Heaven and Hell

[Sun Tzu]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

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]

Originally Posted by revrew

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]

Originally Posted by Sun Tzu

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]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

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]

Originally Posted by revrew

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]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

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]

Originally Posted by BrianD

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]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

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]

Originally Posted by KWhit

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]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

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]

Originally Posted by BrianD

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]

Originally Posted by KWhit

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]

Originally Posted by KWhit

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?

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by revrew

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?

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]

Originally Posted by KWhit

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

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]

Originally Posted by revrew

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by KWhit

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]

Originally Posted by BrianD

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.

Originally Posted by revrew

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.