Are my spirtual beliefs wrong?

okay forget ebout aliens.
as far as what daroga and crotch are saying,
i cant tell if they believe there will be a resurrection someday, like the second coming of christ or something, (i think thats what christians believe) when our souls will be reunited with our bodies, and we will ultimately be judged and sent to either heaven or hell.
i want to know what everyone thinks about this
 
[quote name='tlsar']okay forget ebout aliens.
as far as what daroga and crotch are saying,
i cant tell if they believe there will be a resurrection someday, like the second coming of christ or something, (i think thats what christians believe) when our souls will be reunited with our bodies, and we will ultimately be judged and sent to either heaven or hell.
i want to know what everyone thinks about this[/quote]

Well I can tell you right now that daroga believes in the second coming of Christ and Crotch does not (yes I'm speaking for the both of you and you like it). Although I think your wording is weird or you misunderstand some things because AFAIK Christians generally believe that the soul is already in your body (I say "in" rather than "a part of" because of the dualism in Greek thought and later Christianity). The soul is separated from the body at death (since obviously your body isn't really working anymore). The rest is just kind of odd because it's kind of a combination of a bodily resurrection (Jewish thought) and a pure-soul kind of existence apart from the body (Greek thought).

I don't believe in it.
 
[quote name='SpazX']Well I can tell you right now that daroga believes in the second coming of Christ and Crotch does not (yes I'm speaking for the both of you and you like it).[/quote]You got it right on my part, at least. But I gotta ask Daroga...

1. Pre-Millenial Dispensationalist, or not PMD?
1a. Pre-trib or post-trib?
1b. Did I spell that fucker right?
 
Mmmm... none of the above? (Don't ask me about spelling, man. Without spell check I communicate like a malnourished 5 year old.)

The concept of the Millennium is a failure to understand the figurative language in the book of Revelation. I'd have to go back over some of the main passages, but in all that wild stuff in Revelation are pictures of the present day. In short, we're currently living in the "millennium." Those are tremendously difficult sections to deal with, and as I was trying to show Pyro earlier, another clear example of needing to use the easy-to-understand passages to interpret the difficult.

Here's how it's going to go down. At some predetermined yet unknown (to us) time, Christ will return, clearly visible to the whole earth (Matthew 24:27ff). The dead will be raised first and then those who are still alive will be brought before the throne of God (1 Thessalonians 4:13-17), and there we will be judged by our deeds (Matthew 25:31-46). It's clear from the rest of Scripture that what Jesus is speaking about in Matthew there is not a pure works-righteousness. Jesus is judging by faith. It is impossible to do anything good or pleasing in God's sight without faith because sin so taints everything that we do, even the "good" (64:6). It's also a stern warning to complacent, apathetic Christians, that we are saved through faith alone, but faith is never alone. The Christian will do good works--the message that James communicates in his letter. Yet we do them not to earn God's favor, but in thanksgiving that he's freed us from the debt of sin that we owe by his death and resurrection.

In the end there will be no great war (that was won at Jesus' cross), there will be no "last call" for those living on earth. The day will come like a "thief in the night" and all men, believer and unbeliever alike, will be judged.
 
[quote name='daroga']Here's how it's going to go down. At some predetermined yet unknown (to us) time, Christ will return, clearly visible to the whole earth (Matthew 24:27ff). The dead will be raised first and then those who are still alive will be brought before the throne of God (1 Thessalonians 4:13-17), and there we will be judged by our deeds (Matthew 25:31-46). It's clear from the rest of Scripture that what Jesus is speaking about in Matthew there is not a pure works-righteousness. Jesus is judging by faith. It is impossible to do anything good or pleasing in God's sight without faith because sin so taints everything that we do, even the "good" (64:6). It's also a stern warning to complacent, apathetic Christians, that we are saved through faith alone, but faith is never alone. The Christian will do good works--the message that James communicates in his letter. Yet we do them not to earn God's favor, but in thanksgiving that he's freed us from the debt of sin that we owe by his death and resurrection.

