What's the American Bible Belt really like, /his/?

>>1569915

Was it or is it now? I'd say it was from the 70's-2009 or so, but it's changing.

File: 1464188365662.jpg (67KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 600x600px

>>1569915
It's a place where using fear to indoctrinate new members isn't bad.

I've seen plenty of church displays that say something threatening like "there are no athiest in hell"

>>1569922
>Was it or is it now?

both

>it's changing.

How so?

>>1569915
I don't know. I only live in the rust belt.

Grew up & still live right smack dab in the middle of the bible belt & grew up having to go to a southern baptist church.

Fear is a hugely used tactic by everyone in general for getting people to go to church or be baptized. If you meet a christian, they will most likely straight up ask you if you are also one or not. If no, then they will immediately begin their testimonial to you. Then at the end they never fail to ask you "if you died today, would you go to heaven or hell?" or ask if you think you're a good person. Their selling point is that you will go to hell, and you should be afraid. You should also feel guilty. If you are not a christian, you are naturally an amoral person.

Once you are in the church and baptized, the fear tactics don't stop. I remember every single sermon either being entirely about, or wrapping up with, how you will go to hell if you don't believe in Jesus, or if you sin & don't ask for forgiveness.

They're nice to you, don't get me wrong, but you can be sure as shit they're talking shit about you & gossiping about you when you're not around.

>>1569932
Wouldn't it read "there are no atheists in heaven" ? If there are no atheists on hell, they either went to paradise, or simple stopped existing, both far superior choices compared to hell.

>>1570004

No, you're not thinking like a bible belter.

When an atheist goes to hell they'll finally see the word of God as true & that Jesus died on the cross as our Lord and Savior, but it will all be too late. They will forever be separated from the Lord & suffering for their sins.

>>1570004
I think what they're trying to say is that everyone in Hell realizes that God is real and they wish they had realized (or admitted) it. I say "admitted" because a lot of conservative churches seem to have this subconscious (sometimes even conscious) belief that atheists know God is real but choose not to believe in him

>>1570015
That's the spirit! I grew up in a super traditional church so it just seems natural to interpret it that way, but I guess someone with a more secular upbringing might not have the same thought process

>>1569990
>If you meet a christian, they will most likely straight up ask you if you are also one or not

is there much in the way of inter-denominational infighting and proselytising/sheepstealing? as in no true scotsman 'you're not a christian unless you're a member of my exact denomination'?

>>1570019

>a lot of conservative churches seem to have this subconscious (sometimes even conscious) belief that atheists know God is real but choose not to believe in him

Yes, and it's definitely more conscious than subconscious. They really can't comprehend that someone genuinely DOESN'T believe in God & that they don't have any doubts in their head at all. It's what makes it so frustrating to get out of getting testomonial'd because they genuinely cannot grasp how you can't want this great thing called God's love.

It's their way or the highway (to hell).

>>1570034

I can't speak for other denominations because I never had to go to any church other than southern baptist ones, but a southern baptist would probably be too self-absorbed to think about other denominations much. Too busy gossiping about & hating each other secretly & hiding the liquor bottle from the missus to care much otherwise. It never came up publicly at our church, anyway. I wouldn't be surprised if they did think that about other denominations, though, and I probably just never got into the old boys club enough to hear it.

>>1570058

New to the thread, but what is it with Baptists anyway? I "have" Hansen's disease (cured by WHO standards) but the second any Baptist finds out I've got leprosy, they always want to touch me.

I mean, I get it, Jesus healed lepers, yay. Touching me isn't going to make me better, or make you holier. And it does seem to be a principally Baptist thing, at least in my anecdotal experience.

>>1570076

They're very, very evangelical.

>Touching me isn't going to make me better, or make you holier.

It's pretty much engrained into the minds of baptists just how much more moral and righteous they are than non-baptists. They genuinely believe (although maybe not totally consciously) that they are holier than you. They have a personal relationship with God, and their closeness to God allows them to do his work through themselves. So, they wanna touch ya and make ya better. They have good intentions, but they certainly do think it makes them holier & yes they are certainly more righteous and closer to God than you. They feel pity that you aren't as close to Him as they are, bless your heart.

>>1570015
>but it will all be too late

This is something that boggles me about Christianity. Why the fuck would God turn away anyone just because they repented after their physical body died rather than before? Why would it matter to him? It makes no rational sense and completely contradicts the idea of omnibenevolence; but it does align perfectly with the idea that Christianity is a hoax of sorts designed to control people with supernatural threats and promises.

>>1570196

>It makes no rational sense

Well duh man, it's not rational at all. None of it really is, it's all based off emotion. That's why using fear is so effective - it plays off emotions.

>Why the fuck would God turn away anyone just because they repented after their physical body died rather than before?

The whole point is to repent before you die - afterwards is too late. You already are doomed to serve your punishment in hell, and a part of that punishment is full realization of how you were wrong & how God truly is our God & that Jesus is our Lord and Savior but now you can never be with them and feel their love. Always just out of reach for eternity.

The Abrahamic religions are entirely based upon control & subjugation. They're more like rule books that work more politically than spiritually. You live to serve, not to explore your personal life experience.

>>1570196
>>1570271

Oh, and I forgot this part.

>it does align perfectly with the idea that Christianity is a hoax of sorts designed to control people with supernatural threats and promises.

Christianity is really just a cult that didn't get stamped out. There were quite a lot of cults like Christianity back in the days of Jesus, but all of those got stamped out. Christianity, however, did not. It survived and managed to become widespread and strong enough to upgrade to religion status. It's actually really fascinated to study the early Christian church and how it operated. Probably one of my favorite parts of the NT is when an elderly couple lied about much they donated to the church (they were supposed to give all their money and stuff per ridding all materialistic belongings to follow Jesus), so Peter says they will be punished by God for lying to him. They are smited on the spot by God & drop dead.

