Heaven and Hell

[Sun Tzu]

No, not the 1980 Black Sabbath album.

I know it's been a while since we've had a discussion revolving around religion, and I also know that there's a 50/50 shot that any time I bring up religion I'm going to be tarred and feathered, regardless of how or why I bring it up. I would, however, like to bring it up today for a very specific, non-inflammatory reason.

My thoughts on religion are constantly evolving. I think it's been well-documented that I'm Jewish, but my thoughts on God/s, heaven, hell, and scripture change almost monthly.

I'm curious to hear if you believe you are going to your respective religions heaven/hell, and why you believe this. Additionally, what do you think your heaven/hell will look like, and why?

Again, I'd like to keep this thread somewhat civilized. I know our little community has opinions that span from one end of the spectrum to the other, but lets not let those differences in opinion keep us from being civilized...eh?

:)

[sabotai]

:popcorn:

[Sun Tzu]

With all sincerity, I am in no way trying to "stir the pot" here. I think I'm asking a very honest question, and for those here who are devout in their beliefs, I would very much like to hear their views on this subject.

[cougarfreak]

The much lauded Creation Museum is about 2 miles from my house if anyone is up for a visit.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

hell is for children

[BYU 14]

hell is for children

and heaven isn't too far away...

[JonInMiddleGA]

No, not the 1980 Black Sabbath album.

Well crap.

And not even the reunited lineup that toured under the same name either :(

[EagleFan]

and heaven isn't too far away...

I hear there is a stairway there...

[MizzouCowboy]

So, so you think you can tell?

[Sun Tzu]

You know what I like most about this thread?

Irony.

[Apathetic Lurker]

Everyone is trying to get to the bar
The name of the bar, the bar is called heaven

[Marc Vaughan]

Personally, my views are that I "don't know" - I live my life to the best of my ability trying to improve those of the people around me when possible.

I have no idea about 'who God is' (or if there is one) or whether there is a heaven or hell ... tbh to me it makes no difference really, everyone decides how to act and behave and what legacy they want to leave behind them - I'd like to think that the ripples from my life will be positive, that it basically.

(if there is a God however me and he will be having a few words before he sends me up or down, as there is much in this life which seems a tad screwy to me and I'd like some answers about it ;) )

[MizzouCowboy]

My views are pretty much the same as Marc. I don't know and I'd really like some type of proof.

I've had some people tell me that I will go to hell since I don't go to church and I don't believe in God. My response to them is usually that we're already in hell, we just don't realize it. I point out the murders, wars, rapes, and who knows what else, and figure it couldn't be much worse. Of course, they let me know that is the work of the devil. Besides, I really like to freak 'em out since they take it so serious.

[BillJasper]

I think there's something more to us than we know, I think some part of us survives when our body dies. But I don't believe in heaven or hell, seems a bit too simplistic.

[SteveMax58]

So, so you think you can tell?

It isn't too hard to see...

[MizzouCowboy]

It isn't too hard to see...

I'm findin' it hard to believe...

[Desnudo]

I hear there is a stairway there...

If there's a bustle in your hedgerow, don't be alarmed now

[SteveMax58]

I'm findin' it hard to believe...

Ooh baby do you know what thats worth?

[molson]

I believe that organized religion, and most of the symbols within it like heaven and hell, are crude human interpretations of very real things in what you can broadly call "spirituality", but is really just everything we don't understand about everything - nature, astronomy, psychology, physiology, biology, evolution. I believe we comprehend such a tiny tiny part of the universe and religion is one of the ways we can make sense of some of the spillover stuff that we can only get glimpses of. I also believe that when human beings make such religions and religious icons so important to their spiritual selves, and to their culture, it can take on a life of its own and actually become a part of that universe we don't really understand. Or to state that another way, I believe that if the universe started with bacteria and literally nothing else, the evolution of the universe and the living things in it would actually create not just religion but a reality behind the religion. For example, I believe that if 6 billion humans worshiped a lake monster, and then 99% of the of the humans died and nobody talked about lake monsters for generations, there would still be something in our universe that collected or preserved that lake monster icon, that monster would have some kind of reality in the universe that could be tapped into. I think all of this certainly could be explained with what we think of as "science", though a full understanding of it is so far beyond the capability of the human brain, all we can do is scratch the surface of it with "religion."

What I really feel strongly about is how little we can know about the human brain and DNA and astronomy. One of the reasons I get so annoyed by full-on religion-bashing atheists, is to me, they're saying that human beings have figured out everything there is to know about the universe (and the human brain/DNA/astronomy/etc.), Because to me, it's ultimately all the same thing, an attempt to understand more. Our brains are very limited, and to limit your search for understanding with the "science" that's within the immediate understanding of our limited brains is like staring down a tunnel but never looking up or down or left or right. Prayer/meditation/religion, to me, is looking for understanding in some of those other directions. It's just that what you learn looking in those other directions comes back in a different language, but I believe it's just as real.

Edit: Though I find the preachy atheists quite annoying, I'm getting better at not caring and I've always been good at keeping it to myself (which is helpful, since I have a lot of preachy atheist friends who would be pretty shocked if they knew my dark secret - I pray, I meditate, I try to connect to nature and people through these tools, and, most sinister of all - I actually am starting to understand the benefits of man-made organized religion, and I appreciate and learn from all of them, though I am not a member of any and I don't attend church.)

[MizzouCowboy]

Ooh baby do you know what thats worth?

They say in Heaven love comes first.

Don't need reason, don't need rhyme.

[CrimsonFox]

and heaven isn't too far away...

and hairspray and mascara aren't too far from THIS...

[Sun Tzu]

I'm equally irked by anyone who claims they know X to be true under the umbrella of religion. I subscribe to the Socrates belief system when it comes to the spiritual world.

I know one thing, that I know nothing.

I have a lot of thoughts, ideas, and theories, but the folks that claim to have an absolute knowledge of any one thing (or the lack of any one thing), and then call you a douche for disagreeing/not sharing that belief with them? Not my favorite people.

