Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Rational arguments
09-20-2009, 11:02 PM (This post was last modified: 09-20-2009 11:03 PM by GTseng3.)
Post: #1
Rational arguments
All right, lets talk about rational arguments for a second. I've been on this forum for a while. I've got that nice fourth star over my name which says I'm a senior member, and, well, I know whereof I speak. Now it's no surprise to anyone who's read my posts that I am an outspoken atheist, but that's really not what I want to talk about. In fact, I'm going to try very hard to not talk about atheism at all. Instead, I want to talk to people about rational discussion and logic.

Because quite frankly, there's a derth of it here. Whether you're arguing that Islam is better than Christianity, or that Catholicism is better than Lutheranism, or anything is better than atheism, generally the arguments seem to be entirely emotional appeals based on nothing at all. Now the thing is, every religion (and refusal to believe in religion) is, or at least should be, a belief in the truth. No one here willingly believes in a lie. There have been people here in the past (one person in particular who hasn't posted in a while and so his name isn't worth bringing up) who have deliberately lied, but they either didn't really believe in their lies and were just trolling, or else they felt the truth of their beliefs justified lying to people. So that's the common ground we can all agree on. We all want to believe the truth.

That being the case, if your post contains any of the following you lose. Automatically.

1. Lies. If you have deliberately lied in your post in order to convince anyone of anything, you lose. Really, I should not have to tell anyone this. Lying to trick someone into believing the truth defeats the whole purpose.

2. Personal insults. If you personally insult someone, you lose. But you might say, "GTseng3, you personally insult people sometimes." That's right. And I lose in those posts. Whenever I let my snarky attitude get the better of me, its intensely funny for me, but it does NOTHING for my argument. Those posters who cannot seem to get a word out without reverting to personal insults have nothing worth listening to. Those posters who sometimes post personal insults should not be listened to in those posts (and that includes me. If I start attacking Raph or Catholicstation instead of their ideas, just ignore those posts, trust me, I'm not saying anything important in them, I'm just messing with people who have lost my respect. It's a weakness of mine that I constantly struggle to overcome.)

3. Gratuitous references to Hitler/Stalin/Pol Pot/Chairman Mao/Etc. Note that I said GRATUITOUS references. There are cases where the references are legitimate. Including Nazi Germany in a list of evil regimes that followed the Catholic church is legitimate, as is including Stalin's Russia in a list of evil regimes that have been atheist. Using Hitler as an example of a man with a lot of followers who was evil is legitimate. However, saying Jesus is like Hitler because they both had a lot of followers is NOT LEGITIMATE. That is violating Godwin's Law. You lose.

Any of the three preceding is instant losing as far as I am concerned.
Now, with that out of the way, let me list a few common mistakes. These are NOT logical fallacies. If you want that, just type "logical fallacies" in google, you'll get a whole list (I highly recommend that, by the way.)

1. Quote mining. Now this is very, VERY difficult, because it happens all the time. On every side. Quote mining is when you look for a quote by an authority, you lift a very, very small portion of the quote that says what you want to say, and you ignore the rest of the quote that says something else. This technique is the entire reason the Creation Research Institute can pretend it is science. A good rule of thumb is: if the article you are reading quote the authority, google the quote for context. The internet is your friend, you can check quotes very quickly. This will save you from looking like an idiot when other people say, "Gee, I really don't think Richard Dawkins would admit that evolution is an impossible theory," look up the actual quote, and prove you wrong.

2. Misdirection. Just stop doing this. It only shows that you don't know enough to talk about the real issue. By misdirection I mean things like: "The Bible is full of contradictions. Can you find a contradiction in the Quran?" "Well, the god of the Quran is the same god of the Bible." When we're speaking about the evolution of mythologies, yes, that's true, but it has nothing to do with the original question! It's just a misdirection! There are four PROPER ways to respond to the original post. The first is to say, "No, the Bible does not have any contradictions, show me the contradictions." And to be prepared to explain the contradictions that are brought up. The second is to say, "The Quran has lots of contradictions," followed by actually LISTING THE CONTRADICTIONS. The third is to say, "Well, I can't think of why that is wrong off hand, but it sounds wrong to me. Let me do a little more research on it." Then go and do the research (I have to do this one all the time). The only remaining legitimate answer is to cede the point. "Wow. I guess you're right." Anything else is misdirection. It is a pathetic tactic, more suited to lower-class political pseudo-debates then intelligent people actually looking for the truth.