Don't fuck with Peter, he's got God on speed dial. Reminded me of the Godfather. lmao

File: 1.gif (2MB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 500x281px

>>1569915
NC here, 336 represent

its OK, alot of people trying to save your soul and shit. but i always heard the craziest stories from church camp and the retreats they would do. sounded cool, but who knows the legitimacy of those claims. plenty of fear to go around as well.

now black churches, thats what you need to fucking dive into deeper. watch the doc 'marjoe' for a feel, oh and alex pelosi's doc 'friend of god'

File: Walking on Water.jpg (182KB, 1200x1568px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 1200x1568px

>>1570298
>Christianity is really just a cult that didn't get stamped out. There were quite a lot of cults like Christianity back in the days of Jesus, but all of those got stamped out. Christianity, however, did not.

So what you're saying is that Christianity is unique? It must be special if it outlived its rivals.

>>1570323
The ideas of Heaven and Hell, plus the whole salvation bit are what make Christianity so powerful.

File: 1453861844216.jpg (200KB, 928x960px) Image search: [Google]

200KB, 928x960px

>>1570339
That's the Holy Ghost at work.

>>1570323
Of course it's unique. It didn't outlast its competition because it's true however, it outlasted them because it was the most useful to a certain empire at a critical place and time in history.

>>1570058
I live in the Bible Belt in North Florida, Southern Baptists are the fucking worst. The guy I share my cubical with is a preachers son and is ALL about Church and God. What's so frustrating is that he's not an idiot and was simply indoctrinated from birth... These people are obsessed with marriage happening as soon as possible to the first girl you talk to at your church or at a church convention, because Bobby wants to get laid and Susie wants to show off in front of everyone and be the center or attention at her wedding as well as get laid, then retire at age 22 to pop out babies and then be in mom and grandmother mode for the rest of your life. It makes sense, it's way harder to leave the church when you've got a wife and kids than when you're single. This fucking obsession with getting married, you hear girls just going on about how they want their wedding to be, like the wedding and being a wife itself is what's important, the guy just has to not be a piece of shit and have a job, they just need to find someone their parents will find acceptable so she can get a ring to show off to her friends and talk about her wedding plans with everybody, then their kids. Not saying marriage and kids are bad, but religious parents pressure their kids into marriage from the time they graduate high school, it's not healthy, guys get the vibe that their church thinks that unmarried guys past their mid 20's are creeps, pedos, gay, or serial killers, girls get the impression that unmarried women past that age are sluts who are failing as women because they didn't immediately become a wife and mother.

Baptist dads are creepy as fuck, especially with their daughters.

They take more of the Bible literally than other deniminations.

File: Ecce Homo.jpg (520KB, 2526x1750px) Image search: [Google]

520KB, 2526x1750px

>>1570352
But Pilate is the one who crucified Christ. How is that useful to Rome?

>>1570323
Islam is also unique in that way, that doesn't make either religion true

>>1570360
You know damn well I'm not talking about Pilate you dummy.

>>1570058
How do the rationalize people believing in other gods?

>>1570374
possessed by demons

File: Quid Est Veritas.jpg (154KB, 574x798px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 574x798px

>>1570367
Pilate is the most famous Roman in the Gospels.

>>1570196
Because if you repent after you've had proof that hell is real and you could go there, you're not actually sorry and showing your faith in god, you're just repenting to avoid hell.

You're supposed to show faith.

>>1570390
God wants me to show faith, he can come down here with his entire host and demand mankind suck his dick. When did Yahweh become such a pussy, hiding away in heaven like an autistic child?

>>1570381

I can't tell if you are joking.

>>1570390
Also, I wanted to mention that repentance isn't just going sorry. It's a lot more complex than that, way too complex for me to explain. But in its most basic form, it's that you legitimately have to regret even committing the act. Not because of the consequences, but because of the action itself.

Regretting killing someone because you're in prison, or you miss their company are both selfish in nature.

File: Keep Calm.png (42KB, 1000x1100px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 1000x1100px

>>1570396
Listen and you can hear Him.

>>1570396
Do you not know what faith means? If you have absolute concrete evidence of God, you're not showing faith by believing in him.

Take the fedora off mate, this is stuff explained by even a basic knowledge of the religion.

>>1570390
There are two problems with that. One, most Christians perhaps, and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, argue that proof is available to us now, here on Earth. This would belie the claim that you can't repent once you have proof God or hell exists.

Second, it's supposition to say that someone who sees hell can't possibly honestly convert. How could you say they are only doing it to avoid punishment when people on Earth might be doing it (preemptively) for precisely the same reason? And if you're insinuating that there is currently no proof of this religion then you are essentially just raising Pascal's wager, which is notoriously stupid.

>>1569915
ill still look him dead straight in the eye while i do though

>>1570408
The basic foundations don't make logical sense. But as you say-- it's religion for you.

I don't necessarily discount the existence of some godhead somewhere. But mankind certainly hasn't birthed 8 or 9 of its prophets. To assume that something immeasurably vast and beyond mortal ken would deign to even glance in mankind's direction is unfathomably egotistical.

>>1570406
I hear Him now. All glory to the Papa. All glory to the Big Cheese Combo. Papa Bless, anon.

File: Turnip-Head.gif (998KB, 500x688px) Image search: [Google]

998KB, 500x688px

>>1570425
Creators are known to do more than glance at their creations just like parents are known to love their children.

File: Bonding.gif (17KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 400x400px

>>1570430
Papa loves you.

>>1570419
>There are two problems with that. One, most Christians perhaps, and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, argue that proof is available to us now, here on Earth. This would belie the claim that you can't repent once you have proof God or hell exists.

Nah, I've never met a Christian who says they can prove that God is real. Most say because of their experiences they believe he's real, but there's a big difference between believing something is real, and having outright proof that it is real.

>How could you say they are only doing it to avoid punishment when people on Earth might be doing it (preemptively) for precisely the same reason?