In the end there will be no great war (that was won at Jesus' cross), there will be no "last call" for those living on earth. The day will come like a "thief in the night" and all men, believer and unbeliever alike, will be judged.[/quote]

okay but our bodies decompose. if youre speaking literally, we are all going to be skeletons on this day of judgement.
and what about retarded people? aborted babies? how will they be judged?
and then satanists? if they believe in the devil, then they belive in god. correct me if im wrong, but doesnt god say somewhere in the bible something like "if you believe in me youll go to heaven" ?
i know thats nowhere near the correct wording, but its something to that effect.
and what do you have to do to make it to heaven?
is there a set number of sins where if you commit one too many, you have no chance of getting into heaven and sentenced to eternity in hell? ?
 
[quote name='tlsar']okay but our bodies decompose. if youre speaking literally, we are all going to be skeletons on this day of judgement.
and what about retarded people? aborted babies? how will they be judged?
and then satanists? if they believe in the devil, then they belive in god. correct me if im wrong, but doesnt god say somewhere in the bible something like "if you believe in me youll go to heaven" ?
i know thats nowhere near the correct wording, but its something to that effect.
and what do you have to do to make it to heaven?
is there a set number of sins where if you commit one too many, you have no chance of getting into heaven and sentenced to eternity in hell? ?[/quote]Good questions! I'll try to take them in order.

1. Re: decomposing bodies. The how of this working is really still unknown to us, the what is made very clear. At the resurrection, our bodies will be changed. Paul, who still calls it a "mystery" explains in 1 Corinthians 15, one of the best sources in the Bible on the resurrection says:

"Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: “Death has been swallowed up in victory.” (vv. 51-54)

Job also weighs in, "I know that my Redeemer lives, and that in the end he will stand upon the earth. And after my skin has been destroyed, yet in my flesh I will see God; I myself will see him with my own eyes—I, and not another. How my heart yearns within me!" (19:25-27). Interesting that he emphasizes that his skin was destroyed, so not denying the bodily composition, but that he would see his Redeemer with his own eyes.

The resurrection is a physical, literal resurrection, but no, we will not all be skeletons. :)

2. Judgment.

Faith in a god or even that there is a God is not sufficient for eternal life. James says, "You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that--and shudder" (2:19). Knowing that there is a God is something hardwired into every person. Even if someone may stifle that knowledge and profess a faith in no god, there is still in the deepest, darkest depths of their mind a doubt that they might be wrong, because God has put that into all of us that we might seek after him in his Word.

The judgment is based on one things and one alone, faith in Christ. By nature, all of us should be sent to hell for eternal torment because of our sins, regardless of how many or how horrid they are. Going back to James again he says, "For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it" (2:10). That sin has completely separated us from God, and he must punish us for our sins because he is just. "The wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23a).

Try as we might, we cannot fix things. Living a "good life" is not going to make up for the perfect life that God demands of us. It's like a giant chasm has been set between us and God. The person who can run and jump really well and gets within inches of the other side and the person who trips and falls straight down meet the same fate. Thus we cannot do anything about this.

Then, enter God, who couldn't stand to see the creation whom he loved punished like that. So he promised and subsequently sent his Son Jesus (100% God) into the world (now also 100% human as well). Jesus lived the perfect life that you and I couldn't. He never sinned once in his thoughts, words, or actions. And yet as famously depicted for centuries now, he still died. But he died not because of his own sins (he had none), but he took our sinfulness on himself.

On the cross, Jesus suffered the punishment for our sins. So at the cross we see what seemed to have been a contradiction (God's Love and God's Justice) reconciled. "God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God" (2 Corinthians 5:21). Jesus' resurrection 3 days later on Easter morning proves his victory over sin and death for us. The wages of sin may have been death, but that verse continues, "but the gift of God is eternal life in Jesus Christ our Lord" (Rom 6:23b).

So what does that all mean now? "You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us" (Romans 5:6-8). And thereby, "The blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin" (1 John 1:7).

We are set free from our sins in Jesus' death. We are freed from hell. We now receive Jesus' perfection. When God looks at us he doesn't seem John or Jane sinner; he sees the perfect life of his Son. Everything bad we had Jesus took on himself and everything good that he had he gave to us.

Now, we have heaven as our eternal home. So for those who believe and rejoice in their forgiveness of sins in Jesus, Judgment Day isn't scary. The resurrection of the dead will be a joyful time, a homecoming if you will.

