Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: MYGROUPS apparent contradiction: Do Babies go to hell?

Expand Messages
  • mygroups992000
    ... ... achristianvsatheistclub@yahoogroups.com, mygroups992000 ... WASTE ... a ... Yes, you should become a Christian and you should teach your
    Message 1 of 210 , May 1, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In achristianvsatheistclub@yahoogroups.com, be4us <no_reply@...>
      wrote:
      >
      > --- In achristianvsatheistclub@yahoogroups.com, "mygroups992000"
      > <mygroups992000@> wrote:
      > >
      > > --- In achristianvsatheistclub@yahoogroups.com, be4us
      <no_reply@>
      > > wrote:
      > > >
      > > > --- In
      achristianvsatheistclub@yahoogroups.com, "mygroups992000"
      > > > <mygroups992000@> wrote:
      > > > >
      > > > > --- In achristianvsatheistclub@yahoogroups.com, be4us
      > > <no_reply@>
      > > > > wrote:
      > > > > >
      > > > > > --- In achristianvsatheistclub@yahoogroups.com, wmzedi
      > > > <no_reply@>
      > > > > > wrote:
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > God doesn't hate anybody. God doesn;t send anybody to
      > hell.
      > > > It's a
      > > > > > > choice we make.
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > We choose.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Not according to your fellow Christians. MyGroups insists
      > that
      > > > > newborn
      > > > > > babies die and go to hell
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > WHERE DID I SAY THAT?
      > > > >
      > > > > CAN YOU SHOW US THE POST?
      > > > >
      > > > > HE IS LYING...AGAIN...THAT'S ALL THIS GUY HAS...HE IS A
      WASTE
      > OF
      > > > TIME
      > > >
      > > > Do you go to hell for lying? Here is the post and you can also
      > go
      > > > back and revisit it.
      > > >
      > > > Back out of this one:
      > > >
      > > > In Message 373380:
      > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > Isaid:
      > > > > > One thing that all newborns do not have is a worn
      > > > > > out conceptualized second-hand religion.
      > > > > >
      > > > You said:
      > > > > They have a sinful nature and thus are deserving of hell and
      > > > without
      > > > > Jesus will suffer their just reward...you DO believe in
      > justice,
      > > > > right?
      > >
      > >
      > > YOU ARE STILL LYING!
      > >
      > > YOU SAID I SAID, "newborn Babies die and go to hell."
      > >
      > > BY YOUR OWN POST YOU PROVE YOURSELF A LIAR. I SAID, "They have
      a
      > > sinful nature and thus are deserving of hell."
      > >
      > > IF YOU CANNOT SEE THE DISTINCTION THEN I AM ARGUING WITH AN
      > IMBECILE
      >
      >
      > Look at your own words:
      > 1. They have a sinful nature and are deserving of hell.
      > 2. Without Jesus, they will suffer their just rewards.
      >
      > You've just spelled out for all of us that without Jesus a newborn
      > goes to hell. Any idiot can see this. And then to make your words
      > even more vile and disgusting you went on to tell me that I should
      > do what I can so my newborn does not go to hell..Go back and read
      > the posts you hypocrite.
      > >
      >


      Yes, you should become a Christian and you should teach your child
      and perhaps they can become a Christian for without Christ you both
      will go to hell as a just punishment for your sin
    • logos
      ... I ve already covered this. Hebrews is wrong. Faith is conviction due to strength of will, not by evidence. [[ What I am saying is that I know, by faith,]]
      Message 210 of 210 , May 5, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In achristianvsatheistclub@yahoogroups.com, wmzedi
        <no_reply@...> wrote:
        >
        > Faith is evidence of things not seen so in a way what you say is
        > true. In another way though by faith the things that are seen become
        > evidence of the things that are not seen.


        I've already covered this. Hebrews is wrong. Faith is conviction due to
        strength of will, not by evidence.




        [[> What I am saying is that I know, by faith,]]


        You know that you are convinced; you do not possess legitimate
        knowledge by facts.

        You are convinced because you "know" and you "know" because you are
        convinced.

        Circular arguments are tautologous and meaningless, especially when it
        takes a pathological bend and you IGNORE contradictions because
        contradictions must be false. Truth can never be contradictory, thus you
        must be lying to yourself.



        [[> that every tangible thing
        > is evidence of God and of His love for us. I cannot take a breath
        > without God, nobody can. Our existence is proof of God's existence.
        > So that's material proof.]]


        I've already proven this false as well.

        Here's the symbolic logical proof.


        http://www.christianityisevil.com/no_evidence.html

        See Part 1.

        Here's the "Reader's Digest" version.

        Pr(g|t) > Pr(~g|t)

        (You are asserting that the probability of the existence of 'god' given
        some tautology like the universe full of existing things or that there is
        life, is greater than the probability of there being no existing 'god' given
        that there is said tautology).

        Pr(g|t) is equivalent to,

        Pr(g|t) = Pr(g * t)/Pr(t)

        And since 't' is a tautology, the probability is 1 or 100%, so

        Pr(g|t) = Pr(g * t)/Pr(t) = Pr(g * 1)/1 = Pr(g)

        This tells us that tautologies and other probabilities in conditional
        probability considerations are independent.

        Thus,

        Pr(g|t) > Pr(~g|t) is equivalent to Pr(g) > Pr(~g).

        So, your "evidence" doesn't do what it is supposed to do because you
        (a) have not shown that it actually IS due to the existence of any 'gods'
        and because you are attributing an apparent non-sequitur to some
        arbitrary claim.

        You are left with your assertion Pr(g) > Pr(~g) (the probability of an
        existing 'god' is greater than no existing 'gods') SANS EVIDENCE.


        Here's an equivalent scenario.

        1. Bob buys a lottery ticket.
        2. He prays to win.
        3. He DOES win.
        4. Bob declares that this is evidence of 'god's' will that he should win.

        The chance of Bob being a winner is not a long shot as Bob thinks. It is
        in fact 100% (see '3').

        The fact that Bob won the lottery is not evidence of 'god' just as the fact
        that fish have gills to breathe with is not evidence of 'god'. They are
        both tautologous truths within context. If Bob winning is one "vote" for
        the existence of 'god' then all the other Christians that played and lost
        would be one "vote" for the nonexistence of 'god'.

        If Bob has a point, then 'god' would not exist via a democratic process,
        which defeats Bob's point.


        You can see how we can apply this same reasoning to people in cancer
        wards, etc. Someone surviving cancer cannot be evidence of 'god' if
        people dying from cancer is not evidence of no existing 'gods'.


        >
        [[> Where to from here? Logically this does all seem circular.]]


        It is circular and a tautology.


        LOGOS
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.