I'm not saying that either is okay. If you repent your sins to avoid hell, it doesn't really count. It's dishonest and just selfish behaviour.

>>1570425
As >>1570434 said, it's not hard to believe that God, who created humanity might want to give it some of his attention.

It's not egotistical to go "God created humans and then looked after them because he cared about his creation" when that's literally one of the basic tenets of Christianity, and makes perfect sense.

You've got this idea that we're getting all of God's attention, and that's not true.

>>1570425
No, it's not.
If it's infinite, why wouldn't it contact conscious entities wherever they could be found, especially if ultimate consciousness is its defining characteristic?
If we suddenly found an alien civilization, for instance, wouldn't we try to contact it?

>>1570434
Why are you ascribing human instincts, motives and emotions to 'x', the unknown, the unsolvable? Sharks create sharks, but rarely stick around to see what happens.

>>1570403
>I wanted to mention that repentance isn't just going sorry. It's a lot more complex than that

I understand that fully. But it's presumptuous and simply doesn't follow that someone being punished for something they did wrong cant honestly repent for it just because from an external perspective it appears they just don't want to be punished anymore.

What you seem to be saying quite literally is that people should repent for wrong doings before they have any proof that what they did was even actually wrong. That's absolutely absurd.

>>1570355


>Baptist dads are creepy as fuck, especially with their daughters.

Baptist men are really creepy, and usually big time hypocrites. Baptist women have mastered the art of gossip & shit talk.

>They take more of the Bible literally than other deniminations.

haha yeah. A lot usually don't even read it and just go off of what they hear in sermons & in sunday school/study groups (i cant remember what they call the adult sunday schools)

The biggest thing about southern baptists is that they are huge hypocrites.

The only genuine ones I know are my mom & grandparents. I'm not a christian but I still enjoy talking scripture with my grandma. Very very smart and compassionate lady, but had no chance growing up in Georgia during the 1940s & 50s.

>>1570374

Those poor lost sinners.

Also the sooner you accept that they don't think rationally most the time, the easier they are to deal with. Worst thing you can do is try and get into a theological argument with a christian like a southern baptist, cause you ain't gonna take out anything that wasn't placed there rationally in the first place.

>>1570396

what >>1570408 said. The whole point is that there is no proof & you gotta just have faith.

>>1570390
>>1570403

exactly.

>>1570419

>One, most Christians perhaps, and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, argue that proof is available to us now, here on Earth.

Only the insecure ones.

>it's supposition to say that someone who sees hell can't possibly honestly convert. How could you say they are only doing it to avoid punishment when people on Earth might be doing it (preemptively) for precisely the same reason?

They would say that God will see past the insincerity, but its roots are in a basic fear of eternal damnation. It's the main driving force, but they'll jump around that a ton.

>>1570438
Prithee, go with Him with a 2-litre of diet cola and buy ye the side serving of cheese sticks.

>>1570400
They have a very Manichaean good/evil mindset, there's no room for rationality

>other gods
does not compute

File: 1445031969186.png (55KB, 1705x453px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 1705x453px

>>1569932
>It's a place where using fear to indoctrinate new members isn't bad.
so just like liberals and libertarian who spend their life menacing people and punish people when those people do not follow their rules of the liberals and libertarians?

>>1570425

>The basic foundations don't make logical sense.

then maybe Christianity isn't for you.

File: Solarian watching sunset.png (114KB, 999x999px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 999x999px

>>1570451
Sharks don't make sunsets.

>>1570454
Bread and water are enough.

>>1570452
>I understand that fully. But it's presumptuous and simply doesn't follow that someone being punished for something they did wrong cant honestly repent for it just because from an external perspective it appears they just don't want to be punished anymore.


And you're perfectly right, but if they were actually repentant, why would they wait until they were dead to actually repent?

I'm sure there's a few rare examples you could come up with, but not really many.

>What you seem to be saying quite literally is that people should repent for wrong doings before they have any proof that what they did was even actually wrong

What? Where did I say that, don't put words in my mouth. I said if you just repent because you're outright faced with going to hell, that's not repentance, that's trying to dodge hell. You should repent because you believe the action you committed to be wrong, not because of the consequences.

>>1570451
You mean exactly like what you're doing? By going "God shouldn't care because I say so"?

If we're talking Christianity, we have to use the Christian god, which does care. You can't go "If it was a different God then Christianity makes no sense, checkmate Christians"/

So fellow southern anons, how did yall spend sitting in the pew during sermons?

My mom used to give me a pen so I could doodle on the back of the program card. Wasn't that great cause I can't draw worth shit, but helped pass by the time well enough.

>>1570482
>You should repent because you believe the action you committed to be wrong

Why can't someone in hell (or generally just after-death) do just this? You're saying that they're only doing it to avoid hell but you don't know this to be the case. I'm saying a non-Christian might die and see direct proof that God exists and then fully accept Christ in full earnest and therefore fully and honestly repent just as much as anyone on Earth before death might. I'm asking how there could possibly be any reason this is unacceptable to an all-loving and merciful God.

>>1570387
...the fifth Procurator of Judea—the knight, Pontius Pilate.

>>1570510
Because as I said, why would you not repent before death if you honestly believed it to be wrong?

Of course I can't speak for everyone, I'm not God, I don't know their minds, but logically, what reason is there for you to wait until you die to repent?

And a non-Christian (assuming they knew CHristianity exists) cannot show faith once presented with proof. It's not belief that God wants, it's faith. If you only repent once you're given proof, you're just doing it because you know God doesn't approve, which is based on the consequences, not the action itself.

>I'm asking how there could possibly be any reason this is unacceptable to an all-loving and merciful God.

God's merciful, not all forgiving. Those who come to him of their own choice and believe in him and accept Christ will be forgiven, but someone who dies and goes "Oh fuck, I was wrong, sorry God" isn't doing any of those things.


How is this so hard for you to understand?

>>1570519
I forgot "cruel," didn't I?