3. Repetition. Repeating something does not make it true. Repeating something DOES make it spam, and I will report you. I hope other people will report you as well.

4. There is no Number 4. Think about that statement. Sound silly? But I just said it was true. That's right, number four is BACK UP YOUR STATEMENTS. This one is actually what prompted this post. I've had a logical argument going for some time (please don't respond to it here, please DO respond to it on one of the other posts where I've mentioned it.) Basically it boils down to an omnipotent god + omniscient god + creator god =/= (does not equal) free will. I've put that out there, because it seems highly logical to me. And what I've gotten is a bunch of people saying, "But we HAVE free will." Well I don't care if we have free will, I want to know HOW IS THAT LOGICALLY POSSIBLE IF THERE IS A GOD. Back up your statements, either with evidence or with logic. Or both. Both is good too.
5. Sources. Sources are horrible. Sources are the worst part of trying to prove anything. Because Sources lie. Oh, how sources lie. Luckily, you can generally predict how a source is going to lie, and compensate for it. Thus, a member of the flat earth society who has done a study showing that the earth has to be flat can be discounted. Why? He's a member of the flat earth society. Now, if a member of NASA, which has always held that the earth is round, published such a study, you'd start to perk up and take notice. Why? It's a more credible source. But what makes NASA more credible than the Flat Earth Society? Well first, look at their previous findings. Does the publisher have a history of scientific accuracy? Scientific groups have a very good history of scientific accuracy. Some (but not many) think tanks have a very good history of scientific accuracy. The NAS has an almost impeccable history of scientific accuracy (though many of its scientists do not). Also it's important to note which fields of study the person is known for. Dr. Feynman is a world-renowned expert on physics, but I might not consider him so credible if he were to speak up on, say, climate change. How does this apply to religion? First, a study conducted by a church that shows miracles happen can be thrown out. Likewise, a study conducted by the skeptic's association that proves prayer never works can be thrown out. Just throw them out. Of COURSE their studies say that, consider the source. Ignore, and I mean flat-out ignore any outspoken advocate for a cause that publishes a study supporting that cause. Just ignore them. Ditto with a think tank that has a history of supporting a certain cause. Now, if someone who has a history of speaking up for one issue publishes a study that proves the opposite, then you might perk up. It's still not an impeccable source, because it's just one person, but it's worth looking at. If an organization releases a study that is the opposite of its normal advocacy, that's worth quite a bit of study. If the skeptic's society publishes a study that shows Christians are less likely to be harmed in random accidents than non-Christians, then you should pay attention to that study because it runs contrary to their normal bias.

PAY ATTENTION TO YOUR SOURCES. New Advent is NOT a legitimate source for showing that Catholics are awesome. Richard Dawkins is NOT a legitimate source for showing that Christians are evil. Feel free to read them. Even point out their arguments, after all they're advocates for a reason, they tend to make good arguments. But the evidence needs to be independent. Find it elsewhere, or admit it doesn't exist.
6. Now this is the big one. This is the biggest one of all.

In science, you must have evidence. Evidence SUPPORTING your hypothesis. In logical, rational thought, you must have evidence SUPPORTING your theory. Now, let me explain what I mean by this. This is actual supporting evidence. For instance. We believe that the earth is round. Now, in modern times this is because we've been to space and seen it. It's round. That's fairly conclusive. But they have known this from ancient times. How did they know? They knew because the shadow of the earth during a lunar eclipse is round. They knew because ships seem to slowly fall off the horizon, rather than quickly if there was an actual edge. They knew because they could measure the angle of a shadow, and tell that the angles were different at different places on earth, indicating a sphere-like shape. Now let us discuss things that are NOT evidence that the earth is round.

The earth has to be a shape, why not round? This is NOT evidence that the earth is round.

You can't prove that the earth is not round. This is NOT evidence that the earth is round.

My father said that the earth is round. Unless your father also provided sources that had done the experiments and made the observations, this is NOT evidence that the earth is round.

You might notice a slight quandary with that last one. After all, if you can't trust your father, whom can you trust? See #5 above.

