Are you a FOOL who FOOLISHLY believes any one of these 4 FALSE doctrines/heresies?...

will the spirit father be serving chocolate milk with his myth?

Maybe it's like losing one's virginity.  Once lost, it's gone forever, but that doesn't contradict free will.

Among all the religious philosophies, the doctrine of eternal security is the worst that I have ever come across. It basically says that you once accept Christ you are saved forever. It means you can murder, rape and torture others after you accept Christ and you are still saved. The people who interpreted it are complete wackos. On a personal basis, I tend to respect Catholicism more because it at least puts some responsibility on people getting their acts right. Catholicism says faith alone cannot save but the faith needs to be complemented by good deeds. The Protestant religion such as the one formed by that idiot king who invented a religion because he wanted to sleep with many women doesn't get any respect from me.

I need an "I don't know about some of those" to answer.

The one that has been completely disproven by Mathematics is "annihilation". The only way to believe in annihilation is to believe there is a higher supernatural power capable of annihilating the soul. It's proven that the "meter reader" that some refer to as soul, spirit, or consciousness, is not the meter being read. Thus the end of the meter only releases the meter reader. For whatever destination, we don't know. Just that it means the meter reader isn't reading that meter any more.

The others are incapable of being proven or disproven by any means by which we can perceive. The soul sleep seems far fetched, but not in terms of this Universe as we know it by our record of time. If time is a dimension, it could be outside that of which the soul exists in the Nature outside of what we experience. Not saying that's the case, just that there's no way to prove one way or the other in this geometrical circle we call our Universe.

Once saved, always saved, seems far fetched, too. I think it's a good motto for giving hope and helping someone persevere through temptation, so I don't argue against it.

Just because someone believes in any or all of those doesn't make them a fool. Calling people fools because they have different religious beliefs isn't really productive or helpful to anyone. I'm not a fool, but I believe in "once saved, always saved."

I have heard it defended on the basis that if someone "truly" accepts Christ they will not rape, murder, torture etc. Meaning anyone who does so never really accepted Christ - that accepting Christ is not a tick box exercise but a profound change to the person.

Although "salvation by faith" is often attacked by atheists as immoral, one could argue that it is a better world where some are saved on merit of being faithful than the atheist alternative of no salvation for anyone: good or bad, faithful or unfaithful.

Predestination could also be defended on the same basis: it is better that God selects some to be faithful - even on an arbitrary basis - and save them when he could just let eveyone perish if he wished. The idea is that no-one deserves salvation so you can't complain when you don't get it.

Of course, accepting this line of reasoning depends to an extent on what one considers to be the alternative to salvation - is it simply nothingness or is it eternal torture? While you could maybe argue that no-one deserves salvation, surely no-one deserves damnation either? Which is why I think the idea of Hell is incompatible with Calvinism unless Hell is taken as simply a methaphor for nothingness or being without God. Of course, the idea of the inherent sinfulness of humankind is prevalent in such religions - since you're all sinners, you're all damned unless God decides to save you on a whim. Which seems just a tad harsh.


I think wanting to remarry was only a factor in Henry VIII forming the Anglican Church. Church and State had been at odds throughout English history and with the Reformation, Henry VIII seized the chance to become in control of both. Which conveniently let him marry Anne Boleyn to boot. Had the Pope allowed him to remarry though, I imagine the split from Rome still would have come about.

I suppose it's a question of why people who believe in Salvation Via Faith believe God uses faith as his method of sorting the saved from the unsaved. What is it God gets out of it? - Would God want someone who only chooses faith as a means to salvation? Or is there something about true faith that makes one able to communicate with God in the way an unfaithful person cannot? In which case the misguided person is not being discriminated for God's lack of clarity (God doesn't want to make it easy for people to use faith as a box ticking exercise), but for his/her own limitations. Of course, if you believe in predestination, then those limitations were put in place by God in the first place :/


No, perhaps not - you could maybe say it makes God good but not maximally good.

I suppose an analogy might be if you're throwing a birthday party and invite all your friends but do not invite random starngers. Would it have been more good to invite the strangers too? Possibly, but I doubt we'd condemn you for it.


Well, that's the good old determinism vs free will debate. There are many who would argue our lives are predetermined whether God exists or not, but does that make us robots?