>>1570533
then why does he, in the bible, directly give people proof when he has use of them?

Why is faith so valuable in this case when it would be stupid in every other to believe something without some proof?

>>1570543
He gives proof to those who already believe, and those who are given divine tasks. You are neither.

>Why is faith so valuable in this case when it would be stupid in every other to believe something without some proof?

Because God desires it, I have no idea why, but that's what's claimed. You can't use "Yeah well that's dumb so it doesn't count" as an argument for whether or not something is the case, and in Christianity, it is the case.

Don't like it, don't be Christian, it's up to you, that's the beauty of free will. The church is always there for you.

>>1570533

>Because as I said, why would you not repent before death if you honestly believed it to be wrong?

That's the point, you *don't* believe that its wrong before you die and see proof that it's wrong. If God doesn't exist then my ways aren't wrong. I believe that God exists so I don't believe my ways are wrong. If I died and saw proof that he existed, then I would believe he existed, and therefore I would believe very honestly that my ways were wrong. Why would I repent for something when I have no proof that it's wrong? That's the whole point I'm getting at.

>>1570552
>I believe that God exists so I don't believe my ways are wrong.

Typo there, should say 'I don't believe God exists so I don't believe my ways are wrong'

>>1570549
>He gives proof to those who already believe

And St Thomas, who said he would not believe until he could feel Christ's wounds?

>Because God desires it,

You dont know that God desires, it you take it on faith that he does.

>Don't like it, don't be Christian

I don't like circular logic

File: papa's in the house.jpg (46KB, 520x341px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 520x341px

Aquinas spoke of the mythical City on the Hill.

Soon that city will be a reality, and we will be crowned its kings.

Or better than kings.

Papas.

>>1570552
>That's the point, you *don't* believe that its wrong before you die and see proof that it's wrong.

You're ignoring what I'm saying on purpose as far as I can tell now. Repentance isn't about regretting the consequences. Finding out that God is real and disapproves is a consequence. Therefore, you cannot repent because of that.

>Why would I repent for something when I have no proof that it's wrong? That's the whole point I'm getting at.

You personally wouldn't, and you don't have to. But going "Yeah well I don't like that" doesn't mean it no longer is the case.

>>1570559
>And St Thomas, who said he would not believe until he could feel Christ's wounds?

You mean the apostle? Who followed Christ before he had any wounds? The only thing he didn't believe in was the resurrection, not in God overall. Not relevant.

>You dont know that God desires, it you take it on faith that he does.

No, I'm taking it from the Bible, a divinely inspired text.

>I don't like circular logic

That's not circular logic anon. You personally don't believe you can do something without proof, and you don't have to. If you can't have faith, don't be a Christian.

>>1570491
I used to just say I needed to go to the bathroom and then go play on the playground with my cousin til it was over.

>>1569990
Not a Bible Belt Christian, but I hear how radical and over the top southern Christians can be, (baptists, Pentecostals etc). There's a difference between preaching hellfire and beating people over the head with guilt. Yes, hell exists and it is an eternal place that is real. However, God extends His mercy to those who call on Him.

The whole culture in the south sounds like they mean well with Christianity, but it's so radical and fear mongering that it tends to put people off without expressing the grace of Christ.

It's the only place with any culture left. That's why all the degenerate nihilists hate us.

>>1569915
Americans can't masturbate with a single hand?

Ask a former Evangelical anything

>>1569915
Pretty sure thats just photoshoped, I mean look at the text

It's pretty horrid, OP.

>Father moved to the Bible Belt from a very liberal area
>Used to be spiritual/slightly religious, but didn't go to church every Sunday or anything
>Was very leftist before he moved

>Moves down to a Southern state
>Within a few years he believed the Earth was less than 5,000 years old, thought that secular music was the work of the devil, and that evolution was invented by "evil liberal scientists with the help of Satan"
>Also believes that it's impossible to be a good, moral person if you're a non-Christian and/or a liberal

The thing is, these beliefs are extremely common there. I find it bizarre. It's like one big hugbox where they only listen to people with the same ideology as they, so it gets more and more reinforced.

>>1570572
>Repentance isn't about regretting the consequences. Finding out that God is real and disapproves is a consequence. Therefore, you cannot repent because of that.

You're putting in so much effort to avoid a very simple and straight forward question and I'm not entirely sure why.

Look, I don't care what your super special secret definition of repentance is or involves, because I'm not talking about someone finding out God is real and going 'shit I'm trouble better 'convert''. I'm talking about someone discovering God is real after dying and repenting in whatever way you feel is proper and sincere, in exactly the same way someone 'discovering God' on Earth would. I mean, you can't repent and be saved unless you believe in Christ existing and being the son of God, right? So the point is that someone might not believe Christ exists and is the son of God until after they die. So they find out he is real and then sincerely wish to convert. There is literally no reason this is intrinsically impossible or even particularly unlikely.

>>1571726
>You're putting in so much effort to avoid a very simple and straight forward question and I'm not entirely sure why.


No, I'm pointing out a very important definition.

Someone who "discovers God on earth" finds their faith, realises the wrong of their ways and repents. And this repentance needs to be demonstrated, it's not just going "shit, sorry God". That's way to complex for me to post though, and I don't understand it entirely myself. Talk to a priest.

Someone who literally sees God after they die hasn't found faith, they've seen proof that they're fucked and tried to get out of it. Faith is the important thing here. And what reason is there for someone to repent only after they're given outright proof they're wrong?

>So they find out he is real and then sincerely wish to convert. There is literally no reason this is intrinsically impossible or even particularly unlikely.

I can only assume you're being intentionally dense at this point, I've explained over and over to you why this doesn't work, and you've just got "Yeah but why doesn't it work?" in response.

Go read my responses if you want an answer, I'm not just going to keep answering the same question again and again. Belief in a Christian sense is based on faith. You don't believe in gravity, because it's undeniable assuming you're not literally psychotic, you can outright see it happening, it's proven. So, you can't just go "Oh, I'm a believer now that I've died and got outright proof that makes it impossible for me not to believe" after you die, because there's no element of faith or acceptance, it's undeniable fact at that point.


