J
JRKH
Guest
You are welcome.First of all let me say thanks to Nicky39 and JRKH for taking the trouble to answer all my questions.
Correction - Everyone in Hell merits it. And in nearly every case, their primary sin is Pride.Perhaps you will excuse me if I only continue with three points because the topic will expand exponentially if I continue with them all. I will post on:
1] Why do most of the people, who will end in Hell, merit it?
Pride2] Why cannot people in Hell repent and have their repentance accepted
Pride3] Why would Satan rebel against an omnipotent God?
1] Why do most of the people, who will end in Hell, merit it?
I am going to Hell if I continue as I am. So what have I done to merit this?
(i) I do not believe in God
(ii) I have done actions which I did not think were wrong, like using contraceptives, which turned out to be so.
(iii) I have done wrong things that I acknowledge to be so and have not asked for God’s forgiveness.
Let us now ask if any of these things merit eternal punishment.
We can dispense with numbers (ii) and (iii) and only deal with number (i).(i) I have looked at the evidence for God’s existence and concluded that it is weak so I do not believe. Why is this culpable? Surely I am like one of the students I used to teach who, doing the best they can, get a maths sum wrong, whom I would gently show where their reasoning was amiss? And notice too. I do not reject God – I do not think there is a God to reject – a completely different matter.
(Snip for Space)
[Of course, after death, finding that God did exist, of course, I would ask his forgiveness, which brings me on to the second topic.]
You ask - “I have looked at the evidence for God’s existence and concluded that it is weak so I do not believe. Why is this culpable?”
I ask you, How can it be Not culpable.
You look at the “evidence” and conclude that there is no God. The same evidence that we believers have and we conclude that God DOES exist.
You claim - “I do not reject God – I do not think there is a God to reject”
It is not the evidence that tis faulty it is your conclusion, and therefore, though you deny it, you do indeed reject God.
Here you say that based on the evidence, there is “unlikely to be a God”, and yet earlier you say that, based on the evidence, “(you) do not think there is a God to reject”. So which is it… Do you believe there is no God or that there is, “unlikely to be a God”.JRKH – you say:
That crime is the rejection of God - blaspheming of the Holy Spirit.
Well as explained I have not rejected God. Nor have I blasphemed against the Holy Spirit! Like many ordinary folk I have tried to lead a good life and honestly decided on the evidence that there was unlikely to be a God.
Think and answer Carefully - your life hangs in the balance.
Must go now – will post on the remaining two topics tonight.
OK, Talk later.Laurie
Peace
James