation of the argument from evil claims that, because of human cognitive limitations, there is no sound inductive argument that can enable one to move from the premise that there are states of affairs that, taking into account only what we know, it would be morally very wrong for an omnipotent and omniscient person to allow to exist, to the conclusion that there are states of affairs such that it is likely that, all things considered, it would be morally very wrong for an omnipotent and omniscient person to allow those states of affairs to exist.
The appeal to human cognitive limitations does raise a very important issue, and we have seen that one very natural account of the logical form of the inductive step in the case of a direct inductive argument is not satisfactory. But, as I indicated in section 3.5, there is an account that is satisfactory, one that involves a serious use of inductive logic.
In addition, the appeal to human cognitive limitations does not show that there is anything wrong either with the reasoning that Draper offers in support of the crucial premise in his indirect inductive version of the argument from evil, or with the inference to the best explanation type of reasoning employed in the updated version of Hume's indirect inductive formulation of the argument from evil. -
5.2 The ‘No Best of All Possible Worlds' Response
A second way of attempting to show that the argument from evil does not even get started is by appealing to the proposition that there is no best of all possible worlds. Here the basic idea is that if for every possible world, however good, there is a better one, then the fact that this world could be improved upon does not give one any reason for concluding that, if there is an omnipotent and omniscient being, that being cannot be morally perfect.
This response to the argument from evil has been around for awhile. In recent years, however, it has been strongly advocated by George Schlesinger (1964, 1977), and, more recently, by Peter Forrest (1981) — though Forrest, curiously, describes the defense as one that has been “neglected”, and refers neither to Schlesinger's well-known discussions, nor to the very strong objections that have been directed against this response to the argument from evil.
The natural response to this attempt to refute the argument from evil was set out very clearly some years ago by Nicholas La Para (1965) and Haig Khatchadourian (1966) among others, and it has been developed in an especially forceful and detailed way in an article by Keith Chrzan (1987). The basic thrust of this response is that the argument from evil, when properly formulated in a deontological fashion, does not turn upon the claim that this world could be improved upon, or upon the claim that it is not the best of all possible worlds: it turns instead upon the claim that there are good reasons for holding that the world contains evils, including instances of suffering, that it would be morally wrong, all things considered, for an omnipotent and omniscient being to allow. As a consequence, the proposition that there might be better and better worlds without limit is simply irrelevant to the argument from evil.
If one accepts a deontological approach to ethics, this response seems decisive. Many contemporary philosophers, however, are consequentialists, and so one needs to consider how the ‘no best of all possible worlds' response looks if one adopts a consequentialist approach.
Initially, it might seem that by combining the ‘no best of all possible worlds' response with consequentialism, one can construct a successful, total refutation. For assume that the following things are true:
(1) An action is, by definition, morally right if and only if it is, among the actions that one could have performed, an action that produces at least as much value as every alternative action;
(2) An action is morally wrong if and only if it is not morally right;
(3) If one is an omnipotent and omniscient being, then for any action whatever, there is always some other action that produces greater value.
Then it surely follows that it is impossible for an omnipotent and omniscient being to perform a morally wrong action, and therefore that the failure of such a being to prevent various evils in this world cannot be morally wrong.
Consider an omnipotent and omniscient being that creates a world with zillions of innocent persons, all of whom endure extraordinarily intense suffering for ever. If (1), (2), and (3) are right, then such a being does not do anything morally wrong. But this conclusion, surely, is unacceptable, and so if a given version of consequentialism entails this conclusion, then that form of consequentialism must be rejected.
Can consequentialism avoid this conclusion? Can it be formulated in such a way that it captures the view that allowing very great, undeserved suffering is morally very different, and much more serious, than merely refraining from creating as many happy individuals as possible, or merely refraining from creating individuals who are not as ecstatically happy as they might be. If it cannot, then it would seem that the correct conclusion is that consequentialism is unsound. On the other hand, if consequentialism can be so formulated that this distinction is captured, then an appeal to consequentialism, thus formulated, will not enable one to avoid the crucial objection to the ‘no best of all possible worlds’ response to the argument from evil.
