Now we probably heard someone say that "Hell isn't a place that has tourture and all that jazz, but it's a place where there is a lack of god."
I take it they mean "Earth 2, but this time there's definitely no god here."
Now imagine this scenario, you die, you go... somewhere, then you find yourself with god, he says "Oh, you don't believe in me. Bye then!"
You're on Earth 2 (Hell), of course you're not an atheist (Since you have seen god), but you've been without god for most (If no all) of your life. So it's no biggy. Chances, if you've ever been a christian at any point there might be a little emotional bit going, but should be over thanks in part to the crying of the naughty christians (Gets some boots on and kick 'em, it's fun!).
The idea of right and wrong depends on the point of view to begin with so it is subjective by its very nature. A lot of people like to throw around an idea of morality or immorality, but to being to decide who is more or less moral they need a moral system. Most of the people in the world do have such a system outlining their codes, laws, or whatever the hell they want to call them.
If I was a betting man, which I am, I'd bet they are using a christian or what is perceived as a christian system. So basically if you're human you're a sinner, immoral, and going to hell. I could go into that more, but that is a whole other ball game.
Recently, the place where I work had difficulty with the city trash pickup people. The driver of the truck had to dump the trash twice because they failed to pick it up earlier in the week when they were scheduled to. He made my boss sign a paper saying that he would pay extra for that additional dump.
So, basically, because the city waste management (http://www.wm.com/) missed a scheduled and payed-for pickup, my workplace was supposed to give them more?
In light of the fact that there are no competing trash pickup services, the city has a monopoly on this, we are forced to use their services. Thus, they are able to utilyse this as a means to extort more money from businesses in this manner.
I have a love/hate relationship with 43things.com fundies. They piss me off and they amuse me as, um, hell.
Until 43things.com invents tagging for entries, check out http://dandv.43people.com/
Support Nick gisburne banned from youtube.com for speaking his mind about religion, http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/bring-nickgisburne-back-to-youtube.html what he said was based on facts people, facts!
Take a look for yourselves
This was too funny, I had to share. I'd posted my "Blasphemy Challenge" video on MySpace (go check out my profile: http://www.myspace.com/kathi_law), and I got a comment from a girl that said, "I really like your personality but hun you have to know what to follow and what to not the bible says many things but the most important out of the whole bible is beiliving in jesus and that he died on the cross and you accept him its that simple!!!!"
I couldn't pass that up. I sent her a message asking her to please tell me why she's the authority on what to follow and what not to follow in the Bible. Here's her wonderfully articulate response:
Questions to invoke...
1. If pretty much all myths, fables and legends are initially founded from some amount of truth at some time, is it so reasonable to believe that there is no God when practically every known ancient culture believed in One? Normally only details become exaggerated, so why does each have a common spine of a deity?
2. If one's world view mandate that no God exist, how could you clearly see the truth of a potentially existent God if it were starring you in the eyes? Wouldn't you simply dismiss the very thing you wish to know without ponder?
3.Where does man's innate sense of wrong come from that he knows he shouldn't bring harm on another person?
Well, it seems I must pwn you know Quan.
Quan wrote:It is not garbage. You are just upset that scholars don't agree with your nonsense.
I'd rather look into the majority view of modern scholars. What would these books establish? Your insane point?
This is a rather ironic statement; would you agree then that I am right in believing the majority of scientists who hold evolution as being true?
Quan wrote:I am not kidding. These evidence absolutely hold weight, and you haven't shown how they don't. The date doesn't have anything to do with the validity of the paper. And so what if they were Christians?! You sound insane right now. Am I justified in NOT listening to Richard Dawkins because he's an atheist? C'mon, get real.
Fine then, I will show how they don't. (WARNING - the fallowing statements contain facts, if you are not partial to them look away)
Ten Rules of Prophecy You Can Try at Home
(Excerpt from upcoming book)
Look Out, Here Comes Tomorrow
Prophecy—the age-old business of forecasting doom and getting to say “I told you so!” when nobody listens. True believers and skeptics both enjoy this material because they both think it makes their case. Believers use it to prove their faith in the Bible’s divine origins and skeptics deploy it to demonstrate that it’s all twaddle. Only one can be right. Let’s see which.
Mark smiled broadly as he walked towards his next class. He had been waiting for this all day long, since he first had witnessed the great speech given by a new political party the night before. He had anxiously waited in study hall that morning, and later he picked at his food and tapped a fork on the lunch table, hoping these periods would pass swiftly and bring about his Social Studies course. But the time had passed by slowly.
Even still, he had finally made it. And although he was slightly hunched over due to extensive homework assignments he had picked up during the various courses of the day he didn’t let it bother him. All week perhaps he would have scrapped his feet and moved a little slower, but today he tried to move at a heightened pace.