I don't practice any religion but I do have some standpoints on things, and I don't normally ridicule someone for their beliefs unless I know they are wrong ( not the beliefs the person ) and they try to use religion to explain it.
Is there a heaven or a hell?
I believe in reincarnation personally, I think when we die, we are brought back to the earth as another creature. So if you mudered someone in your life, you're going to come back as that ant I squashed last night :P
I believe there is both. I'm Christian, as you already know.
Lordy, you just like starting controversial discussion, don't you? :P
In Ergotism we believe that when you die you go to Jamaica...
I somewhat believe in heaven and hell... or at least some sort of afterlife where you can choose to live again...
I'm a Christian, sealed, signed, and judged. I feel so stupid for once being an atheist. Oh well.
Yes, there is a heaven. Its where we get to play World of Warcraft 24/7, no lag, no gank, no monthy fee. Theres also a hell. Its similar to being ganked by 5 60s at SM, when you're level 30.
Quote from: Joe[e2] on October 19, 2005, 10:24:31 PM
Yes, there is a heaven. Its where we get to play World of Warcraft 24/7, no lag, no gank, no monthy fee. Theres also a hell. Its similar to being ganked by 5 60s at SM, when you're level 30.
Thats happened to me serveral times... is that a good sign? :D
Which? =p
I believe if it can be explained... generally through science, then it's true. I wont believe in anything unless evidence is shown to me that it is actually fact.
Anyways, the belief in Heaven and Hell is called diabolism, when there's a good, there is also an evil of equal power, ftw.
I'm your buckleberry too, Sty! =p
Actually, theres not an evil of equal power, really. Satan may be the most evil thing in the universe, but hes still only a corrupt angel. The forces of good, God, is, well, God.
I don't believe in a Heaven or Hell. However, I do believe that humans have some kind of non-physical existance, and when we die, I don't know what happens to it. In my opinion, you probably end up in the body of another creature being born. However, contrary to what most people who believe in reincarnation think, I don't think it's possible to recover any memory, or anything else from your past lives. You just move on with a new brain, new memories, new thoughts, new personality, and the same ol' conscience pushing it along.
But, who knows?
The only reason I have a problem with believing, is why would God punish us and send us to hell for not believing something told to us without any (or little) fact backing it up? The only possible thing I can think of is that if he does exist, he'll somehow prove himself to me and other agnostics. Until then, I'm agnostic.
@Sidoh: I do like starting some kind of discussion, especially ones that I know will grab some attention.
And I agree with iago, I don't believe that it is possible to grab memory from a previous life if you will, I see more logic in reincarnation than I do with everyone of the past being put on Santa's naughty and nice list.
For example...lets just say there are...6 billion of us born per year, and it's the year 2000.
2000 x 6 = 12,000 billion
So people who believe in heaven and hell believe that there are multiple billions of souls, people, whatever you might call them, staying in heaven, or hell, I just see no logic in that, and I'm not trying to say that reincarnation shows logic, but it does make more sense IMO.
Quote from: MetaL MilitiA on October 20, 2005, 12:32:59 AM
The only reason I have a problem with believing, is why would God punish us and send us to hell for not believing something told to us without any (or little) fact backing it up? The only possible thing I can think of is that if he does exist, he'll somehow prove himself to me and other agnostics. Until then, I'm agnostic.
If you were God, would you rather:
1.) Have a race of people who
had to worship you, or
2.) Have a group of people out of a race who
freely choose to worship you?
Contrary to the popular belief of fire, hell is characterized in the Bible as an eternity without God. The pain on the soul is still there -- "it shall be as weeping and the gnashing of teeth." The largest pain is knowing ultimately that you have a creator who wanted nothing but to love you, but because you continually rejected that love, his reward is to send you away from him forever.
By the way, to answer my own question, I'd rather have the second (I was going to write #2, but then I thought, nah, someone's going to tell me to go take a dump or something, then it would end up in someone's signature... meh). What good is it for people to say they love you but they only do it because you make them?
@Furious: your estimation of 6 billion per year is... well, slightly off. This book (http://print.google.com/print?hl=en&id=7o2SuKWCvicC&pg=PA37&lpg=PA37&dq=how+many+people+are+born+every+year%3F&prev=http://print.google.com/print%3Fq%3Dhow%2Bmany%2Bpeople%2Bare%2Bborn%2Bevery%2Byear%253F%26oi%3Dprint&sig=_Y1BFyDqKQBAeZ46U5Y18XPlD6M) indicates the birthrate is closer to 133 million per year.