Those who reject this free gift are still under the justice of God and thus must pay the price for their sins--an eternity in hell. Whether one sin or a billion sins in a lifetime (I daresay I in my life lean far closer to the latter than the former), any will condemn to hell. But because of what Jesus did for you and me, we don't have to be afraid of that! We simply get to partake in the joy that is ours by being released from our sins. :)

That was really long, and I apologize, but you hit at some foundational things that were really, really key. Fantastic questions. If I made something needlessly unclear, let me know.
 
The first bowl on the earth
the second bowl on the sea
the third bowl on the rivers
the fourth bowl on the sun
the fifth bowl on the beast
the sixth bowl on the stars
the seventh bowl on the air
.
And the earth turned grey
The sea turned black
The rivers turned red
The sun turned cold
The beast turned pale
The stars turned fast
The air turned to poison
Click to expand...

I have this song where ppl are chanting this, I think it paraphrases Revelations from the Bible. The part that confuses me is the beast turning pale.

Anyway - Book of Revelation was a vision supposedly sent by Angels. Angels are spirtual entities so it would make sense if they're talking about a spiritual apocolypse using metaphor as opposed to the more basic hollywood-style interpretation of the apocolypse with fire, war, and pestilence.

However to be completely honest I don't know how much stock I put in the revelations prophecy being as I haven't researched much into the integrity of the vision and history is generally vague on the identity of the prophet. Heck, it could all just be anti-pre-Christian Roman Empire propaganda.
 
[quote name='camoor']I have this song where ppl are chanting this, I think it paraphrases Revelations from the Bible. The part that confuses me is the beast turning pale.[/quote]Revelation has a lot of wild imagery in it that can be really confusing especially if someone attempts to understand it apart from the rest of Scripture.
 
[quote name='daroga']Revelation has a lot of wild imagery in it that can be really confusing especially if someone attempts to understand it apart from the rest of Scripture.[/quote]

At the same time you can't claim that there's one interpretation. I mean, hell, I just found this in Wikipedia while looking up the "whore of Babylon":

Those who equate the US with Mystery Babylon liken the United States to the Roman Empire — and therefore to Babylon — because of what they charge is its high-handed treatment of other countries as a military superpower. South American intellectuals from the 60's and 70's political movements have been known to use this metaphor as well. American religious right groups such as the American Family Association, see United States as decadent, evil and anti-Christian; and 'drunk with the blood of the saints' due to its popular culture as well as its earthly military and technological superiority.

Not only is Mystery Babylon, in Revelation 17 and 18, described as a great consumer and superpower, but she is destroyed by the beast kingdom of the Antichrist with its seven heads and ten horns. The beast with seven heads and ten horns is a reference to Daniel's description of the kingdom of the Antichrist, in Daniel 7:23-25. Additionally, an online organization claims that the Statue of Liberty bears relatively close resemblance to the Whore; the statue was modeled after the Roman goddess Libertas, which they suppose had come from the chief Babylonian goddess Ishtar.[5] Babylon (or the Whore) is also described as sitting upon many waters (Revelation 17:1); this may apply to either the United States, which stretches from the Pacific to the Atlantic and which has a trading empire across the oceans; or to the Statue of Liberty, which sits in New York Harbor. Furthermore, if the "beast" is identified as the United Nations, then the U.S. might be seen as being its rider, since it is one of the five members of the UN Security Council and hosts the UN headquarters in New York City. Another aspect of interest is that the United States has "conquered" the historical capital of Babylon in Iraq during the Iraq War. By virtue of tradition, this implies that America has taken up the mantle of the Babylonian Empire. Such an interpretation has been promulgated by individuals such as Texas preacher Texe Marrs.
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whore_of_babylon

:lol: Gotta love the AFA
 
[quote name='camoor']At the same time you can't claim that there's one interpretation.[/quote]Not really, no. But usually there's one interpretation that is consistent with the rest of Scripture. There are certainly places where one might find a secondary option or two in interpretations that jive with the rest of the Bible, but usually the differences there are pretty inconsequential.
 
i appreicate your answers, daroga. i studied your response well.
however theres still a lot i dont understand..
ill think of some more questions later
 
[quote name='tlsar']i appreicate your answers, daroga. i studied your response well.
however theres still a lot i dont understand..
ill think of some more questions later[/quote]Sure thing. :) Any time, whether here, or on PM, or AIM, or whatever. I'm around most of the time.
 