[fortheglory]

I would like to think I am going to heaven, but I know I don't always do the right things in life...mainly because I have a drinking problem. Therefore I feel my line with god and to the holy spirit is often disrupted. I believe in god (and Jesus for that matter) with all of my heart. They say you can't get to heaven on good deeds alone. Well I know if that's the qualification (all good deeds) I'm in big trouble. I know once I really stop drinking as much, I'll be a better person in that regard though. I used to be, but somehow when drinking gets the best of you, It can make you into a person you never were. Anyway, I've been doing a better job of laying off the sauce lately, so hopefully things will turn around in my spiritual life as well. Making a big move from the northeast to South Carolina, so I am looking forward to a new chapter in life...sometimes getting stuck in a rut can be the worst thing for you physically, mentally and spiritually. I think once I turn the page on my life, it will help me to get back to me being me...which spiritually is a good thing.

[AENeuman]

The shift to an eternal reward for faith was perhaps the most brilliant and successful move by the early Christians. Nearly every religion/cult since has mimicked this approach. So much so one could argue that the age of nations and political theories came out of the void left by the ancient utopian religions.

Before, faith in Yahweh or Zeus or Ra was put to an often immediate an unsuccessful test. By embracing the suffering now, Christianity was able to prevent proof that theirs was not the best god.

Where this questions gets difficult theologically is: is the personal decision to believe in order to reap the eternal reward selfish, and thus immoral?

[M GO BLUE!!!]

I believe there has to be more out there. Is it what we have been described through the Bible? Probably not exactly.

Getting down to a basicness, we tend to paint God to be basically a big, mystical human male with feelings, thoughtfulness and the caring of a human. How can we really know what God thinks, feels and cares about? We are not God. I think that any superior being/entity would be more likely to have an attitude that may be a bit like we view other species. Look at an ant farm. Do you find it interesting how they handle life together, or do you look at each individual? That's the only way I can explain to myself how extremely fucked up things happen to innocent people. It's more interesting to see how the society as a whole handles things than getting down & influencing/stopping individuals.

As for the Bible, I see that more as a tool of man. Is it the absolute word of God? Well, it is a collection chosen by men. The ignored some books & anointed others as the word of God. A good handbook to live by? Sure. Could God have influenced the authors? Sure. But man selected it and man is very good at doing things for their own benefit.

It's a tough subject to have absolutes. Many of faith will say that God exists absolutely, but that actually counters the idea of faith in the first place. Hold a brick in your hand. You don't have faith there is a brick there. You know it. It's there. Faith in God is a belief that there is something out there that you cannot put your hands on, see or hear.

Man on the other hand is something you can have no faith in, as they show you time and again how untrustworthy they can be. You can see that. It's real.

[Grover]

I am an Atheist.

I believe we are set into the ground and that's it. The neurons stop firing through the synpases. Without those electrical impulses we cease to be. We are merely the byproduct of evolution on one of the rare (as far as we know) planets that is in position to house some sort of intelligent life.

It should not matter if there is/isn't an afterlife. Folks should be concerned about living the best life they can. Follow those principles and the ducks will row up any way you'd like them. Deeply religious or an atheist like myself, be a good person... that's all I ask.

[EagleFan]

I am an Atheist.

I believe we are set into the ground and that's it. The neurons stop firing through the synpases. Without those electrical impulses we cease to be. We are merely the byproduct of evolution on one of the rare (as far as we know) planets that is in position to house some sort of intelligent life.

It should not matter if there is/isn't an afterlife. Folks should be concerned about living the best life they can. Follow those principles and the ducks will row up any way you'd like them. Deeply religious or an atheist like myself, be a good person... that's all I ask.

The "problems" that I see with the idea of Atheism is that there becomes no reason to even give a damn about anything. If there isn't anything out there after death then f*** it, take some a-holes with you.

That is why I am more in the agnostic camp. I don't know and neither does anyone else. We'll find out at some point. So for that reason live the best way possible and hope for the best when all is said and done.

The only thing that I can say with 100% certainty is that there are not 72 virgins waiting for achmasamad after blowing himself up.

[korme]

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/7jETVUulGwc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Marc Vaughan]

The "problems" that I see with the idea of Atheism is that there becomes no reason to even give a damn about anything. If there isn't anything out there after death then f*** it, take some a-holes with you.
I don't see atheism that way at all - yes the fact there might not be a God might seem depressing, but its a possibility I live with.

My stance is purely from the perspective that I don't worry about what I was doing before I was born, therefore I'm not going to worry about what happens after I die - what will be will be.

If there is no God then I pass on my finger prints through my ripples of actions to others, especially my children and friends - that is a worthwhile purpose in itself imho.

[molson]

What always gets lost in these discussions to is that it's possible to believe either in god, a broader concept of spirituality, or just an deeply expansive universe that we haven't figured out yet AND ALSO not bank on any kind of literal afterlife where you see your dead relatives and pets. There's just so many more angles to it than that. You only need a second-grade education to scientifically "rule out" some of the concepts of organized religion if taken literally, and some very public atheists like Ricky Gervais and Bill Mahr never get past that and ridicule the beliefs and thoughts of millions (billions?) of people without getting past that second-grade level of debunking. Which I think is just silly, because obviously there's people far more brilliant than that who have thought about and theorized about these kinds of topics. That being said, of course you can also go further than that and make convincing, educated, and philosophical arguments for atheism, and those are valid as anyone else's belief about anything we don't know.

[Bobble]

Additionally, what do you think your heaven/hell will look like, and why?

:)


The C.S. Lewis quote makes sense to me: "You don't have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body." If that's the case, then it follows that you're still the same once you pass on -- same sense of humor, etc. Just that in heaven, it's the perfect version of you. No fear, no jealousy, no hate. Just a being of love, if you will.

[Marc Vaughan]

What always gets lost in these discussions to is that it's possible to believe either in god, a broader concept of spirituality, or just an deeply expansive universe that we haven't figured out yet AND ALSO not bank on any kind of literal afterlife where you see your dead relatives and pets. There's just so many more angles to it than that.

Being a computer geek I've always been quite fond of the simulation/computer alternative approach ..