Also, why is it illogical to assume that many billions of people can fit in a noncorporeal place of arbitrary size?
Also, the year "0" is an arbitrary point in the course of human history; Biblical scholars estimate the earth's age to be closer to 4,750 years last I read.
If heaven does exist, and I'm not going to totally discount the possibility that it does, I don't think it would be anything like the forms we imagine. Like, people seem to think of a place with clouds and flowers and angels with harps. But I'm reasonably sure that that's just an interpretation of the true Heaven made by people who don't understand it. I don't know what a real heaven would look like, and I don't know what the Bible says about it (can somebody help me out there?), but it's not the way we all imagine it.
A couple notes, and keep in mind that these are just my thoughts, are:
- We can't see heaven with a powerful telescope. It's not a physical place.
- We don't have our physical bodies or forms. We wouldn't be able to walk around, or talk, or anything like that.
- As a result of that, we don't have our senses. We can't see, hear, feel, etc.
- There are billions and billions of people there. But it doesn't fill up, because space is a physical idea. And everybody who ever was or ever will be is there, because time is also a physical idea. [while I was typing this, MM said the same thing, we can't both be wrong :); the problem is that you refer to it as "non-corporeal" with "arbitrary size" -- size is a corporeal idea, and wouldn't apply to a non-corporeal place. Imagining non-corporeal things is very difficult. ]
- God isn't a person (neither man nor woman). It has no physical form, and you can't possibly "meet" It, the way we understand the word "meet". Perhaps you enter the same plane of existance that It is in, but it would be nothing like meeting another person.
So we have no light, no space, no time, no senses. That makes me wonder what it DOES have.
Please show me what the Bible says about Heaven, if somebody knows where to look. I'm rather curious how what I figure it would be like compares to what others say.
It's in a parallel dimension ;O ?
Quote from: MyndFyrex86] link=topic=3406.msg34461#msg34461 date=1129784493]
Quote from: MetaL MilitiA on October 20, 2005, 12:32:59 AM
The only reason I have a problem with believing, is why would God punish us and send us to hell for not believing something told to us without any (or little) fact backing it up? The only possible thing I can think of is that if he does exist, he'll somehow prove himself to me and other agnostics. Until then, I'm agnostic.
If you were God, would you rather:
1.) Have a race of people who had to worship you, or
2.) Have a group of people out of a race who freely choose to worship you?
Contrary to the popular belief of fire, hell is characterized in the Bible as an eternity without God. The pain on the soul is still there -- "it shall be as weeping and the gnashing of teeth." The largest pain is knowing ultimately that you have a creator who wanted nothing but to love you, but because you continually rejected that love, his reward is to send you away from him forever.
By the way, to answer my own question, I'd rather have the second (I was going to write #2, but then I thought, nah, someone's going to tell me to go take a dump or something, then it would end up in someone's signature... meh). What good is it for people to say they love you but they only do it because you make them?
I don't think you read what I said. What I was saying is that I don't think God would basically punish me ("it shall be as weeping and the gnashing of teeth.") because I didn't believe some book that said he loved me, and that said he supposedly existed without giving any proof at all. If he gives people choice to believe in him or not, he probably knows that some people won't believe some book because some people don't believe just anything that they read, so I feel that he proves himself to people like me, which brings me back to my statement: I'm staying agnostic until he gives me reason to believe he exists.
Quote from: MetaL MilitiA on October 20, 2005, 01:21:17 AM
I don't think you read what I said. What I was saying is that I don't think God would basically punish me ("it shall be as weeping and the gnashing of teeth.") because I didn't believe some book that said he loved me, and that said he supposedly existed without giving any proof at all. If he gives people choice to believe in him or not, he probably knows that some people won't believe some book because some people don't believe just anything that they read, so I feel that he proves himself to people like me, which brings me back to my statement: I'm staying agnostic until he gives me reason to believe he exists.
He gave you a reason to believe he exists, approximately 1972 years ago (AD 33).
If you can logically argue for the supernatural (I believe you can, and I've attempted it here or at vL), then you can accept that Christ died and resurrected while staying within the realm of logic.
If that event took place, I'd say that the other claims of Jesus are probably pretty reliable. For example, in a letter written by Paul (one of the New Testament books, I can't remember which), he says that our bodies are the
temples of the Holy Spirit. Jesus claimed "Destroy this
temple and I will rebuild it in three days." According to the resurrection account, Jesus' body was "destroyed" (so to speak) through death, and he resurrected on the third day following his death.