[quote name='Chacrana']Damn... daroga knows what he's talking about.[/quote]I hope so, at least on these foundational matters. Otherwise that's a lot of school and a career choice pretty much for naught.
 
[quote name='daroga']I hope so, at least on these foundational matters. Otherwise that's a lot of school and a career choice pretty much for naught.[/QUOTE]

Ah, so you studied that stuff. Phew. I felt like a terrible Christian for a second there.

Lazy Lutheran, indeed. :lol:
 
okay daroga maybe i can stump you this time.
do heaven and hell really exist? i mean, no one really knows for a fact that theyre real.

you have decided that you believe in god and the devil, in heaven and hell.
honestly, i havent decided what i believe yet. there is the realist/athiest part of me that says "muslims and buddhists are just as devoted to their religions as catholics and christians; whos to say which religion is the true one? and then i go on further to say that even if i were religious, chances are i would be catholic or christian. and yes, we have freedom of religion and everything, but the two C's are whats mostly around these days.

however, what if i were to have been born in the middle east, to an islamic family? chances are, i would have been a muslim. and then one day i die and suffer in hell because i wasnt a christian. how is that possible? would god punish me even though islam was all i knew? if i was taught that it was the true faith? that doesnt make sense to me.
but on the other hand, theres the part of me that says i am restricting my beliefs to the physical world. sure, its all we know for sure to exist, but the human mind often returns to the thought "there has to be something more" i mean there has to be, cause theres a reaason for everything (at least in this world), so there must be a reason we are here.
i guess its all just a matter of faith.
 
[quote name='tlsar']okay daroga maybe i can stump you this time.
do heaven and hell really exist? i mean, no one really knows for a fact that theyre real.[/quote]That won't stump him. He'll say yes, for assorted reasons that generally boil down to faith. I'll say no for reasons that generally boil down to absence of evidence in areas where I would expect evidence.

[quote name='tlsar'] you have decided that you believe in god and the devil, in heaven and hell.
honestly, i havent decided what i believe yet. there is the realist/athiest part of me that says "muslims and buddhists are just as devoted to their religions as catholics and christians; whos to say which religion is the true one? and then i go on further to say that even if i were religious, chances are i would be catholic or christian. and yes, we have freedom of religion and everything, but the two C's are whats mostly around these days.[/quote]Catholic or Christian? Somebody was born to a Protestant family...

[quote name='tlsar'] however, what if i were to have been born in the middle east, to an islamic family? chances are, i would have been a muslim. and then one day i die and suffer in hell because i wasnt a christian. how is that possible? would god punish me even though islam was all i knew? if i was taught that it was the true faith? that doesnt make sense to me.[/quote]Argument from religious confusion, I think that's called, though I don't know if there's an official name for it.
[quote name='tlsar'] but on the other hand, theres the part of me that says i am restricting my beliefs to the physical world. sure, its all we know for sure to exist, but the human mind often returns to the thought "there has to be something more" i mean there has to be, cause theres a reaason for everything (at least in this world), so there must be a reason we are here.[/quote]I sense some infinite regression coming on. If there has to be a cause for all of this - Life, the Universe, and Everything - then what was the cause for that? And for that?
[quote name='tlsar'] i guess its all just a matter of faith.[/quote]I would say no, it's not a matter of faith for all of us. Daroga would disagree with me, saying that I've placed my faith in science rather than God (not trying to put words in your mouth, but you've said something similar before). I would say that that would be redefining faith to a point where it loses most of its meaning. He would say is not. I would say are too. That would go back and forth for a while. Then we'd play calvinball.
 