The only exception to the rule of repentance in that sense is suicides, who may be left unable to be repentant of their actions until after death. But the official church position on that is that unless you're outright killing yourself as a fuck you to God or to dodge consequences of your life choices, you don't go to hell.

>>1571751
So actual repentance has nothing to do with it and it's all about faith?

>>1571751
People can have faith in people.

A wife has faith in her husband.

A teacher, in his student

And so on and so on

In each case two persons can see each other.

To say that God revealed yourself to you and you sincerely repented for ill will and sin as invalid simply because the evidence is there ergo no faith is simply plain moronic.

If this is the case why in the fuck does Paul gets the free pass from this?

He persrcuted Christians and had a supernatural encounter that made him convert

But following your logic, he would have to be in hell and never really had faith since he seen God or his powers and shit

>>1570466
Nope.
Nice false comparison Strawman you've got there though.

>>1571751
>Someone who literally sees God after they die hasn't found faith, they've seen proof that they're fucked and tried to get out of it. Faith is the important thing here.

I don't think you understand what belief is or how it works. The way you word it sounds like you're raising Pascal's wager. If faith is belief without proof or convincing evidense, then you're saying you need to throw a dart at the board of religion and 'correctly guess' that Christianity is true.

>And what reason is there for someone to repent only after they're given outright proof they're wrong?

Because once they have proof they are wrong, they know they are wrong. You need to know you're wrong in order to repent for being wrong, otherwise you're 'guessing' that your wrong. You need to know or understand yourself to wrong to sincerely repent for wrong doing, and dying and seeing proof God exists would be the needed step in achieving 'knowing yourself to be wrong'.

>>1571771
What? Where did I say that at all?

>>1571776
That's very different anon, don't act retarded. People have faith in undemonstrated as of yet ability, not in the person existing or not.

>To say that God revealed yourself to you and you sincerely repented for ill will and sin as invalid simply because the evidence is there ergo no faith is simply plain moronic.

You're once again ignoring what I said. You cannot sincerely repent because you're scared of consequences. Why would someone only repent after they're given outright proof of consequences if not for fear of those? Seriously, give me one reason why that would happen.

>If this is the case why in the fuck does Paul gets the free pass from this?

I already addressed that those given divine purpose are obviously exempt. We don't have a mission from God though, do we? Unless you're an as of yet unheard of apostle?

>But following your logic, he would have to be in hell and never really had faith since he seen God or his powers and shit

Once again, you're being obtuse. Even ignoring the whole "divine mission" thing I already said, Paul's actions as well as continued devotion more than make up for his original lack of faith.

He also demonstrated faith by his continued belief that the path of God was the right one, which could easily be dropped in the face of adversity. Even Christ doubted at points.

>>1571828
>The way you word it sounds like you're raising Pascal's wager.

I'm outright saying the opposite anon.

>If faith is belief without proof or convincing evidense, then you're saying you need to throw a dart at the board of religion and 'correctly guess' that Christianity is true.

Once again, don't ignore what I'm saying. You can develop a belief in God because of personal experiences that led you towards it, correct?

Would you argue that feeling a calling towards religion for whatever purpose, and towards your local church is concrete evidence of the existence of God?

Do you not see the massive false comparison you're relying on there? That there's a difference between seeing something and being objectively unable to deny that it's there, and finding your faith through numerous different events and choices you make?

>Because once they have proof they are wrong, they know they are wrong

No, they know that someone else thinks they're wrong.

>You need to know or understand yourself to wrong to sincerely repent for wrong doing, and dying and seeing proof God exists would be the needed step in achieving 'knowing yourself to be wrong'.

Once again, no, because then you're going "Oh, God thinks I'm wrong, and he can send me to hell, so I better repent". There is not a single train of thought for why someone would only repent for an action they may have committed 60 years ago only once faced with proof of God that doesn't lead back to the argument of "God can send me to hell if I did the wrong thing, so I better repent to avoid that". Which is not repentance.

Please don't just respond with another "nuh-uh".

>>1570347

I think that it's disturbing how religion leeches off of love and kindness. It's literally an ideological parasite.

>>1570323
>It must be special if it outlived its rivals.

Not really. Christianity's success boils down to Constantine's continued patronage and victory at the Battle of Milvian Bridge.

>>1571829
So faith Doesn't involve TRUST?

So you be saying that a deity who wants to have Personal relationship with a person DOESNT want it?

One can say the same about Paul's conversion experience

He sees definitive proof of God and in that moment even fear for all the persecution he did to Christians.

It's the same shit.

The Apostle was a sinner like anyone else. He even participated in the stoning of Stephen the martyr.

So no. Your excuse of those with divine purpose are excluded doesn't count. A normal guy sees God and experiences him firsthand. This is the same with all upon death.

Your excuse of Paul's devotions makes no sense when those unbelievers can do the same. And even better, in front of God himself.


People like you are the reason why no rational minded person should be Evangelical

>>1571829
>What? Where did I say that at all?
>Someone who literally sees God after they die hasn't found faith, they've seen proof that they're fucked and tried to get out of it. Faith is the important thing here. And what reason is there for someone to repent only after they're given outright proof they're wrong?

You really don't seem to grasp what it actually means to "repent." If you don't think you're wrong, you can't possibly repent.

>>1571829
>You're once again ignoring what I said. You cannot sincerely repent because you're scared of consequences. Why would someone only repent after they're given outright proof of consequences if not for fear of those? Seriously, give me one reason why that would happen.

How about "because they actually feel sorry for what they've done", retard? You can't "repent" for displeasing god if you don't actually believe he exists. And by that logic, NO-ONE can sincerely repent: Either they don't genuinely believe in god, or they're just doing it because they're afraid of what might happen if they don't. Therefore, repentance has nothing to do with it.