He'd also said, "I and the Father (God) are one." Most churches take that to mean that they are the same being; essentially, Jesus claimed that he was God.
A small girl made the comment, "Jesus was everything God ever wanted to say to us." Quite well-put IMHO.
Do you doubt Plato? Socrates? Aristotle -- that they existed? They lived just as long ago, and you only read it in a book that they existed.
Quote from: Furious on October 20, 2005, 12:49:19 AM
So people who believe in heaven and hell believe that there are multiple billions of souls, people, whatever you might call them, staying in heaven, or hell, I just see no logic in that, and I'm not trying to say that reincarnation shows logic, but it does make more sense IMO.
That's a very illogical argument in itself. Heaven isn't necessarily a place which we are capable of fully understanding, as the Bible portrays it (and that's the Heaven I believe in).
Plus, if you believe we have a soul (which I do), I think almost everyone agrees that it's non-physical.
Quote from: MyndFyrex86] link=topic=3406.msg34474#msg34474 date=1129791121]
Quote from: MetaL MilitiA on October 20, 2005, 01:21:17 AM
I don't think you read what I said. What I was saying is that I don't think God would basically punish me ("it shall be as weeping and the gnashing of teeth.") because I didn't believe some book that said he loved me, and that said he supposedly existed without giving any proof at all. If he gives people choice to believe in him or not, he probably knows that some people won't believe some book because some people don't believe just anything that they read, so I feel that he proves himself to people like me, which brings me back to my statement: I'm staying agnostic until he gives me reason to believe he exists.
He gave you a reason to believe he exists, approximately 1972 years ago (AD 33).
I wasn't alive 1972 years ago, so how do I know it really did happen?
QuoteIf you can logically argue for the supernatural (I believe you can, and I've attempted it here or at vL), then you can accept that Christ died and resurrected while staying within the realm of logic.
If that event took place, I'd say that the other claims of Jesus are probably pretty reliable. For example, in a letter written by Paul (one of the New Testament books, I can't remember which), he says that our bodies are the temples of the Holy Spirit. Jesus claimed "Destroy this temple and I will rebuild it in three days." According to the resurrection account, Jesus' body was "destroyed" (so to speak) through death, and he resurrected on the third day following his death.
He'd also said, "I and the Father (God) are one." Most churches take that to mean that they are the same being; essentially, Jesus claimed that he was God.
A small girl made the comment, "Jesus was everything God ever wanted to say to us." Quite well-put IMHO.
Are these
words supposed to make me all of a sudden believe?
QuoteDo you doubt Plato? Socrates? Aristotle -- that they existed? They lived just as long ago, and you only read it in a book that they existed.
It doesn't matter if they existed or not, so I've never really thought about it; all that matters is the philisophical information in those books.
QuoteAlso, the year "0" is an arbitrary point in the course of human history; Biblical scholars estimate the earth's age to be closer to 4,750 years last I read.
I was using 2000 as an example, because if you didn't notice, it's 2005. And even with 177 million people born per year, that still is a huge amount ( 9,500,000 million ) and iago and I seem to have some of the same views, they speak of heaven like it is a physical place, but nobody has ever seen it, you can't give me the coordinates of heaven.
QuoteDo you doubt Plato? Socrates? Aristotle -- that they existed? They lived just as long ago, and you only read it in a book that they existed.
I do not doubt them, they have written books, and have had books and records kept about them from when they were alive, I do not see any books that were written by a "God", or any records proving the existance of god. And there is a difference, all of those people died, and never came back, unlike Jesus who died and came back, and the god nobody has ever seen, or heard. I don't doubt Jesus lived, but he wasn't a carpenter, he was actually royalty, and he was just a normal man.
"What's a Jewish robot? Does that mean you don't believe in Robot Jesus"
"We believe that Robot Jesus was built, and that it was a very well built robot; however, we do not believe he was our savior"
-Futurama
Alls i'm going to say on religon is if this is the best God can do that i'am not impressed. I really do hope life is not just a big joke cause I don't get it.
Quote from: GameSnake on October 20, 2005, 10:25:06 AM
Alls i'm going to say on religon is if this is the best God can do that i'am not impressed. I really do hope life is not just a big joke cause I don't get it.
If this is the best God (or evolution) can do, then I'm VERY impressed. The universe is such a beatifully complex thing, and so is life.