But the point is, evidence must be POSITIVE. The argument, "Well, you can't prove there isn't a god," is not a legitimate argument. It just isn't. The argument, "There must be a god because our DNA is in no way related to evolutionary antecedents, and is too complex to have evolved" IS a legitimate argument for god (in the sense that it is a positive argument. The facts, however, are simply wrong in this case). See the difference? The first argument doesn't really argue for god, it just says god is every bit as possible as, say, a flying spaghetti monster, or evolution. The second argument, on the other hand, requires a god. It specifically says that this is proof a god MUST exist.

Evolution, too, requires positive evidence (which is available, but this post has gotten too long already). Indeed, it is the positive evidence for evolution that has thrust the burden of proof on the theist.

And that leads me to:

7. The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the miraculous. Why is this? Simply because you are telling me to believe that something happened that defies all laws of nature. If I were to tell you that I had psychic powers and could blow up fire hydrants with my mind, you would legitimately ask me to prove it. Why? Why is that fair? It is fair because there are no other cases of people being able to do that. There is no precedent. You wouldn't ask me to prove that I could slam dunk a basketball. That's a pretty cool athletic feat, but it's certainly not impossible. You would ask me to prove that I could slam dunk a basketball into a hoop 50 feet above me. Do you see the difference? Because God requires us to believe in miracles and the supernatural, the burden of proof must rest on the theist. If there was actually any proof for god, this would not be a problem for them.

Well, there you have it. Feel free to discuss any flaws you find with my points. Please don't debate my examples, I've already used lots of examples I don't necessarily agree with in the interest of fairness. If you want to debate the examples, start different threads.

I'm back baby! Thanks for everyone who sent me PMs asking what had happened to me.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
09-21-2009, 05:50 AM (This post was last modified: 09-21-2009 06:01 AM by Raphael.)
Post: #2
RE: Rational arguments
(09-20-2009 11:02 PM)GTseng3 Wrote:  All right, lets talk about rational arguments for a second. I've been on this forum for a while. I've got that nice fourth star over my name which says I'm a senior member, and, well, I know whereof I speak.

First paragraph is in violation of something called Godwin's Law.
Just because you have attained four stars does NOT mean you know whereof or whatof or EWE speak.
I think the stars are associated with how many posts you have made.
And judging from our encounters...I see quantity NOT quality.

Does not your illogical stance ever take a rest dude?

(09-20-2009 11:02 PM)GTseng3 Wrote:  You can't prove that the earth is not round. This is NOT evidence that the earth is round.

My father said that the earth is round. Unless your father also provided sources that had done the experiments and made the observations, this is NOT evidence that the earth is round.

Your father and ewe should go climb a mountain together or visit the Grand Canyon...
Obviously the earth is NOT round, plus it has an equatorial bulge and the bottom (Antarctica) is somewhat flattened.

From a distance (outer space) the earth might look 'round' ...but get up and personal to the earth and you begin to see its contours and flaws.

Same as ewe GT, the closer I get, the more flaws that are presented within your topography.
Defined by your mountain top called southern baptism, followed by your descent into the valley called atheism.

(09-20-2009 11:02 PM)GTseng3 Wrote:  But the point is, evidence must be POSITIVE.

sorry dude, but explain how I present my evidence that ewe and your kind, are ignorant, in a positive way? Praise

(09-20-2009 11:02 PM)GTseng3 Wrote:  Well, there you have it. Feel free to discuss any flaws you find with my points.

I think you should go see a shrink dude.
Want the number of mine?
Wink
He is a Jew, and wears a yarmulke.
Would that bother you?
Could you respect his advice or the man?
We have great conversations.
The last time I went, after the hour was up, we sat and talked for another 4 hours.
Yes I arrived at 7:30 pm and left at 12:30 am.
Angel

I wonder why?
He only gets paid for one hour.
He had a wife and child at home...but he chose to stay with me and chat till 12:30 am about my CODE 11258.
And he was quite anxious that I come see him again.

The man is also an M.D.
And his initials are JC...
ALL of the above is true.

Let me put it this way GT, you need help more than EWE realize.

namaste

NATURE cannot be HIDDEN only VEILeD with NARRATIVES that defy NATURE

CodeX4 and the Reconciliation of Science and Religion
http://kachina2012.wordpress.com/about/
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
09-21-2009, 06:00 AM
Post: #3
RE: Rational arguments
The definition of irony:

Raphael showing up on a thread about rational argument.

Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
09-21-2009, 06:08 AM
Post: #4
RE: Rational arguments
(09-21-2009 06:00 AM)Parousia Wrote:  The definition of irony:

Raphael showing up on a thread about rational argument.

Big Grin

ah the 'better half' of the tag team called the mob makes his appearance.
did you read my response?

who sounds rational?
GT is grasping for straws for his straw man arguments.
again.

paradoxical parousia, have the two of ewe made a pact re:damage control?
Note the timing of these posts...are EWE following me around dude? Tongue

Seems I have a 7:00 shadow.
I better take out the shears and shave yer woolly hide.

namaste

NATURE cannot be HIDDEN only VEILeD with NARRATIVES that defy NATURE

CodeX4 and the Reconciliation of Science and Religion
http://kachina2012.wordpress.com/about/
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
09-21-2009, 06:10 AM
Post: #5
RE: Rational arguments
(09-20-2009 11:02 PM)GTseng3 Wrote:  2. Personal insults. If you personally insult someone, you lose. But you might say, "GTseng3, you personally insult people sometimes." That's right. And I lose in those posts. Whenever I let my snarky attitude get the better of me, its intensely funny for me, but it does NOTHING for my argument. Those posters who cannot seem to get a word out without reverting to personal insults have nothing worth listening to. Those posters who sometimes post personal insults should not be listened to in those posts (and that includes me. If I start attacking Raph or Catholicstation instead of their ideas, just ignore those posts, trust me, I'm not saying anything important in them, I'm just messing with people who have lost my respect. It's a weakness of mine that I constantly struggle to overcome.)

You lose Raphael. Don't be a sore loser, leave the thread.

True religion is real living; living with all one's soul, with all one's goodness and righteousness~ Albert Einstein

Live like everyday is your last~ Anonymous
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
09-21-2009, 06:11 AM
Post: #6
RE: Rational arguments
(09-21-2009 06:08 AM)Raphael Wrote:  
(09-21-2009 06:00 AM)Parousia Wrote:  The definition of irony:

Raphael showing up on a thread about rational argument.

Big Grin

ah the 'better half' of the tag team called the mob makes his appearance.
did you read my response?

who sounds rational?
GT is grasping for straws for his straw man arguments.
again.

paradoxical parousia, have the two of ewe made a pact re:damage control?
Note the timing of these posts...are EWE following me around dude? Tongue

Seems I have a 7:00 shadow.
I better take out the shears and shave yer woolly hide.

namaste

Case in point....Wink
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
09-21-2009, 08:24 AM (This post was last modified: 09-21-2009 08:42 AM by Raphael.)
Post: #7
RE: Rational arguments
(09-21-2009 06:10 AM)Bobin Wrote:  
(09-20-2009 11:02 PM)GTseng3 Wrote:  2. Personal insults. If you personally insult someone, you lose. But you might say, "GTseng3, you personally insult people sometimes." That's right. And I lose in those posts. Whenever I let my snarky attitude get the better of me, its intensely funny for me, but it does NOTHING for my argument. Those posters who cannot seem to get a word out without reverting to personal insults have nothing worth listening to. Those posters who sometimes post personal insults should not be listened to in those posts (and that includes me. If I start attacking Raph or Catholicstation instead of their ideas, just ignore those posts, trust me, I'm not saying anything important in them, I'm just messing with people who have lost my respect. It's a weakness of mine that I constantly struggle to overcome.)

You lose Raphael. Don't be a sore loser, leave the thread.

no sorry, Bobin unless you can provide a rational argument, I suspect you might just be a card carrying member of the mob, who rebleats commandment #2.
what if?
Bobin I do note that this is the first time that you have responded to me on this forum?
Is that true?
What camp do you sleep in...bible thumper or non-believer?

maybe Bobin, paradoxical parousia and his groupie GT, get together for a game of strip poker, bobin for apples, and pin the tail on jesus riding the [censored] << insert donkey?

I have my interpretation of the events too.
And the herd of EWE have yours.
I imagine there are close to 6 billion varied interpretations.
Everybody is entitled to their version, based on their perspectives?

"Thou shall not defend thyself against ignorance", is this the mantra that the herd say I must adopt?

