[redhawk.44mag]

I would substitute ‘monotheistic malice’ for Christian malice’.

While I can fully understand the purpose/need for the concept of hell, I don’t see how it can actually serve any purpose, unless we come back in another body, with the previous memories.

Myself, I don’t believe anything man can do for his 70-80 yrs on this planet would deserve any afterlife punishment, especially an eternity of it.

[PieterCasparzen]

I would substitute ‘monotheistic malice’ for Christian malice’.

I'm getting tired of athiests on FR. Seems like we're getting more and more of them. Seems like there is a coordinated effort to push athiesm on FR, or at least post a lot of athiest spam.

I understand having debate, but I don't have the time or inclination to endlessly debate athiests.

If I did, I'd be on athiest forums debating with them.

But it's nonsensical to debate with people who not debating, they're just posting athiest nonsense as fast as they can.

What's the FR policy on athiesm ?

[CA Conservative]

Myself, I don’t believe anything man can do for his 70-80 yrs on this planet would deserve any afterlife punishment, especially an eternity of it.

The problem I see is that you are starting from a false premise, namely that man can be deserving of either Heaven OR hell based on his own actions. You can never be good enough to "deserve" Heaven nor bad enough to "deserve" hell. The sole factor in your eternal destiny is this - what is your relationship with Jesus Christ? It is Christ's sacrifice that washes away or sin and makes us acceptable to God, not our good works. It is our rejection of that sacrifice that condemns us to remain in our sins and dooms us to an eternity apart from Him.

[avenir]

“On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it?”—Romans 9:20

FWIW.