Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Debate:Where is Hell?

2009-02-21T03:00:45Z

Conservativedude:

<div style="text-align:center"><div style="margin: 0 auto 1em auto; width: 75%; text-align:center"><big>''"Can you fathom the mystery of God? Or can you probe the limits of the Almighty? They are high as heaven. What can you do? They are deeper than Sheol. What can you know?"''</big> - Job 11:7-8</div></div>

[[Image:Gfdyte7y6.jpg|right|thumb|250px|[[Dante]] portrayed Hell as stretching down to the center of the Earth.]]
In ancient times, people believed that [[Hell]], or the [[underworld|land of the dead]], was a physical place that could be traveled to. [[Greek]] heroes such as [[Odysseus]], [[Orpheus]] and [[Hercules]] were all able to reach [[Hades]] and return to the land of the living, while [[Dante's Inferno]] portrays the [[Christian]] [[Hell]] as a subterranean pit that stretches down to the center of the Earth.

Now that a complete map of the world has been built up through exploration and aerial and satellite photography, we of course know that Hell is not a physical place of the kind that people used to believe in. However, Hell remains an important part of [[theology]]: it does exist, and people (or their [[soul]]s) do go to it and inhabit it.

My question is, '''what is the nature of Hell's existence?''' Does it occupy a "spiritual realm", similar to the "alternate universes" or "parallel dimensions" that are conceived of in [[science fiction]]? If so, is this realm subject to the same physical laws as our own? For example, do light and sound exist there?

Naturally, we cannot know the answers to these questions for certain. But I would be keen to hear the views of others, so I invite anyone with comments, theories or insights to post them below.

--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]]

==Responses==
The answer to this question is quite simple and not a mystery at all. Hell simply doesn’t exist, either physically or in any other form, such as alternate universes. Hell is merely a concept, a figment of the imagination. You are very right when you say hell is not a physical place on earth, just like heaven isn’t a physical place in the sky. These are just ideas that exist in the minds of people. We need something to either look forward to or fear, and churches around the world recognized that and this also serves as a way to keep people in check, to establish moral values. You can either live a good life and be rewarded in heaven, or a sinful life and be punished in hell. But the reality of it is, this is the only world we exist in and we must make the most of it now. We can’t be bogged down our entire life trying to make it to heaven. We need to just enjoy life. Because we might be very disappointed when there are no white gates greeting us after we die. But, if there is a hell, just keep the old saying in mind: Hell for company, heaven for climate. – Conservativedude.

Hell is a very real place where selfish people go after they die. You won't like the company there any more than the climate. People who care about each other will go to Heaven. There are stages of heaven and hell, and the deepest reaches of hell are reserved for the worst sinners. But no one is assigned to heaven or hell: each simply goes where he feels most comfortable. - [[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup>

Ed, your argument is a little confusing. If no one is assigned to heaven or hell, what is the purpose of either? Wouldn’t everyone claim they feel ‘more comfortable’ in heaven, no matter how bad a sinner they are? You also say people who care about each other will go to heaven. Does this include atheists or homosexuals who care about other people? And if hell is a very real place, perhaps you could tell us where it is. I offered up my explanation of where hell is, that being the mind. Does it exist somewhere else? – conservativedude.

:Jesus emphasized Hell more than Heaven. Those who complain about a lack of justice on Earth are in denial about the final chapter of each person's life.

:Hell exists and no one escapes it by pretending it isn't there. Some get a glimpse of it at times in their life, but the full horror is far worse.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:20, 20 February 2009 (EST)

::Perhaps no one escapes it by pretending it isn’t there. But what about the people who genuinely believe it does not exist, or those who have no concept of it at all, for example remote tribes or ancient peoples? How can they go to a place they have no concept of? – Conservativedude.

::: Jesus said the worst punishment awaits those who misled others. So people who teach there is no Hell will likely feel it the worst. It's perfectly logical, and it's illogical to deny it. Don't worry about how God will deal with the person who was misled beyond his control, or kept in complete darkness. No one who visits this site, or who can use the internet, is such a person.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:59, 20 February 2009 (EST)

::::First, bear in mind that Andy and I have different conceptions of the [[afterlife]]. Second, hell is in the [[spirit world]], the place where your [[spiritual self]] or 'soul' lives eternally. If you're a materialist, this won't make sense to you, but if you believe in [[life after death]] then it will.

::::Being a "[[sinner]]" is not merely a matter of violating the rules in some book. It's about selfishness. A good atheist is more likely to feel comfortable (if a bit astonished) in heaven. But homosexuals and adulterers will probably find the atmosphere of heaven unbearable: see Rev. 22:15. While Obama might feel that "[[tolerance]]" requires him to be "humble" about asserting what God's will is, I'm here to tell you that any sexual intercourse outside of (heterosexual) marriage will only hurt your ability to love properly.