[quote name='tlsar'] honestly, i havent decided what i believe yet. there is the realist/athiest part of me that says "muslims and buddhists are just as devoted to their religions as catholics and christians; whos to say which religion is the true one? and then i go on further to say that even if i were religious, chances are i would be catholic or christian. and yes, we have freedom of religion and everything, but the two C's are whats mostly around these days.

however, what if i were to have been born in the middle east, to an islamic family? chances are, i would have been a muslim. and then one day i die and suffer in hell because i wasnt a christian. how is that possible? would god punish me even though islam was all i knew? if i was taught that it was the true faith? that doesnt make sense to me.
but on the other hand, theres the part of me that says i am restricting my beliefs to the physical world. sure, its all we know for sure to exist, but the human mind often returns to the thought "there has to be something more" i mean there has to be, cause theres a reaason for everything (at least in this world), so there must be a reason we are here.
i guess its all just a matter of faith.[/quote]

[quote name='Jesus']Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 5:17-5:20[/quote]

[quote name='Buddha']Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense[/quote]

Since you mentioned Buddhism I thought it was only fair to share. Once you venture outside the Abrahamic religions, it isn't only a matter of faith.
 
[quote name='The Crotch']Catholic or Christian? Somebody was born to a Protestant family...[/quote]There's two type of religions in the world. Biblical Christanity (the sinner is saved by God's undeserved love alone) and Works Righteousness (the sinner is saved by the good things he's done to make up for the wrong things--see Mormonism, Islam, various cults, or anyone who's ever said "I think I'll get to heaven/not suffer after death because I've been a pretty good person"). Sadly, the Roman Church by its official teachings places itself squarely into the latter group, with the Council of Trent being some of clearest writings to do this--documents that still are held up as official doctrine in their catechisms, etc. A comparison between Trent and Ephesians 2 is kinda shocking. In other words, in a lot of ways it's an appropriate distinction.

To be clear, I'm not saying that all Catholics are not Christians, simply that by-the-book, the RCC teaches contrary to core of Christianity as I laid it out on the last page.

[quote name='The Crotch']
I would say no, it's not a matter of faith for all of us. Daroga would disagree with me, saying that I've placed my faith in science rather than God (not trying to put words in your mouth, but you've said something similar before). I would say that that would be redefining faith to a point where it loses most of its meaning. He would say is not. I would say are too. That would go back and forth for a while. Then we'd play calvinball.[/quote]It's funny, I was just thinking about faith this evening. The thought of "It doesn't matter what you believe as long as you believe!" has to be the single most ludircous statement I've ever heard. Likewise, anyone who would base their confidence in the afterlife based on how strong their faith is boggles my mind.

If I jump off a hill and have a net placed down the ground, the strength in my faith that the net will catch me so I'm not injured is immaterial, what matters is the object of that faith and what the object can do. All the faith in the world in a really crappy net isn't going to make it less crappy or more effective. Faith always needs an object.

So, I still think the "faith in science" concept is valid, in the unobservable matters. My faith that God created the world is no more or less faith than faith that it happened from the Big Bang (is that still a valid theory, or at least component of the theory?). Neither one can be proven, each has to be believed because we can't go back in time to see it happen (I should invest in a DeLorean to put this whole matter to rest). In one case, it's faith in the account of the Bible. In the other, it's faith in the hypothesis based on our best-available-data.

Calvinball owns.

[quote name='tlsar']however, what if i were to have been born in the middle east, to an islamic family? chances are, i would have been a muslim. and then one day i die and suffer in hell because i wasnt a christian. how is that possible? would god punish me even though islam was all i knew? if i was taught that it was the true faith? that doesnt make sense to me.[/quote]Do heaven and hell really exist? Yes. Of course I can't prove that to you beyond pointing you to the Bible and what it says about the place of torment for sinners and the place of unending joy for believers in Christ.

To The Crotch I'd quote the generally unproductive adage, "[SIZE=-1]Absence of proof is not proof of absence[/SIZE]." It all depends on what someone's looking for in proof, though. I tend to think the natural knowledge everyone has of God and his justice and punishment for wrongdoing coupled with the words of the Bible is overwhelming evidence. I wonder, Crotch, what would you look for in proof of heaven's or hell's existence?

You've hit at an interesting point in the above-quoted paragraph though. The concept of God punishing me because I was born in a Muslim family/country/etc. God doesn't punish for your family line, but he punishes sin. Of course, certain life situations may make us think, "That's not fair!"

The concept of "just" in these matters always seems to be "what's good for me." In other words, someone going to hell is "unfair" or an "injustice" when the truth of the matter is exactly the opposite. The justice is a sinner like you or me being punished forever in hell. The injustice is that Jesus suffered for those sins and by God's grace and through faith we get to go to heaven.
 