Theory being -

(1) Computers are getting more powerful all the time.
(2) Current day computers can simulate small aspects of the universe
(3) If this continues one day computers will be able to simulate the universe

If this occurs then it is incredibly likely that there will be more than one computer doing this - thus the chance of any particular 'existence' being real and not a computer simulation is 1 (the real world) in 'x' million (number of simulations being run) ... or in other words chances are us and our entire universe isn't real and is just a computer simulation.

In that case 'God' very much exists, however how benign he is is debatable as he's whoever is in control of the simulation ....

[Toddiec]

I believe in heaven and hell simply because I believe it to be true. I believe I am going to heaven because I have given my life to God and He has promised it to me as a reward for doing so. I don't know exactly what it will be like or look like, I just know it is dramatically better than the alternative and that my wife will be there as well when she dies.

Everyone has their own beliefs and their own path to walk. I believe that my choice is the correct one for me and that is all I can effect. Do I wish that everyone followed the same beliefs I do? Absolutely. But God doesn't force us to believe in Him, it is our own personal choice. I believe that if God allows us a choice, then why would I ever think I should go against that and try to force others to choose my beliefs? Every day I try to walk my path and follow my beliefs and that is all I can do. I just hope that if God does decide to use me as an influence to direct others to Him that it isn't during one of the times when I screw up. :)

I believe that God has an open invitation to everyone to accept him, but at the end of the day everyone looks in the mirror and makes their own decisions when it comes to faith. Nobody can or should make the decision for you.

[CrimsonFox]

Another interesting sidequestion is...how do you view/explain/debunk demonic possession, ghosts, paranormal activity?

[bhlloy]

I would put myself in the category of agnostic/vaguely believing in a christian kinda god, I was raised very strict evangelical and there are a number of things with that teaching I have a hard time with.

One thing I pretty strongly don't believe in (and I don't mean to sound arrogant here - I know that it doesn't make a damn bit of difference what I believe in if it's true :) ) is a concept of a Hell. I could probably write for pages on this but if we start with god is love, and god wants people to be saved and spend eternity with him, but if you don't believe in this pieced together book from two thousand years ago and some version of man's interpretation of it you're going to burn in eternal damnation, well that makes no sense to me. And that's very simplistic, but what about theological questions like the guy in the rainforest who has never heard about the Bible? What about infants or children who may or may not have the comprehension to understand? What if I've heard the message a couple of times but it was a really crappy preacher or a heretic and I dismiss it out of hand? And that's even before we get into predestination, which boggles my tiny little mind.

[revrew]

I'm equally irked by anyone who claims they know X to be true under the umbrella of religion. I subscribe to the Socrates belief system when it comes to the spiritual world.

I know one thing, that I know nothing.

All this makes perfect sense ... if Jesus wasn't who he claimed to be - "Before Abraham was, I AM" - in other words, the God of Exodus and Genesis, the Creator of the universe.

But if he really is that, then ... I guess he would know, wouldn't he?

I believe what I believe about heaven, hell, the afterlife, etc., because I believe Jesus is who he said he was. And in this case, he is the one and only person in all of history who I can't be irked about saying he knows all truth ... because he would.

Ultimately, all of Christianity hinges on this point. Not the behavior and misbehavior of the church through the centuries, not the errors within or the inerrancy of the Bible, not even whether Christianity as a religion makes sense - but is Jesus the one and only God and creator of the universe or not?

I believe he is. Therefore, what he taught about heaven and hell, I take as truth. Because he'd be the only person in all of history supremely qualified to speak on the subject.

[ISiddiqui]

My view of Heaven and Hell is slightly more "nuanced" than simply the evangelical Christian view of them being two different spheres - one with all the good and one with all the bad (I saw 'evangelical' there because most mainline Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox views on both places are far more nuanced that the stereotype that all Christians believe in the evangelical view).

Heaven is the sphere in which God lives. It's God's plane of existence. In Celtic Christianity, there is a concept of 'thin places' - basically Heaven is 3 feet away from Earth but in some parts there are thin places where Heaven and Earth are even closer (and miraculous things happen). I see Heaven in that way - it exists beyond but right beside Earth, as if a cosmic curtain is drawn. And God remains there, though likes to lift the curtain from time to time (and is constantly speaking to us and beckoning to us - directly to our souls).

However, I also know that Jesus speaks of the resurrection of the dead, as Jesus was the firstfruits of the resurrection - and Jesus wasn't resurrected as a spirit. He had a body; it was touched by Thomas to show it to be flesh and blood. The Earthly journey had an effect - as the scars of His life were carried through into Jesus's resurrected body. He had a body, but it was redeemed and reclaimed as God's perfected body (recall in Genesis that humans are both body and spirit - man does not exist without either the clay or the breath of God). Therefore to claim that we are merely spirits are missing the mark, IMO.

I agree with N.T. Wright (former Anglican Bishop of Durham and New Testament Theologian) that our final destination is as resurrected bodies in a New Heaven and New Earth at the end of time (Revelations 21).

Therefore if anything, a disembodied soul existence in Heaven is simply a holding place and we need to wait for 'life after life after death' (a term Wright coined).

As for Hell, that's more interesting. Catholic theology holds (at least today) that Hell is simply separation from God's love & that is the eternal torment, not fire and brimstone.

However, tradition teaches that Jesus descended into Hell on Holy Saturday to clear it out. And I believe that if any plane of Hell existed, it remains cleared out this day - only holding in the Devil and any demons (though the Devil, aka the Accuser in Hebrew, can still implant thoughts in our heads to make us doubt ourselves and not work in the ways God wants us to, in order to cause pain and misery on Earth and prevent us from preparing for the Kingdom - when Jesus comes again to completely establish the Kingdom He started on his resurrection).

I have thought, back and forth, about perhaps there is instead a Purgatory, where the sins of those on Earth are burned away though judgement and reflection before being fully admitted into the Kingdom where no sin resides. Though I'm tending towards abandonment of such ideas.

But in the end, who on Earth is really to know. My path is just to work for God's purposes and prepare the way for His final Kingdom by working for love and grace.

