Follow God's Morals or Burn in Hell

[JoeyKnothead]

"Follow God's morals or burn in Hell."

For debate:
Is this an unfair oversimplification, or an accurate assesment of the argument?

Please note, this is NOT an attempt to argue a recent mod ruling, but a legitimate inquiry all its own.

[Metatron]

"Follow God's morals or burn in Hell."

For debate:
Is this an unfair oversimplification, or an accurate assesment of the argument?

Please note, this is NOT an attempt to argue a recent mod ruling, but a legitimate inquiry all its own.

Actually, it's worse than this. According to Original Sin, we are born corrupt and are doomed to eternal damnation unless we use our Jesus "Get out of Hell free card".

[David 2.0]

Perhaps one could quibble with the wording...

As I recall the only "moral" you have to follow to avoid hell, is salvation. (Christ?)
(Depending on your interpretation?)

Plus I was under the impression that no one could follow Gods morals?

I might tighten it up a bit.

[Flail]

"Follow God's morals or burn in Hell."

For debate:
Is this an unfair oversimplification, or an accurate assesment of the argument?

Please note, this is NOT an attempt to argue a recent mod ruling, but a legitimate inquiry all its own.

I think you have it wrong. To be Christian, one must 'believe' in God and God's morals or burn in Hell; actually abiding by those morals appears to be optional for those with the proper membership and ritual practices.

[sleepyhead]

"Follow God's morals or burn in Hell."

For debate:
Is this an unfair oversimplification, or an accurate assesment of the argument?

Please note, this is NOT an attempt to argue a recent mod ruling, but a legitimate inquiry all its own.

Hello joey,

It's an oversimplification because the dogma with regards to who is and isn't going to hell is changing. We're getting to know people of various faiths from work and from movies and tv. It's not as easy to send them to hell as it was when we had no contact with them.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 5:

It's an oversimplification because the dogma with regards to who is and isn't going to hell is changing.

Great! God's sending some of us to Hell, but won't any of us know who or why till we get there

We're getting to know people of various faiths from work and from movies and tv. It's not as easy to send them to hell as it was when we had no contact with them.

I can dig it. I propose that only the god in question knows - given the inability of humans to show they know this god's opinions.

Or do we each, individually, know His opinions? Is it that we are "hardwired" or somehow "spoken to", so that any human dogma we hear is only relevant to the one preaching it?

[sleepyhead]

Hello joey,

The original topic was>>> "Follow God's morals or burn in Hell."

For debate:
Is this an unfair oversimplification, or an accurate assesment of the argument?<<<

From Post 5:

It's an oversimplification because the dogma with regards to who is and isn't going to hell is changing.

Great! God's sending some of us to Hell, but won't any of us know who or why till we get there

Does the above mean that you agree that it's an unfair oversimplification?

From Post 5:

We're getting to know people of various faiths from work and from movies and tv. It's not as easy to send them to hell as it was when we had no contact with them.

I can dig it. I propose that only the god in question knows - given the inability of humans to show they know this god's opinions.

Or do we each, individually, know His opinions? Is it that we are "hardwired" or somehow "spoken to", so that any human dogma we hear is only relevant to the one preaching it?

I guess the above is a good proposal. I have very limited contact with the ins and outs of Christianity right now so I'll let one of the christians respond to this new topic for debate.

[dianaiad]

"Follow God's morals or burn in Hell."

For debate:
Is this an unfair oversimplification, or an accurate assesment of the argument?

Please note, this is NOT an attempt to argue a recent mod ruling, but a legitimate inquiry all its own.

That depends entirely upon who you ask.

Now, if you find a theist who agrees with this, argue with him/her about it.

For the rest of us?

It's not just an oversimplification, it's a complete misrepresentation of our belief systems.

First, define "God's morals."
Second, define who has to obey them.
Third, define 'hell'
Fourth---
Well, you see the problem.

[Flail]

dianaiad wrote:

First, define "God's morals."
Second, define who has to obey them.
Third, define 'hell'
Fourth---
Well, you see the problem.

You left out 'God'; do we have a verifiably coherent definition of a discernible 'God'?

[dianaiad]

dianaiad wrote:

First, define "God's morals."
Second, define who has to obey them.
Third, define 'hell'
Fourth---
Well, you see the problem.

You left out 'God'; do we have a verifiably coherent definition of a discernible 'God'?

You are quite right. My bad.

the list should be:

First, define 'God'
Second, define 'God's morals'
Third, define who has to obey them and how.
Fourth, define 'hell.'

Nevermind your insistence that the believer have to verifiably and coherently define a discernible deity before you will discuss it....that's obviously not a problem for you since you are quite willing to make up your OWN version of god in order to debate/make fun of believers of any god.

So the version of deity that is important isn't yours, or your opinion of He/She/It. It's that of the believer that counts.