My evidence suggests parousia and GT follow a distinct pattern, that you are not aware of Bobin...
But I am, because they like to troll my threads in the NUMBERS section...rarely agreeing with nary an idea or word that I offer up in this pot luck buffet we all attend.....their appearances on my THREAD is always counter intuitive, it is ALWAYS counter or anti-Raphael.
Always.
And GT has an even graver problem.
Because he is extremely ignorant of the esoteric and twisted by his baptist/atheist journey he spends most of his time slapping parousia on the back or throwing sublime, and sometimes not so subtle below the belt shots.

I keep asking/challenging BOTH OF THEM to start threads about the NUMBERS, that we find used in ALL the scriptures.
Why oh why oh why do the same numbers appear?

But it their absence in the NUMBERS forum that is evident of what?
Bobin I challenge you too....to come tell me what you know about NUMBERS.

My entire thesis is based on a NUMBER sequence called the FIBONACCI.
112358

Sorry for shouting. Wink
But it was meant for the two ignorant 'intellectual' 'emperical' trolls.

A series of numbers 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, >> to infinity (you can start with or without the 0, zero, makes no difference at this point in the discussion)
It is a distinct PATTERN that can be taught to children between the ages of 5-8, (just like the ratio in the Fibonacci sequence 8:5).
This pattern of numbers is essentially the pattern of NATURE.
And these fellas cannot meet me halfway.
All they do is crap on my threads...and then disappear off into the verbosity, which can be found in great abundance.

Why are they both incapable of discussing NUMBERS with any esoteric insight?
And their lack of understanding numbers as 'archetypal concepts', plus their mainstream inane responses...grow tiresome.
Poking fun at these IGNORANT paradoxical smart/stupid folk is a pastime.
It is a cosmology with a Don Rickles delivery...I have contempt for many of the herd of EWE.
This is true.

Can I suggest we have traveled a different road.
Here is a clue to mine, my reading list, and it could use an update.
http://www.religionforums.org/thread-1119.html

THUS from my perspective it is paradoxical parousia and his running mate GT, who are the kinds of leaders I would not endorse.
Shallow intellectual Hal's who only see/feel/sense 'part' of reality.

These guys are the fookin' droll trolls.

These fellas are archetypal anti-christs to my very being.
I am learning so much from them. Wink
Too bad they are stuck and refuse to learn from me. Angel
Too bad I have proved that the paradoxical smart/stupid human being indeed has difficulty looking past the messenger, though the message has much merit, and as we know even if he stands alone, it can still be true.

That is a rational argument from where I sit.
Praise

Bobin my research is based on following the archetypal patterns laid down for us...that are always active and evoking behaviors on this side of the two-headed Janus flat world coin.

Baphomet Heads I win ...
Sheep Tails EWE lose...

Come join the discussion on the 216 or 666 thread, and you will see that paradoxical parousia is really out of touch with what phi and pi mean.

He thinks they are merely formulas.
Ignorance is bliss.
Not to me.

I have taken an oath, I have made a deal with myself to defend myself against ignorance at every turn.

These forums, like life are like labyrinths.

namaste
(09-21-2009 06:11 AM)Parousia Wrote:  Case in point....Wink

Exactly ... case in point ... please please please start a thread about NUMBERS as concepts.
There are so many numbers used in the bible yet the absence of the bible thumper and the empirical ignoramus has been noted by me.

WHY?

Can't ewe think for yourselves?
Do you NEED laid down formulas to follow?
Like I have mentioned before parousia, you are one of diplomats representing the walking dead.

On this forum, you are president of the local chapter.

namaste
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
09-21-2009, 08:46 AM (This post was last modified: 09-21-2009 08:49 AM by Bobin.)
Post: #8
RE: Rational arguments
(09-21-2009 08:24 AM)Raphael Wrote:  no sorry, Bobin unless you can provide a rational argument, I suspect you might just be a card carrying member of the mob, who rebleats commandment #2.
what if?
Bobin I do note that this is the first time that you have responded to me on this forum?
Is that true?


Well I gotta say nice to meet you as well Raphael. If find it quite amusing how my simple post evoked such a strong reaction from you. Have I struck a nerve? And as to responding to you for the first time, this is the first time you have directed a response at me. Usually in your others posts, your just trying to rage on GTseng3 or Parousia. I, on the other hand responded to the intellectual questions that GT asked.