[BillJasper]

I believe in heaven and hell simply because I believe it to be true. I believe I am going to heaven because I have given my life to God and He has promised it to me as a reward for doing so. I don't know exactly what it will be like or look like, I just know it is dramatically better than the alternative and that my wife will be there as well when she dies.



What if something happens to you and your wife remarries? Will dude be waiting in Heaven for you as well? Will there be some hot man-woman-man action going on? :devil:

[Marc Vaughan]

What if something happens to you and your wife remarries? Will dude be waiting in Heaven for you as well? Will there be some hot man-woman-man action going on? :devil:

I think the concept is that much of the physical side of things and jealousy etc. will be absent in Heaven - more spiritual stuff etc.

Personally I'm intrigued by the way Jesus is mentioned in the vast majority of remaining religions in the world and he does appear to have had a huge influence on the world, more so than any other person .... that being said I think he'd be very disappointed by 'Christianity' today as I personally don't feel its what was intended (looking at the Jesus in the bible embracing the outcasts, hated races, prostitutes etc. ... and then how many Christians persecute gay people and vote against looking after the less fortunate in society).

“I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ.”

[panerd]

The "problems" that I see with the idea of Atheism is that there becomes no reason to even give a damn about anything. If there isn't anything out there after death then f*** it, take some a-holes with you.
.

Sounds more like a description of militant religious people than atheists. An atheist would value that you have one life to live and no afterlife waiting to reward you for a blaze of glory wouldn't they?

[MacroGuru]

I usually stay out of debates of religion unless there is some sort of bashing going on. I come from a background of being raised Roman Catholic, converting to Mormonism at the age of 18 and then straying from the religion due to me having issues with the Word of Wisdom and how and why it (The word of wisdom) was created.

As for my beliefs, I will leave at this. There is a heaven(s), and there is a hell (Spiritual Prison) where you go is how you live your life and how you choose to live it.

[Sun Tzu]

I believe what I believe about heaven, hell, the afterlife, etc., because I believe Jesus is who he said he was. And in this case, he is the one and only person in all of history who I can't be irked about saying he knows all truth ... because he would.

...

I believe he is. Therefore, what he taught about heaven and hell, I take as truth. Because he'd be the only person in all of history supremely qualified to speak on the subject.

Understood. Now, correct me if I'm wrong here (I may very well be), but aren't there two things that are slightly off about the whole "Jesus is who he said he was" idea?

1.) Wasn't the bible written several generations after Jesus had died? Wouldn't this eliminate any authenticity to supposed eye witness accounts?

2.) Weren't there countless "saviors" selling themselves during the years that Jesus lived? If so, why is this bearded, skinny fellow the only one that was right, thereby making everyone else in the world wrong/crazy? I think what I'm getting at here is, with all of the religions out there...why is Christianity "right" in your eyes?

Thanks for taking the time out to respond, btw.

[Blackadar]

I dunno. I'll find out someday.

[ISiddiqui]

1.) Wasn't the bible written several generations after Jesus had died? Wouldn't this eliminate any authenticity to supposed eye witness accounts?

How long is a "generation" (I'm not entirely sure). However, Paul's letters were written from the late 30s AD until 50s AD and the Gospel texts were written between 70-95 AD.

[revrew]

Understood. Now, correct me if I'm wrong here (I may very well be), but aren't there two things that are slightly off about the whole "Jesus is who he said he was" idea?

1.) Wasn't the bible written several generations after Jesus had died? Wouldn't this eliminate any authenticity to supposed eye witness accounts?

2.) Weren't there countless "saviors" selling themselves during the years that Jesus lived? If so, why is this bearded, skinny fellow the only one that was right, thereby making everyone else in the world wrong/crazy? I think what I'm getting at here is, with all of the religions out there...why is Christianity "right" in your eyes?

Thanks for taking the time out to respond, btw.

1. No. The books of Matthew and John were written by eyewitnesses, and Luke, by a man who interviewed the eyewitnesses. Most of the remaining books were written by Paul, a man who met and knew the eyewitnesses, from roughly 50-60 A.D. Hebrews is a little more iffy, but the final books of the New Testament - those of Revelation - were written near the year 100, by the last surviving disciple, John, who lived until roughly 103.

I know there are scholars who have tried desperately to convince the world the New Testament wasn't written until decades after the original witnesses were dead, but they are, frankly, misled at best and misleading at worst.

2. Yes, there were and have been many false Messiahs, including others during Jesus' day. The Jewish leaders at the time even argued, "If this guy wasn't of God, he'll just fade away like all the others." Of course, he hasn't faded away, as hundreds of generation since have continued to testify that his words, his teachings, his presence is true.

But the most significant evidence of his divinity was his outrageous claim that he would be killed, then rise from the dead 3 days later. Then ... he did it. No other Messiah has demonstrated the power over life and death that Jesus demonstrated first with Lazarus, then with himself. That stunning claim, IMO, is the linchpin to all religious discussion everywhere: "If Jesus really did do that ... what are YOU going to believe about it?"

And no problem replying to earnest questions about my faith. I actually enjoy the discussions, when they're civil and thoughtful.

[BrianD]

I have long been of the belief that spirituality is something that has to come from within and that organized religions are mostly well-meaning, but flawed organizations. I think they are flawed because of imperfect humans trying to organize something that is beyond their abilities.

The Christian Bible is the only holy book I have read to any great extent, but I see all kinds of human (non-divine) aspects in the book. It very much reads to me like people trying to understand the world they live in and ascribing the unknown to God. The rules and the rituals read like a series of trial-and-error tests where anything that is successful must be approved by God. They may get some things right, but I believe that they are way over-complicating things.

I don't believe that Heaven and Hell exist, but I also don't believe that they need to exist. If this life is all we have, then it makes sense to live it well and try to help others to live their lives well. Peace and harmony are good for all, and I find it much more noble to want peace and harmony for all without the threat of Hell hanging over us.

[spleen1015]

I don't know. I think I am pretty ignorant about religion, but here is my take on it.