>>1571880
>So you be saying that a deity who wants to have Personal relationship with a person DOESNT want it?

No? I literally never said this.

>He sees definitive proof of God and in that moment even fear for all the persecution he did to Christians.

I outright explained why this is wrong.

>The Apostle was a sinner like anyone else. He even participated in the stoning of Stephen the martyr.

Of course, we're all sinners, but devotion can absolutely make up for lack of original faith, and faith can be demonstrated through devotion. This is not complex.

> A normal guy sees God and experiences him firsthand.

>Apostle
>normal guy
Wew.

>Your excuse of Paul's devotions makes no sense when those unbelievers can do the same

The ones who are already dead can live an entire life dedicated to the Church, despite risk to themselves, and not drop that faith? Impressive.

>People like you are the reason why no rational minded person should be Evangelical

>If I call you this boogieman, that makes you wrong!

>>1571884
>If you don't think you're wrong, you can't possibly repent.

And you're not able to repent because of proof of consequences, as repentance isn't based around "Oh shit, sorry". Read my posts before you say shit I've already explained.

>>1571891
>How about "because they actually feel sorry for what they've done", retard?

Why would they wait 60 years to feel sorry for it, and only feel sorry once they're faced with punishment?

> And by that logic, NO-ONE can sincerely repent

How'd you manage to get there? You do something wrong and feel guilty about doing it because you personally knew it was wrong, and then attempt to make up for it somehow. That's what repentance is, in its most simple form.

Just because you can't imagine doing something for any reason other than because you physically gain something from it doesn't mean that no-one else can.

>>1571849
>Once again, don't ignore what I'm saying. You can develop a belief in God because of personal experiences that led you towards it, correct?

That's vague. Is 'personal experience' explicit revelation or what I suspect you really mean, Interpreting psychological and social pressures as some sort mystical magical calling? One is proof or convincing evidence of God's existence, which according to you is impossible to repent after receiving, the other is magical thinking at worst, Pascal's wager or arbitrary guessing at best.


>Would you argue that feeling a calling towards religion for whatever purpose, and towards your local church is concrete evidence of the existence of God?

Again, a 'calling' is either a supernatural event or a personal psychological one. If the former, it's no good according to you, if the latter than you're there is no validity to the conclusions you're coming to which means your ultimately just guessing.


>Once again, no, because then you're going "Oh, God thinks I'm wrong, and he can send me to hell, so I better repent".

I've already said that I'm talking about that. You keep relying on this straw man and I think it's obvious to everyone who may be reading this thread but perhaps you.

>There is not a single train of thought for why someone would only repent for an action they may have committed 60 years ago only once faced with proof of God that doesn't lead back to the argument of "God can send me to hell if I did the wrong thing, so I better repent to avoid that". Which is not repentance.

Sure there is. 'oh god exists which means what I did was in fact wrong.'

Notice I didn't mention hell, punishment or the avoidance thereof.

I live in Orthodox country and these hardcore believers are usually okay people, while there's plenty of cool clergymen who are actually quite intelligent and educated.
But American Protestants are creepy as fuck, judging from my encounters. They are more like dolls than real people. Eww.

>>1571913
>How'd you manage to get there? You do something wrong and feel guilty about doing it because you personally knew it was wrong, and then attempt to make up for it somehow. That's what repentance is, in its most simple form.

Because no part of your insane troll logic actually justifies the difference between repenting before or after you die. No, being punished does, in fact, not prevent someone from repenting anymore than being AFRAID of being punished does.

>>1570196
Hell actually has little scriptural basis

>>1571913
But you deny faith to those who had seen God and was skeptical of his existence

So you are saying that one cannot trust him or even have faith in him because he is not a person but an object.

No one have faith in penut buttr but when we see a jar and cannot see its insides, we have faith it is there. But once we know...we don't have faith in that no longer.

So your God is an object, a machine that is programmed to eternally torture those who did not have faith in its existence or believe it when they are alive only to torture them all because of their ignorance.

The Apostle was a normal person going around doing his thing and persecuting Christians.

You may say that since he is divinely appointed for some divine purpose, he is exempt. But ALL humans are called to share in the life of the Trinity. For a Divine Purpose.

Oops....

The ones who are dead and see God can still be devoted to him just as two friends are in relation to each other

This is why Evangelical Protestantism is so dumb

I am glad I left

>>1570543
>Why is faith so valuable in this case when it would be stupid in every other to believe something without some proof?
Because gods in a dick measuring contest with satan and he needs you to fluff him.

>>1570196
God works in mysterious ways.

>>1571914
>One is proof or convincing evidence of God's existence

Come on anon, even you can't believe that a calling towards religion and Christianity in particular is somehow the same as explicit physical evidence of God's existence.

Please stop using the term pascals wager when you clearly don't understand what it means, too, it's literally the opposite of what I'm saying.

>Again, a 'calling' is either a supernatural event or a personal psychological one.

You're acting as if personal psychological experiences somehow mean that the conclusions we draw from them are invalid due to personal experiences,.

So why is you feeling as if you personally are drawn to the church for whatever reason without having concrete evidence that God is real somehow proof that there's no validity to the conclusion?

>I've already said that I'm talking about that.

Yet you've not managed to explain any other reason why someone would only repent in the face of consequences.

>Sure there is. 'oh god exists which means what I did was in fact wrong.'

But why do you believe that anon? And that's ignoring you're not going "what I did was wrong", you're going "God thinks what I did was wrong". What reason is there for you to change your beliefs if not because there's consequences for them?

>>1571928
>No, being punished does, in fact, not prevent someone from repenting anymore than being AFRAID of being punished does.

But it outright does, because that's inherently selfish. You cannot repent for personal gain.

>>1571951
>But you deny faith to those who had seen God and was skeptical of his existence

Can you reword this please?