Whether it's God or evolution that made this, I'm still impressed.
Quote from: Furious on October 20, 2005, 09:44:14 AM
QuoteAlso, the year "0" is an arbitrary point in the course of human history; Biblical scholars estimate the earth's age to be closer to 4,750 years last I read.
I was using 2000 as an example, because if you didn't notice, it's 2005. And even with 177 million people born per year, that still is a huge amount ( 9,500,000 million ) and iago and I seem to have some of the same views, they speak of heaven like it is a physical place, but nobody has ever seen it, you can't give me the coordinates of heaven.
QuoteDo you doubt Plato? Socrates? Aristotle -- that they existed? They lived just as long ago, and you only read it in a book that they existed.
I do not doubt them, they have written books, and have had books and records kept about them from when they were alive, I do not see any books that were written by a "God", or any records proving the existance of god. And there is a difference, all of those people died, and never came back, unlike Jesus who died and came back, and the god nobody has ever seen, or heard. I don't doubt Jesus lived, but he wasn't a carpenter, he was actually royalty, and he was just a normal man.
I think even your historical views are very skewed.
Quote from: Furious on October 20, 2005, 09:44:14 AM
QuoteAlso, the year "0" is an arbitrary point in the course of human history; Biblical scholars estimate the earth's age to be closer to 4,750 years last I read.
I was using 2000 as an example, because if you didn't notice, it's 2005. And even with 177 million people born per year, that still is a huge amount ( 9,500,000 million ) and iago and I seem to have some of the same views, they speak of heaven like it is a physical place, but nobody has ever seen it, you can't give me the coordinates of heaven.
You're missing my point. I think you're the only one who has attributed corporeality to heaven. Also, the birthrate per year has increased over time in a form more closely approximated by the positive half of an exponential function (where the exponent is greater than 1). Your method for calculating the total number of people born is flawed. Let b(x) = the number of people born per year, with x given as the year from the first two humans to present, and T = total number of humans born, and y = the absolute number of years since then:
T = int(x = 0 to y) b(x)
When humans came into being, they weren't birthing at 133 million per year like they are now.
Quote from: Furious on October 20, 2005, 09:44:14 AM
QuoteDo you doubt Plato? Socrates? Aristotle -- that they existed? They lived just as long ago, and you only read it in a book that they existed.
I do not doubt them, they have written books, and have had books and records kept about them from when they were alive, I do not see any books that were written by a "God", or any records proving the existance of god. And there is a difference, all of those people died, and never came back, unlike Jesus who died and came back, and the god nobody has ever seen, or heard. I don't doubt Jesus lived, but he wasn't a carpenter, he was actually royalty, and he was just a normal man.
How do I know that the books supposedly written by or about Plato weren't made up? The skepticism you show fits into your world view: you want to live the way you want to live, and if belief in a God would interfere with that, it fits you to be skeptical.
If Jesus was royalty, there would
certainly be documentation about it. I think your historical perspective is a little off.
Quote from: MetaL MilitiA on October 20, 2005, 09:33:34 AM
I wasn't alive 1972 years ago, so how do I know it really did happen?
I wasn't alive when Plato wrote
Apology. How do I know it was really written by Plato? That was even longer ago.
Quote from: MetaL MilitiA on October 20, 2005, 09:33:34 AM
QuoteIf you can logically argue for the supernatural (I believe you can, and I've attempted it here or at vL), then you can accept that Christ died and resurrected while staying within the realm of logic.
If that event took place, I'd say that the other claims of Jesus are probably pretty reliable. For example, in a letter written by Paul (one of the New Testament books, I can't remember which), he says that our bodies are the temples of the Holy Spirit. Jesus claimed "Destroy this temple and I will rebuild it in three days." According to the resurrection account, Jesus' body was "destroyed" (so to speak) through death, and he resurrected on the third day following his death.
He'd also said, "I and the Father (God) are one." Most churches take that to mean that they are the same being; essentially, Jesus claimed that he was God.
A small girl made the comment, "Jesus was everything God ever wanted to say to us." Quite well-put IMHO.
Are these words supposed to make me all of a sudden believe?
No, they're not supposed to
make you believe. They're supposed to prompt you to keep an open mind, though, which apparently you refuse to do.
Quote from: MetaL MilitiA on October 20, 2005, 09:33:34 AM
It doesn't matter if they existed or not, so I've never really thought about it; all that matters is the philisophical information in those books.