5.3 The Appeal to the Ontological Argument
A final way in which one could attempt to show that facts about evil cannot constitute even prima facie evidence against the existence of God is by appealing to the ontological argument. Relatively few philosophers have held, of course, that the ontological argument is sound. But there have certainly been notable exceptions — such as Anselm and Descartes, and, in the last century, Charles Hartshorne (1962), Norman Malcolm (1960), and Alvin Plantinga (1974a, 1974b)
If the ontological argument were sound, it would provide a rather decisive refutation of the argument from evil. For in showing not merely that there is an omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect being, but that it is necessary that such a being exists, it would entail that the proposition that God does not exist must have probability zero on any body of evidence whatever.
The only question, accordingly, is whether the ontological argument is sound. The vast majority of present-day philosophers believe that it is not, and one way of arguing for that view is by appealing to strengthened Gaunilo-type objections — where the idea behind a strengthened Gaunilo-type objection is that, rather than paralleling the ontological argument, as Gaunilo did in responding to Anselm, in order to show that there is an overpopulation problem for reality in the form of perfect islands, perfect unicorns, and so on, one can instead construct versions that lead to mutually incompatible conclusions, such as the conclusion that there is a perfect solvent, together with the conclusion that there is a perfectly insoluble substance (Tooley, 1981). But if the logical form of the ontological argument is such that arguments of precisely the same form generate contradictions, then the ontological argument must be unsound.
A more satisfying response to the ontological argument would, of course, show not merely that the ontological argument is unsound, but precisely why it is unsound. Such a response, however, requires a satisfactory account of the truth conditions of modal statements — something that lies outside the scope of this article
6. Attempted Defenses
In this section, we shall consider three attempts to show that it is reasonable to believe that every evil is such that an omnipotent and omniscient person would have a morally sufficient reason for not preventing its existence, even if one is not able to say, in every case, what that morally sufficient reason might be.[/quote]
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil/ -
Let me illustrate with an example. Just like Jesus, I like to use parables.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap: Soldier: Sir, sir, where is the nearest water supply? I very shag liao and my canteen is empty. Why we have to come Brunei in the first place?
Officer: There is a small stream behind this mountain.
Soldier: Got meh? The map never draw leh!
Officer: The map is not accurate. Many things are not drawn too.
Soldier: Sir, then how you know?
Officer: Duh, I was in OCS and we came here for our JCC. -
yup, no wifi zone.Originally posted by Icemoon:hell no telco signal issit? -
I think a better parableOriginally posted by Icemoon:
Let me illustrate with an example. Just like Jesus, I like to use parables. Soldier: Sir, sir, where is the nearest water supply? I very shag liao and my canteen is empty. Why we have to come Brunei in the first place?
Officer: There is a small stream behind this mountain.
Soldier: Got meh? The map never draw leh!
Officer: The map is not accurate. Many things are not drawn too.
Soldier: Sir, then how you know?
Officer: Duh, I was in OCS and we came here for our JCC. would be.
A group of specialists discussing the best method to cure the dead man. He is dead, you have to first prove that he is still alive. -
Why torment yourselves with such thoughts? But if you must,then I say we all go to our respective heaven and hell with this same thought `My heaven is too small only a few of my kind can enter but my hell is an open house where all are welcome except my kind lah of course'.That is how primitive we are with our thoughts
-
( Brunei )water! water! everywhere not a drop to drink meh?Originally posted by Icemoon: -
I hope that's in a good way, haha!Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:QUOTABLE QUOTES -
I hope so too.... too many times, non-Christians go through experiences with some Christians and think that that's all there is.... and begin to stereotype all Christians to be one and the same.Originally posted by SturmDerSchatten:I hope that's in a good way, haha!