::::Don't imagine that you'd like hell. There might not be flames and pitchforks, but you're better off searching for the truth and living by it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 21:02, 20 February 2009 (EST)

:::: Every day there are people who felt they could escape judgment but are standing before a judge at sentencing. "Conservativedude", I encourage you to attend a sentencing hearing. It's public. Ted Bundy had lots of fun with his deceit and selfishness, and then was petrified worse than a little baby when he was eventually sentenced to death for it and executed.

:::: Atheism is often selfishness and deceit in disguise. Polls confirm atheists give less than others, and they certainly demand censorship of Christian insights. I'm not fooled by the label. I doubt God is either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:29, 20 February 2009 (EST)
::::: I believe the question was "where is Hell", not "Who goes there". The answer is probably the similar to "where is Heaven?", which is most likely somewhere not physical. As for the nature, I don't think it's as much fire and brimstone or physical punishment as it would be psychological and emotional. Knowing you blew your one chance, you are segregated from God would be far greater punishment than flaming whips. [[User:ENorman|ENorman]] 21:54, 20 February 2009 (EST)

:::::: I don’t think people are teaching others that hell does not exist, it is just a belief they carry and they shouldn’t be punished for it (I’ll return to this idea in a moment). And I think we should worry about how ‘God’ will deal with those who are ‘in complete darkness’ because it raises an interesting point. Christianity is relatively new when looking at the scope of Human existence, so what is to say its doctrines are right and all others are wrong? Do all ancient Greeks, Romans, Egyptian’s, and so on go to hell because they did not accept the Christian teachings? And why is it relevant if they use the internet or visit this site? It’s not in my opinion. Furthermore, to reply to Ed, homosexuals are just as loving and caring as any heterosexual person is, so why do they deserve to be punished? And Andy, I am from Canada and we do not have the death penalty, which is very beneficial I believe. The state should not have the right to put someone to death (but that is another debate). And I completely disagree that atheism is selfishness and deceit in disguise. Returning to my point at the beginning of my post, I believe in this: Atheists are simply questioning their existence, they are seeking another truth that is not god. Therefore, IF god does exist, an atheist should not be punished by god for simply utilizing their cognitive ability to question their existence and creation, assuming god is ‘all loving.’ And if the atheist is right, well, we all know how that story ends. – Conservativedude.

[[Image:Devilbar trans.gif|center]]
[[Category:Eschatology|Where is Hell?]]
[[Category:Mystery|Where is Hell?]]

Debate:Where is Hell?

2009-02-21T01:30:02Z

Conservativedude:

Debate:Where is Hell?

2009-02-21T01:21:02Z

Conservativedude:

Debate:Where is Hell?

2009-02-21T00:50:52Z

Conservativedude:

Essay:Top Causes of Rejecting Conservativism

2009-02-13T02:15:21Z

Conservativedude:

{{essay}}

Here is a growing list of the top causes of rejecting [[conservativism]]:

#The complete ridiculousness of conservative thought and logic.
#[[liberal]] indoctrination in schools. It takes about one year to undo each month-worth of indoctrination.
#personal addictions or activities, often self-destructive, that are criticized by [[conservatives]]
#jobs dependent on [[liberal]] ideology, such as [[gambling]], [[pornography]], [[media]] and [[government]]
#habitual reading of the [[liberal]] newspapers. We are what we read.
#poor upbringing, leading to being easily fooled by superficial [[liberal]] arguments, or by [[liberal]] demonizing of [[conservatives]]
#a desire to fit in with [[liberals]] and be liked by them
#a belief in [[materialism]], and thereby a rejection of [[platonic]] concepts used by [[conservativism]]
#a lack of open-mindedness in considering ideas unfamiliar to their education or background
#a cartoonish view of [[conservatives]] and conservative principles
#a lack of recognition of the power of [[Essay:Conservative Benefits|conservative benefits]]
#a reliance on "feelings", a product of [[culture]], over [[faith]], [[logic]], and [[fact]]s
#enjoyment in misleading or deceiving others
Feel free to add to this list, or change their priority

[[Category:Essays about Conservatism]]
[[Category:Liberalism]]

Talk:Bias

2009-02-12T02:29:08Z

Conservativedude:

Hello, I have added something to the end of this article. Before you immediately delete them, I want to discuss them first. I feel that if our website is going to label Wikipedia with a liberal bias, we should at least recognize the conservative bias found on our website – because surely everyone, conservative or not, can see the bias. So please, provide me with a strong case of why you shouldn’t mention conservapedia’s bias in this article. Either include both Wikipedia and conservapedia and their bias, or include neither of them. I look forward to what people have to say. – Conservativedude.