[quote name='daroga']There's two type of religions in the world. Biblical Christanity (the sinner is saved by God's undeserved love alone) and Works Righteousness (the sinner is saved by the good things he's done to make up for the wrong things--see Mormonism, Islam, various cults, or anyone who's ever said "I think I'll get to heaven/not suffer after death because I've been a pretty good person").[/quote]That's a rather... Biblical-Christianity-centric view of things. Dividing religion along those lines in particular seems rather bizarre. I'm sure Pre-Millenial-Dispensationalists divide religions between "PMD" and "Non-PMD".


[quote name='daroga'] So, I still think the "faith in science" concept is valid, in the unobservable matters. My faith that God created the world is no more or less faith than faith that it happened from the Big Bang (is that still a valid theory, or at least component of the theory?).[/quote]Shall I call in Liquid? He'd cover this better than me.

[quote name='daroga']Neither one can be proven, each has to be believed because we can't go back in time to see it happen (I should invest in a DeLorean to put this whole matter to rest). In one case, it's faith in the account of the Bible. In the other, it's faith in the hypothesis based on our best-available-data.[/quote]As you more-or-less pointed out without realizing it, those are two very different levels of faith. Equating faith in the Bible with faith in the interpretation of known evidence is like saying that my auricle is an oracle, or that the axes of a graph can cut like the axes of a lumberjack.

What I'm saying is that the difference of scale here makes the two faiths you described very, very different things. In general, I avoid the use of the word "faith" for precisely this reason, but this stuff comes up a lot. Never ask a biologist if he "believes" in the theory of evolution, man.

[quote name='daroga'] Calvinball owns.[/quote]The score is still Boogy to Oogy, man.

[quote name='daroga'] To The Crotch I'd quote the generally unproductive adage, "[SIZE=-1]Absence of proof is not proof of absence[/SIZE]."[/quote]Unless evidence is to be expected - IE, an extraordinary claim is presented. Consider these two examples.

Ex. 1|
You are at a friend's house, and find a dish to be particular delicious. You ask him what it is. "Perogis," your friend says, and gives you the recipe for the old Ukrainian dish.

There is nothing unbelievable about this. Perogis, if made properly, are indeed delicious, and not in the least uncommon in my area.


Ex. 2|
You are at a friend's house, and find a dish to be particular delicious. You ask him what it is. "Yeti steak," he says, and gives you the recipe.

You, of course, scoff at this. However, your friend is adamant that it is indeed yeti steak. You continue talking for some time, and eventually realize that he is indeed serious. You tell him that you will not believe him until he can produce some reason for you to believe him - the corpse, or some remnants of the creature that could not belong to another animal. He refuses to do so, saying that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," and that the lack of it should not affect your belief in his having a dead Yeti in his freezer.


As far as I'm concerned, the God which you describe should leave a helluva lot more evidence than a dead Yeti - and that's at the heart of my not believing.
[quote name='daroga']I wonder, Crotch, what would you look for in proof of heaven's or hell's existence?[/quote]In this case, it's a little roundabout. I can't think of anything that would satisfactorily provide direct evidence of hell, but evidence of a deity that would have created it would be a fantastic first step.
 
[quote name='The Crotch']That's a rather... Biblical-Christianity-centric view of things. Dividing religion along those lines in particular seems rather bizarre. I'm sure Pre-Millenial-Dispensationalists divide religions between "PMD" and "Non-PMD".[/quote]There's a problem with that though. The one ultimate deciding factor in our eternal destination is not whether we believe in a PMD or not. It's whether we rely on Christ completely for our forgiveness or not.

We could make all sorts of distinctions between religions, but the chief dichotomy that really has a huge impact is in the "By Grace Alone" and "By Works" division. The latter is natural to all humankind, the former is the distinct and bizarre characteristic only found in the Bible, which makes Christianity distinct from all other religions. While that's certainly not the proof that Christianity is the only right faith that one may be looking for when evaluating religions, it certainly should give someone pause, even on a purely theoretical level.