I don't know if there is a deity of any sort out there. I think religion was created to give humans a reason for living. In some cases, I think they were created to give humans hope of some kind.

For example, I think Moses created a lot of the message he said come from God to give his people something to believe it and thus they would find back against their suppression.

I think we as humans need to feel like we are living for something. So, the idea of living a good life gets you into heaven gives us something to live for.

I've asked some of my religions friends about this sort of thing before. If I were to live a good life, never commit any sins against God's will but never believe there is a God, would I get into heaven. They all tell me that I wouldn't since I never believed in God. Well, that to me is bullshit. God is supposed to be perfect, right? So, if I don't get into heaven because I don't believe in him but I did everything else right, then that sounds awfully arrogant to me and I don't think God can be arrogant can he?

I also believe that if I started my own religion today that worships potatoes, in 2 thousands years I could have half the world worshiping potatoes.

So, me answer to the original question is 'I don't know'. Anyone who thinks they can answer any other way, IMO is delusional.

[revrew]

So, me answer to the original question is 'I don't know'. Anyone who thinks they can answer any other way, IMO is delusional.

See my first post in this thread. I'd agree with you completely, unless, of course, that someone was actually God. Then ... well, then I suppose that person could answer another way.

[Lonnie]

get that corn outta my face!

[Marc Vaughan]

1. No. The books of Matthew and John were written by eyewitnesses, and Luke, by a man who interviewed the eyewitnesses. Most of the remaining books were written by Paul, a man who met and knew the eyewitnesses, from roughly 50-60 A.D. Hebrews is a little more iffy, but the final books of the New Testament - those of Revelation - were written near the year 100, by the last surviving disciple, John, who lived until roughly 103.
This to me isn't frankly reassuring ...

This still indicates that they were written a huge amount of time after the fact, this would tend to indicate a definite chance of inaccuracy and rose tinted glasses coming into play generally in the writings.

(if you doubt this - consider any work project you did a year or more ago and then discuss it with a colleague who also worked upon it ... you'll find the details of it are remembered differently between the two of you, especially regarding areas where you were have an emotional connection or were passionate about)

I know there are scholars who have tried desperately to convince the world the New Testament wasn't written until decades after the original witnesses were dead, but they are, frankly, misled at best and misleading at worst.
This while stated as 'fact' isn't proven one way or another - its 'faith' surely as no one knows who really wrote the biblical texts or when (even the Gospels attributed to various people aren't wholly proven to be theirs surely because its impossible to do so really).

I'm not stating you're incorrect - however I do dispute that your statement is provable.

But the most significant evidence of his divinity was his outrageous claim that he would be killed, then rise from the dead 3 days later. Then ... he did it. No other Messiah has demonstrated the power over life and death that Jesus demonstrated first with Lazarus, then with himself. That stunning claim, IMO, is the linchpin to all religious discussion everywhere: "If Jesus really did do that ... what are YOU going to believe about it?"
My standard problem with the 'rising from the dead' is purely that people believe what they want to believe ... even believing they've seen things or met people.

For recent similar situations consider how many times Elvis has been reported wandering around .. yes I don't think that many people consider him a Messiah ;)

[Sun Tzu]

For recent similar situations consider how many times Elvis has been reported wandering around .. yes I don't think that many people consider him a Messiah ;)

Yesterday I had lunch with Jimi Hendrix. I ordered a cheeseburger with a side of string fries, and he ordered a club sandwich with a side of slaw.

:-)

[revrew]

In response to Marc Vaughan, I understand completely a person arguing that the biblical account of Jesus' resurrection is not "provable," or that the evidence presented isn't convincing.

But my original assertion wasn't that I could prove Jesus' teachings, only that the resurrection is the best evidence in existence that Jesus' statements on heaven and hell are authoritative. If that evidence isn't convincing for you ... of if there's no willingness to accept it on faith ... well, then there you are - right back to square one: Apparently nobody knows anything definitive about heaven or hell.

Nonetheless, I find it ample evidence and it's the basis for my assertions that heaven and hell are not just myths but facts. You at least know where my "truth claims" are coming from, which, I believe, was Sun Tzu's original question.

On a side note, however, I do find MV's counterarguments to the resurrection shallow and unpersuasive at best ;)

[Marc Vaughan]

But my original assertion wasn't that I could prove Jesus' teachings, only that the resurrection is the best evidence in existence that Jesus' statements on heaven and hell are authoritative. If that evidence isn't convincing for you ... of if there's no willingness to accept it on faith ... well, then there you are - right back to square one: Apparently nobody knows anything definitive about heaven or hell.
Thats fair enough - tbh its always been the stumbling block for me, I'm very 'proof' driven and religion isn't reknowned for this side of things.

I'm a big believer in not listening to what people say - look at what they do, in terms of religions they talk a lot about things, especially what happens when you 'pray' and its 'power' .... however when I've looked into it nothing ever happens which can't be explained by coincidence.

Or to put it another way - when my wife prays for a friends healing thats nice and all, but why does she always pray for those who have colds etc. ... rather than someone who's had their leg amputated in an accident for it to miraculously reappear? ....

The answer is of course that deep down she's pragmatic, the leg reappearing would be impossible and disprove her faith so she's not going to pray for that.

(if you know of any prayers where legs or other limbs have grown back please let me know - I'd be very interested in them and it might change my life considerably if I could get verified proof of them)

Nonetheless, I find it ample evidence and it's the basis for my assertions that heaven and hell are not just myths but facts. You at least know where my "truth claims" are coming from, which, I believe, was Sun Tzu's original question.
Thats cool and while we have different stances I respect your position - neither of us has a position which is provable and both are taken on 'faith' really ...

(in case anyone wonders about that statement - my faith is built on faith in science and logic based on my experience of its reliability within my life)

[Passacaglia]

Yesterday I had lunch with Jimi Hendrix. I ordered a cheeseburger with a side of string fries, and he ordered a club sandwich with a side of slaw.