You see, this website is not liberally biased. It is truthfully biased. You can't call us that we're biased unless you establish what a moderate opinion is. Mostly when we talk about bias, we refer to liberals. You see, there is no such thing as a conservative bias, only a truth bias. And we sir, are the truth bias. Now, can you honestly tell me that the truth is biased.

I’m afraid I don’t fully understand your argument. Firstly, there exists liberal and conservative biases, yes conservative bias does exist. Secondly, I do not understand what you mean when you say we are a truth bias. That term makes very little sense. Truth is truth and bias is bias. They are not the same thing nor can there exist a ‘truth bias.’ Either something is the truth, or it is biased. Take the example of evolution: A liberal bias may state that it is scientific fact and cannot be argued against. While a conservative bias may state that evolution is completely false and creationism is truth. But, a completely unbiased article on evolution would merely state the facts of the theory, how it was developed, and the key components of it without discussing views of whether or not it is true. I do not think conservapedia does this. It presents a conservative bias, which isn’t a ‘truth bias’ it’s just a bias. Do you think that assessment is correct?

Talk:Bias

2009-02-12T02:28:39Z

Conservativedude:

Bias

2009-02-11T00:57:45Z

Conservativedude: /* Encyclopedias */

'''Bias''' has numerous meanings. It literally means ''diagonal'' or ''slant.''

== Electronics ==

Bias is a [[DC]] voltage level added to an [[AC]] signal which is to be amplified. This is done to put the AC signal within the amplifying transistor's linear operating area.

Bias is also a name for a high-frequency sine wave that is added to an audio signal as part of the process of magnetic tape recording; it has the effect of eliminating distortion that would otherwise be caused by magnetic hysteresis.

== Statistics ==

Bias means flaws in the collection, analysis or interpretation of research data that lead to incorrect conclusions.<ref>http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/about/terms/glossary.htm#b</ref>

== Psychology ==

A bias is sometimes defined as a violation of a normative standard. For example, the fact that people will be less likely to trade an object they are endowed with for another one-regardless of which initial object they possess-violates the normative standard that preference for an object should not be swayed by what is already possessed.

Studies of biases in psychology have shown that many principles assumed in economics are incorrect (Kahneman 2003) by illustrating that the notion of a free [[rational agent]] is idealistic.

== Encyclopedias ==

In works describing a potentially controversial topic, '''bias''' refers to the tendency of an author who holds a particular viewpoint to express that viewpoint (whether intentionally or subconsciously) in his work. This typically goes against the ideal of compendiums which are meant to be neutral, such as encyclopedias. For example, if an article on [[abortion]] is written by someone who supports it, it will likely be biased towards that viewpoint.

Related:
*[[Media bias]]
*[[Bias-Original Work]]
*[[Liberal quotient]]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Disambiguation Pages]]

Talk:Bias

2009-02-11T00:47:31Z

Conservativedude: Before you change my edits . . .

Bias

2009-02-11T00:47:06Z

Conservativedude:

'''Bias''' has numerous meanings. It literally means ''diagonal'' or ''slant.''

== Electronics ==

Bias is a [[DC]] voltage level added to an [[AC]] signal which is to be amplified. This is done to put the AC signal within the amplifying transistor's linear operating area.

Bias is also a name for a high-frequency sine wave that is added to an audio signal as part of the process of magnetic tape recording; it has the effect of eliminating distortion that would otherwise be caused by magnetic hysteresis.

== Statistics ==

Bias means flaws in the collection, analysis or interpretation of research data that lead to incorrect conclusions.<ref>http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/about/terms/glossary.htm#b</ref>

== Psychology ==

A bias is sometimes defined as a violation of a normative standard. For example, the fact that people will be less likely to trade an object they are endowed with for another one-regardless of which initial object they possess-violates the normative standard that preference for an object should not be swayed by what is already possessed.

Studies of biases in psychology have shown that many principles assumed in economics are incorrect (Kahneman 2003) by illustrating that the notion of a free [[rational agent]] is idealistic.

== Encyclopedias ==

In works describing a potentially controversial topic, '''bias''' refers to the tendency of an author who holds a particular viewpoint to express that viewpoint (whether intentionally or subconsciously) in his work. This typically goes against the ideal of compendiums which are meant to be neutral, such as encyclopedias. For example, if an article on [[abortion]] is written by someone who supports it, it will likely be biased towards that viewpoint and vice versa. [[Wikipedia]] is often considered as having [[liberal]] bias in many of its articles, while Conservapedia is often considered as having a conservative bias in many of its articles..

Related:
*[[Media bias]]
*[[Bias-Original Work]]
*[[Liberal quotient]]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Disambiguation Pages]]