Sure it matters: where do you think science gets its practices from? It's based on the Socratic method. You know what the Hippocratic Oath is that doctors need to take? It's based on Hippocrates' work and philosophy. Greek philosophers were largely the basis for the lines of thinking used during the Enlightenment.
Quote from: iago on October 20, 2005, 11:38:32 AM
Quote from: GameSnake on October 20, 2005, 10:25:06 AM
Alls i'm going to say on religon is if this is the best God can do that i'am not impressed. I really do hope life is not just a big joke cause I don't get it.
If this is the best God (or evolution) can do, then I'm VERY impressed. The universe is such a beatifully complex thing, and so is life.
Whether it's God or evolution that made this, I'm still impressed.
Yes while I agree every moment of life is a miraculous and wonderfull thing, in all when I look at humanity at a whole I just can't say God has impressed me, not with all the wrong in this world. For example if you were in Africa and were just one of the millions of aids, poverty and hunger stricken children would you
really believe in God, let alone be impressed by all the suffering?
QuoteThe only reason I have a problem with believing, is why would God punish us and send us to hell for not believing something told to us without any (or little) fact backing it up? The only possible thing I can think of is that if he does exist, he'll somehow prove himself to me and other agnostics. Until then, I'm agnostic.
IIRC, they found relics from the last supper. I think iago said something about that. Also, theres a topic on the Shroud of Turin on the vL forums. Thats proof enough for me.
So have I; they're in my dishwasher. How can they prove the "relics" are actually from the Last Supper? Really, they can't.
Quote from: GameSnake on October 20, 2005, 02:10:03 PMYes while I agree every moment of life is a miraculous and wonderfull thing, in all when I look at humanity at a whole I just can't say God has impressed me, not with all the wrong in this world. For example if you were in Africa and were just one of the millions of aids, poverty and hunger stricken children would you really believe in God, let alone be impressed by all the suffering?
Man is sinful, the bible does not say that he is not.
Quote from: rabbit on October 20, 2005, 05:18:53 PM
So have I; they're in my dishwasher. How can they prove the "relics" are actually from the Last Supper? Really, they can't.
Carbon dating, same with the Shroud of Turin. The relics are in the place described, and are carbon dated to the time described. Although its not totally proved, its not disproved either. Being in your dishwasher, thats disproving it.
Quote from: GameSnake on October 20, 2005, 02:10:03 PM
Yes while I agree every moment of life is a miraculous and wonderfull thing, in all when I look at humanity at a whole I just can't say God has impressed me, not with all the wrong in this world. For example if you were in Africa and were just one of the millions of aids, poverty and hunger stricken children would you really believe in God, let alone be impressed by all the suffering?
The suffering is not the fault of God, but of man.
Quote from: Joe[e2] on October 20, 2005, 05:58:49 PM
Carbon dating, same with the Shroud of Turin. The relics are in the place described, and are carbon dated to the time described. Although its not totally proved, its not disproved either. Being in your dishwasher, thats disproving it.
While I agree with your position, I don't agree with your method. Carbon dating is notoriously inaccurate, and if I'm going to reject its use to date dinosaur fossils, then I need to reject its use for this too.
I don't think that they could possibly be confident that they've found relics from The Last Supper. How could they possibly identify them? And if you say "from the painting", I'll smack you, because the famous painting of it was made over 1000 years later :-P
The Shroud of Turin can't be proven real, or fake. So I will choose to believe that it's fake, because I'd rather be unsure than to have a false belief.
Believing it's fake isn't being unsure. :)
Quote from: Joe[e2] on October 20, 2005, 05:58:49 PM
Quote from: rabbit on October 20, 2005, 05:18:53 PM
So have I; they're in my dishwasher. How can they prove the "relics" are actually from the Last Supper? Really, they can't.
Carbon dating, same with the Shroud of Turin. The relics are in the place described, and are carbon dated to the time described. Although its not totally proved, its not disproved either. Being in your dishwasher, thats disproving it.
So they know exactly where the Last Supper took place? Not to mention that carbon dating is only accurate to a few years, not a few hours.
Quote from: Sidoh on October 20, 2005, 07:48:03 PM
Believing it's fake isn't being unsure. :)
I was hoping nobody would notice that :-P
I couldn't think of the right wording, but what I meant was, "I'd rather err on the side of caution". Better?
Hehe, I know what you meant.
As my Physics teacher would say:
Picky, picky picky....