:-)

I dreamed about Jimi Hendrix

He came back for one day

Was born weepin' out of an egg, the mid-wife said

And straight away began to pray with lifted head


He spent the early hours

Communing with the morning stars

And then he came over to my house

Where he tried out my guitar


He was young and black and beautiful

Big eyed, perfect skinned

And he played my guitar like a lightning storm

Like twirlin' feathers in the wind


He could make it sound like the end of the world

A fire, the flick of a knife

He could squeeze it slow and masterful

Like the hand that brought the world to life


Together we strolled in sculptured gardens

Passed the sleepy afternoon

Maids were dartin' back and forth

From a window came a violin tune


Angels dressed as nurses toyed with playin' cards

Looters sprung from prisons filled the yard


A yellow sun hung low and yawned

And as it dipped

Jimi stood up straight

Grinned and shook his velvet hips


Callin' himself King Electric

In the evening he went wild

Played on a dozen stages

In the clubs of New York


Lit the city end to end

Wired it up, fired it up

Scarved, bejeweled

Long-legged, snake-limbed

Athletic, driven, dangerous


He made all Manhattan shake

And every street and sidewalk quake

His Stratocaster caused the mighty Empire State to vibrate


His whammy bar caused shock-eyed punks from

Hackensack and Yonkers

Raised on speed, metal and rap

To enter trance and levitate


He played Purple Haze and Pyramid

Voodoo child and Sin-E

Up from the skies and storm free

In King Tut's Wah Wah Hut


He did a forty-two minute

Cosmic rise in future shocks

Star Spangled Banner

In the back of CBGBs


He stopped every clock in New York state

And every heart that heard him

And time itself was beaten and confused

And fell lamblike under the spell of his fabulous flashing fingers


He played an encore at the Bitter End

A heart burst Little Wing

Even the waiters cried and then we fell outside

And in the dusty dawn of Bleecker Street

A sweet rain fell and Jimi died

[revrew]

Thats cool and while we have different stances I respect your position - neither of us has a position which is provable and both are taken on 'faith' really ...

(in case anyone wonders about that statement - my faith is built on faith in science and logic based on my experience of its reliability within my life)

Now, see, I can really appreciate and respect that.

It's rare for a person taking a (though I hate labels, always room for misunderstanding) naturalist position to admit that the position itself is one of faith (albeit based on experience), just as a supernaturalist takes his or her position in faith, based on experience.

There's a mature, self-aware admission in that - and it's refreshing to see it in an online conversation. I applaud you, sir.

[KWhit]

It's rare for a person taking a (though I hate labels, always room for misunderstanding) naturalist position to admit that the position itself is one of faith (albeit based on experience), just as a supernaturalist takes his or her position in faith, based on experience.

It's rare because it's just not correct.

To equate a scientific observational view of the universe to a view that is primarily shaped by a 2000 year old book is just bad logic. The two are not equal in any way.

[BrianD]

I'm a big believer in not listening to what people say - look at what they do, in terms of religions they talk a lot about things, especially what happens when you 'pray' and its 'power' .... however when I've looked into it nothing ever happens which can't be explained by coincidence.

Or to put it another way - when my wife prays for a friends healing thats nice and all, but why does she always pray for those who have colds etc. ... rather than someone who's had their leg amputated in an accident for it to miraculously reappear? ....


Piggybacking on this, prayer is one of the areas that I do not understand in the Christian religion. I don't see the point in it. It can't be to let God know that something needs attention because he is omniscient. It can't be to let Him know what we want since he can supposedly see the thoughts of everyone. It can't be to convince Him to change His mind on the outcome of the illness (or whatever) since he doesn't make mistakes and he doesn't change his mind. And finally, if he has a plan for everyone and his plan is perfect, what is the point of praying for anything at all?

If prayers aren't answered, people claim that what they were asking for was against God's plan. If they are answered, people claim that God is good for listening, but nobody claims that the good outcome was always part of the plan.

[Passacaglia]

No love for the album by Joe Jackson and Friends?

[ISiddiqui]

Piggybacking on this, prayer is one of the areas that I do not understand in the Christian religion. I don't see the point in it. It can't be to let God know that something needs attention because he is omniscient. It can't be to let Him know what we want since he can supposedly see the thoughts of everyone. It can't be to convince Him to change His mind on the outcome of the illness (or whatever) since he doesn't make mistakes and he doesn't change his mind. And finally, if he has a plan for everyone and his plan is perfect, what is the point of praying for anything at all?

As like worship services... it's not for God (He doesn't need our worship), it's for us. To surrender ourselves to God, to realize we can't control everything and we need help, to give up our pains and hurts up to God and let Him take charge (ie, the old cliche "Let Go & Let God"). It can be so difficult for us to willingly let go and remind ourselves that we can't control everything. Prayer can also be to confess our sins, which have lead to guilt inside of us, and in that confession be free of that pain and suffering we are building in ourselves.

Oh, and as for Marc's point - I don't really believe in coincidences. Not anymore.

[BrianD]

As like worship services... it's not for God (He doesn't need our worship), it's for us. To surrender ourselves to God, to realize we can't control everything and we need help, to give up our pains and hurts up to God and let Him take charge (ie, the old cliche "Let Go & Let God"). It can be so difficult for us to willingly let go and remind ourselves that we can't control everything. Prayer can also be to confess our sins, which have lead to guilt inside of us, and in that confession be free of that pain and suffering we are building in ourselves.

Oh, and as for Marc's point - I don't really believe in coincidences. Not anymore.

Not to be argumentative, but I don't really get either of these anymore than I get the prayer part. I think everybody understands that they can't control everything, but nobody knows where exactly that line is between what we can control and what we can't. Nobody sits back and lets God control everything, so people control as much as they can and eventually give up on the bigger things they can't get to go their way.

Prayer to confess sins and relieve guilt seems like a bad thing to me. If you have guilt, it is for one of two reasons. Either you did something to someone else, or you did something that God doesn't want you to do. If it was something God didn't want you to do, then you are feeling guilty because you were taught that you should feel guilty. Confessing and no longer feeling guilty takes you back to level with the person that was never taught that the action should make them feel guilty. Religion is doing a good job of knocking you down so that it can pick you back up. If you are feeling guilty because you did something to someone else, that someone else is who you should confess to and seek forgiveness from. Seeking forgiveness from God might help you feel better, but it doesn't fix the harm caused. Seeking forgiveness from the one wronged will heal the harm and make both feel better. Here I would argue that religion is preventing the greater good.