>No one have faith in penut buttr but when we see a jar and cannot see its insides, we have faith it is there

That's correct, yes. That's how faith works.
cont

>>1571466
>hell exists

>>1570058
I have this great thing called my waifu's love.

>>1571974
>But it outright does, because that's inherently selfish. You cannot repent for personal gain.

THEN YOU CAN'T REPENT BEFORE DEATH, EITHER! Whether alive or dead, you can either repent a)because you want to go to heaven or b)because you're genuinely sorry. Whether you're currently being punished or afraid of being punished in the future doesn't change that.

>>1571974
>What reason is there for you to change your beliefs if not because there's consequences for them?

Changing your beliefs because you've discovered conflicting evidence is a thing people do, anon. With smart people, this can even happen regardless of consequences.

>>1571951
>So your God is an object, a machine that is programmed to eternally torture those who did not have faith in its existence or believe it when they are alive only to torture them all because of their ignorance.


If you live in the west, you can't profess ignorance of Christianity anon. You know it's there and exists.

And it's quite a leap to go from "God requires faith from his believers" to "this is proof God is a machine designed to torture everyone who doesn't believe in him".

>You may say that since he is divinely appointed for some divine purpose, he is exempt. But ALL humans are called to share in the life of the Trinity. For a Divine Purpose.

No anon, we are not all given a divine mission. You cannot compare being able to become part of God's kingdom to filling one of the most important roles in the creation of the Church.

>The ones who are dead and see God can still be devoted to him just as two friends are in relation to each other

I've already explained how this is wrong.

>This is why Evangelical Protestantism is so dumb

Back to boogiemen I see. Sorry to disappoint anon, but I'm Catholic. Or did me referring to things that aren't scriptural in nature not make that obvious enough?

>>1571987
>Whether alive or dead, you can either repent a)because you want to go to heaven or b)because you're genuinely sorry.

You're wrong on pretty much all levels.

You cannot repent for personal gain. That is not how repentance works, so a is ruled out.

And b is correct for those that are alive. There is not a single reason for someone to just up and change their minds straight after they see evidence that hell is real, except for avoiding it.

You can only be genuinely sorry for purely selfless reasons.

I'm not going to bother continuing this conversation, because I've already explained this too many times.

>>1572000
>Changing your beliefs because you've discovered conflicting evidence is a thing people do, anon

But then you're ignoring the component of faith, which is also required to get into heaven. You cannot have faith if you only have it because of objective proof. That's not faith.

Give me a single reason why you would become genuinely sorry only in the face of consequences that isn't based on selfish thoughts. Just making up a hypothetical that if true should have happened in their mortal life doesn't count either.

>>1572004
>You cannot repent for personal gain. That is not how repentance works, so a is ruled out.

Then only people who don't actually believe in god can repent, because everyone else ALWAYS has personal gain at stake: it's only a question of whether it's immediate personal gain or not.

Or are you saying that someone can't be genuinely sorry if they're offered $100 immediately if they say it, but they CAN be genuinely sorry if they're offered $1 000 000 next week after saying it?

>>1571974
>But why do you believe that anon?

I would believe it because I have reason to believe it now, proof, without which I'm just guessing or supposing.

>And that's ignoring you're not going "what I did was wrong", you're going "God thinks what I did was wrong".

No that's what your straw man is going. You're being obtuse about it at this point.

>>1572004
You are the dumbest catholic I ever seen

>>1572015
>Give me a single reason why you would become genuinely sorry only in the face of consequences that isn't based on selfish thoughts.

Because it's not a question of consequences. It's a question of belief. Let's say you accidentally drive over someone without noticing. You can't be sorry for it at the moment because you're not aware of any wrong doing. You CAN be sorry about it after you discover what happened, though.

>>1572017
>Then only people who don't actually believe in god can repent, because everyone else ALWAYS has personal gain at stake

Having personal gain at stake doesn't mean you do something because of it. I can feel genuinely sorry for something isn't even a sin and still repent as best I can. I spent an hour and a bit in prayer not that long ago just because I felt guilty that I hadn't been as good as person as I'd like to be.

>>1572018
>I would believe it because I have reason to believe it now, proof, without which I'm just guessing or supposing.

No, that doesn't answer my question. Why do you believe it's now wrong, apart from God being God and having control over where you go?

>No that's what your straw man is going.
It's not a strawman to point out there's no other logical conclusion to changing your mind in the face of consequences.

>>1572028
No u.

>>1572034
>Let's say you accidentally drive over someone without noticing. You can't be sorry for it at the moment because you're not aware of any wrong doing. You CAN be sorry about it after you discover what happened, though.

Of course, but that's not really the same thing anon. Sure, you need to be aware that the bad thing even happened to know it was bad, but that's not the same as needing proof God thinks something is bad to think it is.

I appreciate what you're trying to say, but it's not on topic.

>>1572039
>Having personal gain at stake doesn't mean you do something because of it. I can feel genuinely sorry for something isn't even a sin and still repent as best I can. I spent an hour and a bit in prayer not that long ago just because I felt guilty that I hadn't been as good as person as I'd like to be.
Then there's no reason someone who is already in hell couldn't repent.

>Of course, but that's not really the same thing anon. Sure, you need to be aware that the bad thing even happened to know it was bad, but that's not the same as needing proof God thinks something is bad to think it is.
It kind of is. You were driving along a road. Only afterwards did you discover that driving along the road was wrong, because it caused someone to get hurt. Similarly, sinning isn't bad because of the thing itself, it's bad because it removes you further from the god: therefore, for someone who doesn't believe in god, sinning isn't inherently bad.

>>1572015
>Give me a single reason why you would become genuinely sorry only in the face of consequences that isn't based on selfish thoughts.

You're so hung up on this and I think I know why. In this scenario, two separate things are happening simultaneously. 1. The dead person is receiving proof that God exists and that they spent their life just being plain objectively wrong and realizing this

And 2. They are being faced with punishment/hell

Just because they are occurring at the same time doesn't mean they are not different, seperable things. Which means that just because their belief or conversation is happening at the same time theyre being immediately threatened with punishment doesn't mean that avoiding the punishment is the reason they are attempting to repent. The real reason they are repenting is the first one I mentioned because you need to believe God exists to repent to him and realize you were wrong.

