what happens to non-christians after death

last SG · 2007-10-04T10:00:34+00:00

I think we have fairly answered the question of the threadstarter. I know there are disagreements. It will be endless to go on about. I don't think we wish t...

vince69 SG

cause I a stubborn bigot...

I don't believe I can save 1 million, I can point the way to them, but I cannot decide for them, the path they chose to go.

stupidissmart SG

I do disagree that Fairness is important before one can mete out Justice. However, I will say, Decernment and Wisdom are important before one can mete out Justice.

To mete out justice, fairness is critical. With wisdom and discernment, then it will realise fairness is critical. Without fairness, it is not justice. It is double standard and biased and nothing more than torture

vince69 SG

got example?

*edit: illustration is a better word. Embarassed

got illustration?

Spnw07 SG

Hmm, I have doubts on many concepts taught and explained by the established religions out there. I will probably not say that the concept of salvation as taught by Christianity is absurd but it does not let me make an informed decision by just asking me to believe when good or bad things happen to me.

Good, will say it's God's work. Bad, will say God's testing me, training or toughening me up. It's like anything goes.

Then like that how to differentiate between a good or a bad teaching?

For example, in some scriptures, God kills a lot of ppl but it is explained that it is for the benefit of all. But in human history, how often have we heard military dictators use that logic to wage war against a particular country, a particular race?

That's why global terrorism is so much feared by governments around the world.

SumOne SG

To everyone, please remember to take things in the right context. Thank you.

JustDroppingBy SG

How about those people in the Old Testiment?

TO HELL WITH THEM ? =| Shocked

stupidissmart SG

If there is no fairness when meting out justice, then it will punish the good people and favour the bad one. Then it will encourage more people to commit offences as well as disregard the whole system and segregate the people.

Then tat form of justice is nothing more than actring like a bigger bully or bandit.

With wisdom and discernment one can surely realise tis outcome.

Why don't u give an illustration why total unfairness to a group of people who commit the same deed with same intention get different judgement, can be a wise and just act ?

vince69 SG

I ask you for illustration first... Laughing you have not give me any,... Neutral want realistic one hor... don't everything just by ideal assumptions only hor...

stupidissmart SG

I thought my points r obvious. If u want illustration I can give u as many as u like

Person A from religion A kill a man. He get death penalty and die

Person B from religion B kill a man under completely same circumstances. He get away with $100 fine

Then tis person B just keep on going and kill people, because he doesn't get any major problem. Not only tat all the people from religion B will commit offences easily because they do not face any backlash. People from religion A will feel they r discriminated, they will isolate from society and group among themselves and desire a change of system or governance. Wat happen then ? Chaos in the country and there will be a civil war.

Now u tell me an illustration while unfairness can lead to justice and wisdom ?

sillyme SG

Can fairness be relative to the person’s viewpoint and his desired outcome?

stupidissmart SG

Can fairness be relative to the person's viewpoint and his desired outcome?

Fairness refers to same treatment to all classes of people.

sillyme SG

Can I say that is from a third person's point of view?

Fairness from the person involved may not be the same.

stupidissmart SG

Can I say that is from a third person's point of view?

Fairness from the person involved may not be the same

Is it so hard to understand "fairness" used here means rewarding/punishment according to deed and not because of person ? I hope u r not trying to play with the word or come out with completely different scenario or something.

sillyme SG

I am not trying to play with words.

I think the understanding of the word is that cause of the debate between the two of you.

Just trying to help.

vince69 SG

wrong... thats Equality

ask you, is it fair to punish someone with low IQ for doing something stupid with the same punishment as the one with a high IQ doing this same stupid thing?

there is this thing called, expectation.

Even if the exact same treatment is given to everybody, there will still be someone shouting NOT FAIR! why? cause everyone wants better treatment. :-)

Chin Eng SG

does it mean that because i have two sons of varying age, what i give to one is also what i give to the other??? obviously not. so am i being unfair?

one got a brand new phone, the other got a hand-me-down phone. Laughing

at the end of the day, even if there is an almighty deity and this deity is unfair, so how..... he bigger than you, complain go where????

but if there is no god, all these argument for what???

stupidissmart SG

wrong... thats Equality

ask you, is it fair to punish someone with low IQ for doing something stupid with the same punishment as the one with a high IQ doing this same stupid thing?

U need to see the dictionary definition of "fair" then

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fair

Fair:
free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice: a fair decision; a fair judge

Fairness

Fair, impartial, disinterested, unprejudiced refer to lack of bias in opinions, judgments, etc. Fair implies the treating of all sides alike, justly and equitably: a fair compromise. Impartial, like fair, implies showing no more favor to one side than another, but suggests particularly a judicial consideration of a case: an impartial judge. Disinterested implies a fairness arising particularly from lack of desire to obtain a selfish advantage: The motives of her guardian were entirely disinterested. Unprejudiced means not influenced or swayed by bias, or by prejudice caused by irrelevant considerations: an unprejudiced decision. 4. passable, tolerable, average, middling. 8. open, clear, unencumbered. 10. clean, spotless, pure, untarnished, unsullied, unstained. 11. legible, distinct. 12. blond, pale. 13. pretty, comely, lovely. 15. polite, gracious.

If u look at the definition of equality, u find tat it is far from the one tat I am mentioning. U r just playing with word.

And your example of a stupid person and clever person, u r giving the wrong example. If u talk about comparing a clever person with a stupid person, obviously u have to account their intelligence to make a fair judgement. Tat is fairness. Tis is because stupidity is a matter of grave important to the case and must be taken into account to be fair.

If u punish a stupid person A of religion A harshly while punishing a stupid person B of religion B lightly, u r not being fair. Religion in tis case does not play any role and it is discrimination

U r giving the wrong example man

Now where is your illustration of being unfair and making it become a just and wise wisdom ? Com'on show me your illustration.

soleachip SG

Who told you that?

stupidissmart SG

Obviously he can say u r unfair to him and he is not wrong. But u probably have a valid reason why one get the phone over the other and tat makes it fair.

at the end of the day, even if there is an almighty deity and this deity is unfair, so how..... he bigger than you, complain go where????

The question is not to complain or watsoever but to say tat the logic of some being which is just but not fair is contradicting

soleachip SG

Equality isn't possible and should never be possible though we can give it our best shot at being fair.

« Previous Page Next Page »