[RedKingGold]

It's rare because it's just not correct.

To equate a scientific observational view of the universe to a view that is primarily shaped by a 2000 year old book is just bad logic. The two are not equal in any way.

And.....there's the other shoe.

[KWhit]

And.....there's the other shoe.

I'm tired of the false equivalency used to describe science as its own form of faith. It's not.

[ISiddiqui]

I think everybody understands that they can't control everything

In observing the vast majority of folk, you wouldn't know it.

Nobody sits back and lets God control everything, so people control as much as they can and eventually give up on the bigger things they can't get to go their way.

People can let go of their worries and frustrations in not being able to control as much as they want to and realize they don't have to control things.

Either you did something to someone else, or you did something that God doesn't want you to do. If it was something God didn't want you to do, then you are feeling guilty because you were taught that you should feel guilty. Confessing and no longer feeling guilty takes you back to level with the person that was never taught that the action should make them feel guilty. Religion is doing a good job of knocking you down so that it can pick you back up. If you are feeling guilty because you did something to someone else, that someone else is who you should confess to and seek forgiveness from. Seeking forgiveness from God might help you feel better, but it doesn't fix the harm caused. Seeking forgiveness from the one wronged will heal the harm and make both feel better. Here I would argue that religion is preventing the greater good.

People beat themselves over doing things ALL. THE. TIME. Even if its years down the road and the other person doesn't care or forgave them long ago. People weigh themselves down by their guilts and their "I should have done x, y, z" and prevent themselves from moving forward. Their guilt build and makes them as if they are unworthy of love from anyone or a horrible person. To give up that guilt and that worry and that feeling of unacceptance to God and to realize that regardless of what is done, God still loves you, can be a transformative experience in people's lives. I have literally seen people sob when they realized that regardless of that thing they believed there was no forgiveness for (and it was usually not that big of a thing), that God still loved them and would never stop loving them.

Most of the harm in guilt is done internally, and therefore the cure has to be something done internally.

To many people in this world are held back by feelings of guilt, feelings of not being good enough for anyone to love, feelings of inadequacy, etc. It has come through years of being treated badly by others and feelings that since they weren't loved or acceptanced by, for instance, their parents, no one would. Giving that pain and guilt up to God frees people from the noose around their neck that they've put there.

[molson]

I'm tired of the false equivalency used to describe science as its own form of faith. It's not.

Like we were talking about in the polling thread, the concept of science (like statistics) is itself perfect, but the people applying it are not. What we've believed to be true over the centuries is always subject to revision or rejection or just a different understanding as we gain more knowledge to see a bigger and bigger picture of things. We have not yet been able to perfect our understanding of the universe through science.

Also, I can only speak for myself, but my religious and spiritual beliefs are not "primarily shaped by a 2000 year old book." It has an influence, sure, but I'm just as influenced by other books, my own observations, and my own knowledge of science and nature. I don't see it as a science v. religion thing at all. I look at it is as trying to enhance my personal connection to the universe and there's scientific, religious, and spiritual aspects to that. I don't rule out any tool as being unworthy. And our current scientific knowledge only goes so far. I just don't believe we've figured out all there is to figure out yet. If we had another billion years on the planet, we'd develop entirely new scientific disciplines that we can't even comprehend right now. But I do think some of the clues of those things are out there now. The fact that "they can't proven" (yet), doesn't mean that they don't exist. That concept is ridiculous to me and it's one of the things that annoys be about both the polling compilers and sabermetrics crowds. If something currently can't be measured, they'll often mistake that as proof that it doesn't exist. Sure, for their purposes, it's better to stick with what they can measure. But to assume that what they can measure is 100% of what exists is incorrect.

Edit: And for others, true faith in the particular tenants of an organized religion is beneficial. It's just a different path, another way to get to where many people are trying to go. And some people get really defensive when people get any of their values from that type of path, as if there's any "correct" way to develop one's values. One person might get theirs through community-based worship, another person might get theirs from lessons their parents taught them, another person might get theirs from traumatic childhood experiences, or we mix and match.

[revrew]

It's rare because it's just not correct.

To equate a scientific observational view of the universe to a view that is primarily shaped by a 2000 year old book is just bad logic. The two are not equal in any way.

Your faith in the ability of human logic to accurately discern all the truths of the universe frankly astounds me. Why would human reason be infallible? :popcorn:

[KWhit]

Your faith in the ability of human logic to accurately discern all the truths of the universe frankly astounds me. Why would human reason be infallible? :popcorn:

It's not. Which is why it isn't just guesswork. A hypothesis is tested using the Scientific Method. It's a pretty amazing concept. I think that method works a hell of a lot different than "faith" which is the point I was making.

I am unaware of many religious beliefs that hold up to the scrutiny of the scientific method.

[ISiddiqui]

I see way too many use "human reason" as a form of faith. In reason we trust or something. The Enlightenment gone way too far, as if emotional responses are invalid and somewhat wrong.

[revrew]

It's not. Which is why it isn't just guesswork. A hypothesis is tested using the Scientific Method. It's a pretty amazing concept. I think that method works a hell of a lot different than "faith" which is the point I was making.

I am unaware of many religious beliefs that hold up to the scrutiny of the scientific method.

You missed my point entirely. I'm suggesting you stop hating on religion long enough to examine your own.

Call it reason, logic, thinking, "scientific method," observation - call it whatever you want, you're still arguing that it holds the supreme authority to determine what is and isn't true. That, in itself, is a leap of faith. It's the religious tenet of naturalism, and I'm curious why you hold to this doctrine.

[molson]

Let's make this really fun and throw in some politics!! (with it being election day at all).