I'm pretty sure this has all been less-directly addressed multiple times and you've continued ignoring and probably will continue to ignore it and stick to your shifty straw man, but it's worth a shot.

>>1572039
>Why do you believe it's now wrong, apart from God being God and having control over where you go?

For literally the same exact reasons a good devout believer on Earth before they die would.

>>1572052
>Then there's no reason someone who is already in hell couldn't repent.

Except for there being no reason apart from them being in hell to just suddenly change their mind and repent genuinely. No-one's given me one yet.

>Only afterwards did you discover that driving along the road was wrong, because it caused someone to get hurt.

But driving on the road isn't wrong, that's my point.

>Similarly, sinning isn't bad because of the thing itself, it's bad because it removes you further from the god: therefore, for someone who doesn't believe in god, sinning isn't inherently bad.

Sure, it's not inherently bad. But if you live your life going "Well, I don't have any reason to not be a dick and to sin and do whatever I want, there's no consequences to my actions", then go "Oh shit there are consequences to my actions", that's not really repentance.

>>1572060
>Just because they are occurring at the same time doesn't mean they are not different, seperable things

Of course. But you've not managed to explain why they only just realised what they did was wrong. They've realised God thinks it's wrong, sure, but repentance isn't about what God thinks. You can't repent if you only think it's bad because God does, that's dishonest, it's not what you actually think.

>The real reason they are repenting is the first one I mentioned because you need to believe God exists to repent to him and realize you were wrong.

I've already said this, but repentance does not equal "I'm sorry God". It's not a conversation you have, he already knows how you feel.

Repentance is a behaviour, it's an action you take. It's not a passive thing where you just feel bad about something. I can go kill someone, feel really bad about it and then do it again, it's not uncommon for serial killers to have that cycle.

You cannot repent only once you're dead because you're not genuinely repenting, you're doing the "Oh shit I'm sorry God, I didn't know you were real so I didn't care" thing.

>>1572076
>For literally the same exact reasons a good devout believer on Earth before they die would.

Which are?

>>1572080
>Except for there being no reason apart from them being in hell to just suddenly change their mind and repent genuinely. No-one's given me one yet.
There's plenty of reasons. Like: They now know they were wrong.

>Sure, it's not inherently bad. But if you live your life going "Well, I don't have any reason to not be a dick and to sin and do whatever I want, there's no consequences to my actions", then go "Oh shit there are consequences to my actions", that's not really repentance.
Then replace generic "sin" with something specific. Let's say masturbation: It's a sin, but unless you're a christian, there are no obvious harmful consequences to it, for anyone and in fact, some studies say it even has positive effects on yourself.

>>1572089
>They now know they were wrong.

Which is irrelevant, as I've already said. Repentance isn't about what God thinks.

>Let's say masturbation: It's a sin

It's not, at best that comes from one obviously misinterpreted passage, which if I remember correctly, isn't even a NT one.

>>1572087
Doesn't matter. It differs from denomination to denomination. Some are all about divine command theory (x is wrong because God says it's wrong, full stop), some have more complicated reasons. Whatever *you* believe is the proper understanding and reasoning that a good believer would have is the reason this dead person has. That's all that matters to what I'm saying. Why is that somehow impossible and/or unacceptable to an infinitely loving and merciful God?

>>1572099
So born again Christians go to hell, then? Because they only repented after realizing that god does exist, after all?

>>1572080
>They've realised God thinks it's wrong, sure,

And he can't be wrong, right? So the conclusions they draw should be as simple as that. God says it's wrong, he can't be incorrect, there for it is wrong.

File: Jesus vs. Jeezus.jpg (365KB, 1000x1409px) Image search: [Google]

365KB, 1000x1409px

>>1569915

>>1572106
>Doesn't matter

It's literally the basis of this entire argument.

And lets argue from a Catholic point of view here.

>Why is that somehow impossible and/or unacceptable to an infinitely loving and merciful God?

God is anathema to sin. By his nature, he cannot accept sin, otherwise he no longer is pure, and is no longer God. If he accepts sinners into his kingdom (sinners as in those who have not genuinely repented), he accepts sin.

>>1572111
They had faith God existed, and chose to change their ways to live more in keeping with his teachings.

They did not have concrete evidence that bad things would happen otherwise.

>>1572112
But that's not what I'm saying. Sure, what God says is right, full stop, but that doesn't mean that you personally now believe it's the case, you simply believe that God does.

It's not your belief, it's one you've adopted because of fear of consequence and absolute proof.

I have already explained that repentace is not a "Oh shit I'm sorry" thing though, so this isn't relevant at all. You cannot have faith as a result of objective evidence, and you cannot repent once you no longer have the physical ability to do so. Ergo, you don't get into heaven.

>>1572122
>They had faith God existed, and chose to change their ways to live more in keeping with his teachings.
So it IS about faith and not repentance, after all.

>>1572128
I've never said it wasn't both anon. In fact, I've outright said it is both.

>>1572122
>But that's not what I'm saying. Sure, what God says is right, full stop, but that doesn't mean that you personally now believe it's the case, you simply believe that God does.

So here you're implying having proof of something being wrong isn't the same as having faith or proper understanding or whatever, as though it requires some deeper insight that just 'objectively knowing something to be true'...

>It's not your belief, it's one you've adopted because of fear of consequence and absolute proof.

But here you're implying that it's exactly just that. If proper belief is more or greater than simply seeing proof then someone shouldn't be exempt from being able to repent just because they've seen proof (since its more than that)

Seeing proof shouldn't be in conflict with this greater understanding bit, or else you do not believe in a loving or benevolent God, you believe in some sort of sadist playing mind games with people.