(09-21-2009 08:24 AM)Raphael Wrote:  What camp do you sleep in...bible thumper or non-believer?

I guess I am as you phrase it a "bible thumper" and sure as hell proud of it too.


(09-21-2009 08:24 AM)Raphael Wrote:  maybe Bobin, paradoxical parousia and his groupie GT, get together for a game of strip poker, bobin for apples, and pin the tail on jesus riding the [censored] << insert donkey?

I am not immature as to take "sides" if you will. I was just clearly posting the obvious, you did make several personal insults in your post. First time I saw your posts, I honestly can say I was somewhat impressed but now I am chagrined say I've felt that way. And now I can truly say I do respect them more than I respect you because as you see, their reputation points exceed yours and not only that, they have earned my respect.

But now Raphael, I shall throw a question back at you:

(09-21-2009 08:24 AM)Raphael Wrote:  What camp do you sleep in...bible thumper or non-believer?

Kind Regards,
Bobin

True religion is real living; living with all one's soul, with all one's goodness and righteousness~ Albert Einstein

Live like everyday is your last~ Anonymous
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
09-21-2009, 09:09 AM
Post: #9
RE: Rational arguments
(09-21-2009 08:46 AM)Bobin Wrote:  But now Raphael, I shall throw a question back at you:

(09-21-2009 08:24 AM)Raphael Wrote:  What camp do you sleep in...bible thumper or non-believer?

Kind Regards,
Bobin

I am both. Tongue
I support the bible(s), I support ALL cosmologies.
I support the archetypal figurative evidence to be found within.

I do NOT support any of the self-serving literal drivel (which is merely MORE evidence of human condition), that I read about on the majority of threads trumping one belief system over the others.

In my mind...not one is more valid than the others.

And I am a non-believer when it comes to some of the big FIBS that science has asked us to accept.

And admitting you are a bible thumper and your noted absence in the NUMBERS forum suggests that EWE have a bias too.
Based on what you have been exposed too.

For a moment forget which camp you belong too Bobin...on the day of judgment...will you line up on the right or the left?

tell me why you choose the hand you did...please explain.

namaste

NATURE cannot be HIDDEN only VEILeD with NARRATIVES that defy NATURE

CodeX4 and the Reconciliation of Science and Religion
http://kachina2012.wordpress.com/about/
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
09-21-2009, 10:04 AM (This post was last modified: 09-21-2009 10:06 AM by Bobin.)
Post: #10
RE: Rational arguments
(09-21-2009 09:09 AM)Raphael Wrote:  I am both. Tongue
I support the bible(s), I support ALL cosmologies.
I support the archetypal figurative evidence to be found within.

I accept your answer but I don't agree with it. It is as simple as this: You either believe in God or you don't. Might as well mark yourself agnostic if your anywhere in between.

(09-21-2009 09:09 AM)Raphael Wrote:  And admitting you are a bible thumper and your noted absence in the NUMBERS forum suggests that EWE have a bias too.
Based on what you have been exposed too.

I have never been good with numbers and to tell tell you the truth, I've never understood the Fibonacci Sequence. I really can't see what it would have to do with Christianity. I can nonetheless agree there is a repetition of certain numbers in the Bible but I don't see how it would affect the religion itself. Call me ignorant but that is my stand.

(09-21-2009 09:09 AM)Raphael Wrote:  For a moment forget which camp you belong too Bobin...on the day of judgment...will you line up on the right or the left?

If I was to forget that I am a Christian then there would be no day of judgment.

Quote:Then the king will say to those at His right hand, “Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.” ... “Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me.”

Then He will say to those at His left hand, “You that are accursed, depart from me into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not give me clothing, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.” ... “Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.” And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life. (Matthew 25:31-36, 40-43, 45-46 NRSV)

If I was to base my answer on the above verse taken from Matthew, of course I would like to belong to the right side. I cannot say for a fact that once I finish this race, on which side I will be found but I do try to live my life justly and by the standards the Bible and the Church presents so that one day I might be able to stand on the right side. I am sure most of us or all of us for that matter would like to be found in heaven.

True religion is real living; living with all one's soul, with all one's goodness and righteousness~ Albert Einstein

Live like everyday is your last~ Anonymous
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)