When these "debates" come about (i.e, when Sun Tzu starts threads like this for reasons one can only speculate about), there is always polite and reasoned atheists, but there's also the contingent that is maybe a little dismissive or even subtly hostile towards religion and those who pray and believe. I THINK that most of those people tend to be on the left side of the political spectrum (with plenty of exceptions, I'm sure).

Our left-leaning president though, appears to be a pretty spiritual guy, he prays, he has "spiritual advisers", and apparently, his time as president has only made his faith more intense:

In Obama’s first term, an evolving Christian faith and a more evangelical style – CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs (http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/27/in-obamas-first-term-an-evolving-christian-faith-and-a-more-evangelical-style/?hpt=hp_t5_7)

How to you reconcile that? Does Obama not understand the scientific method? Or does he reject the scientific method outright? Is he just a backwards hick that believes in fairy tales? Or maybe his faith is all a sham (maintained over decades) because he knows the U.S. isn't ready for an atheist president? Or are you able to look past it? And I haven't read the whole article, but what if there's some indication in there that any part of his policies (maybe his changing stance on gay marriage), or the way he's managed the presidency generally were influenced by his faith? Would you have a problem with that? Could it impact your vote or temper your support for him? Do you consider it dangerous to have someone who clearly doesn't understand science leading the free world?

[KWhit]

You missed my point entirely. I'm suggesting you stop hating on religion long enough to examine your own.

Call it reason, logic, thinking, "scientific method," observation - call it whatever you want, you're still arguing that it holds the supreme authority to determine what is and isn't true. That, in itself, is a leap of faith. It's the religious tenet of naturalism, and I'm curious why you hold to this doctrine.

Oh good lord. I shouldn't need to explain why repeatable, peer-reviewed experimentation following the scientific method can't be compared to beliefs stemming from an individual's religious feelings that defy all evidence to the contrary.

This argument has been had a million times on the internet, so I'm not really interested in having it again, but I cringe when I hear people try to describe science as just a different kind of religious faith. It's not.

[KWhit]

Let's make this really fun and throw in some politics!! (with it being election day at all).

When these "debates" come about (i.e, when Sun Tzu starts threads like this for reasons one can only speculate about), there is always polite and reasoned atheists, but there's also the contingent that is maybe a little dismissive or even subtly hostile towards religion and those who pray and believe. I THINK that most of those people tend to be on the left side of the political spectrum (with plenty of exceptions, I'm sure).

Our left-leaning president though, appears to be a pretty spiritual guy, he prays, he has "spiritual advisers", and apparently, his time as president has only made his faith more intense:

In Obama’s first term, an evolving Christian faith and a more evangelical style – CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs (http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/27/in-obamas-first-term-an-evolving-christian-faith-and-a-more-evangelical-style/?hpt=hp_t5_7)

How to you reconcile that? Does Obama not understand the scientific method? Or does he reject the scientific method outright? Is he just a backwards hick that believes in fairy tales? Or maybe his faith is all a sham (maintained over decades) because he knows the U.S. isn't ready for an atheist president? Or are you able to look past it? And I haven't read the whole article, but what if there's some indication in there that any part of his policies (maybe his changing stance on gay marriage), or the way he's managed the presidency generally were influenced by his faith? Would you have a problem with that? Could it impact your vote or temper your support for him? Do you consider it dangerous to have someone who clearly doesn't understand science leading the free world?

I don't have time to really give this the response it deserves, but hell yes it troubles me that in order to be elected to any significant office in this country you have to be (or at least appear to be) religious.

But at least Obama and the Democrats typically are not openly hostile to science and intellectualism in general like the Republicans are. So one of those lesser of two evils things.......

[molson]

I don't have time to really give this the response it deserves, but hell yes it troubles me that in order to be elected to any significant office in this country you have to be (or at least appear to be) religious.

But at least Obama and the Democrats typically are not openly hostile to science and intellectualism in general like the Republicans are. So one of those lesser of two evils things.......



So you think Obama's faith is a sham?

If not, by your way of looking at this, isn't Obama's faith itself "hostile to science and intellectualism" by definition? (Or maybe the key there is the "open" part).

Either way, he doesn't come out looking too good. But I get the "lesser of two evils" thing if you're just determined to vote for whoever is the "least religious". (Though I'm not even 100% that's Obama in an Obama v. Romney matchup. Somehow I can see Obama consulting with his spiritual advisers and praying more often than Romney does.)

[BrianD]

I think making this about science vs. religion is too strong a direction. Most people do not put these to ideas on opposite ends of a spectrum. If a candidate claims that he/she believes God created the world, and science helps to explain that creation, I won't be too worried. If the candidate claims that the Bible must be 100% true in their interpretation and anything science refutes must be incorrect, I will have a big problem.

Most people can reconcile religion and science together as overlapping ideas which aren't mutually exclusive.

[molson]

I think making this about science vs. religion is too strong a direction.

Agreed. I was being facetious there with Obama example and playing around with the idea that if he's religious, he must be hostile towards science, which I think is an idea that's presented pretty casually and pretty often, including around here. I think it shows a misunderstanding of a lot of peoples' relationships with their faiths.

[BrianD]

In most discussions like this, people either take the extreme position, or they accuse the other side of being on an extreme position. Easier to demonize the other side than to admit that the solution lies somewhere in the middle.

[AENeuman]

The push on one side to demand "facts" and the foolhardy attempt by the other side to provide them will forever prevent a change of heart.


I know there are scholars who have tried desperately to convince the world the New Testament wasn't written until decades after the original witnesses were dead, but they are, frankly, misled at best and misleading at worst.

This illustrates the point, one that relates to politics too. Of course there are legitimate scholars that believe John was written later. In fact I had two theology professors in grad school who participated as scholars in Vatican II and this was their assertion.

But the point is: why does it matter? Does it matter if George Washington chopped down the cherry tree? Does it make America not worth believing in if this is deemed untrue? Both the bible and the Constitution promotes slavery and inequality. Both have been radically interpreted and created division over its "original intent." Yet, they remain our most meaningful documents, why? It's because they represent something greater than the sum of its parts. Whatever that is, to name it immediately shows our limitations more than our potential.