As for proof of God's existence, the thought that there is none is fighting against all sorts of internal evidence that God has placed into each of us, to say nothing of the amazing world around us. But, we've been down this road before and, if memory serves, it got us nowhere fast. I'm content to agree to disagree on this point if you are. :)
 
[quote name='daroga']There's a problem with that though. The one ultimate deciding factor in our eternal destination is not whether we believe in a PMD or not.[/quote]Tell that to LaHaye and Jenkins.
 
[quote name='The Crotch']Tell that to LaHaye and Jenkins.[/quote]If they'd ask me, I gladly would. So would the Bible.
 
[quote name='daroga']
We could make all sorts of distinctions between religions, but the chief dichotomy that really has a huge impact is in the "By Grace Alone" and "By Works" division. The latter is natural to all humankind, the former is the distinct and bizarre characteristic only found in the Bible, which makes Christianity distinct from all other religions. While that's certainly not the proof that Christianity is the only right faith that one may be looking for when evaluating religions, it certainly should give someone pause, even on a purely theoretical level.[/quote]


Is the "saved by grace" angle that unique? In my admittedly brief study of the branches of Buddhism I was struck by the resemblance of Pure Land Buddhism to salvation through Jesus Christ.

For the unfamiliar, in order to be saved and born into the Amitabha Buddha's paradise after death, all one is required to do is call his name and chant his sutra. Then the buddha and his cohorts are to appear before the one to be saved at the hour of death and honor the buddha's salvation guarantee.

Essentially no works besides allying oneself with the Buddha are involved, so I would guess it would fall into the "By Grace Alone" category.
 
[quote name='looploop']Is it the "saved by grace" angle that unique? In my admittedly brief study of the branches of Buddhism I was struck by the resemblance of Pure Land Buddhism to salvation through Jesus Christ.

For the unfamiliar, in order to be saved and born into the Amitabha Buddha's paradise after death, all one is required to do is call his name and chant his sutra. Then the buddha and his cohorts are to appear before the one to be saved at the hour of death and honor the buddha's salvation guarantee.

Essentially no works besides allying oneself with the Buddha are involved, so I would guess it would fall into the "By Grace Alone" category.[/quote]Interesting, I wasn't aware of that. I'm not as up to date on Buddhism as I probably should be. Even so, the "chanting his sutra" requirement would take it out of grace alone.

By grace alone is just that, nothing but God' undeserved love. No works, no nothing. Believing is something passive--faith is something God works, not man. Which puts those who practice decision theology ("Choose Jesus Christ as your Savior!") at best in the position of not understanding how they were converted, and at worst putting their own will in the chain of events that saves them rather than leaving it to God alone.
 
[quote name='daroga']Interesting, I wasn't aware of that. I'm not as up to date on Buddhism as I probably should be. Even so, the "chanting his sutra" requirement would take it out of grace alone.

By grace alone is just that, nothing but God' undeserved love. No works, no nothing. Believing is something passive--faith is something God works, not man. Which puts those who practice decision theology ("Choose Jesus Christ as your Savior!") at best in the position of not understanding how they were converted, and at worst putting their own will in the chain of events that saves them rather than leaving it to God alone.[/quote]

Calling his name isn't a work per se though, as it has nothing to do with personal character. It's simply a means of acknowledging and accepting the free and essentially undeserved salvation that the Buddha has offered.
The chanting of the sutra isn't actually required, but it's how many people do it, as how many Christians anoint with oil when bringing new Christians into the fold.

I've a question for you though. If a Christian were to depend entirely on salvation by grace alone, execute no works, live an average life, belief fervently in Jesus, be confident of their salvation by grace and never see a need to utter his name or sing his songs, what would likely become of this average but faithful person?
 
The biggest problem i have with any faith is just that it flies in the face of logic. In the tradition of most religions, a set of beliefs are written down and followers follow those beliefs. The thing is though, that anyone can write any belief down and given enough charm and charisma, get people to follow those beliefs. Scientology seems to have followed this pretty well., but who's to say that all regions weren't created this way? Maybe some B.C.E con man came up with the basis for all Abrahamic faiths? I need proof that everything happened the way it is claimed to have happened. I need proof that moses didn't just chisel the ten commandments himself, that the individual books of the bible weren't just written anonymously and given names like "the book of Mark," i need proof that those people ever even lived in the first place.

I guess my point is that i need proof.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']The biggest problem i have with any faith is just that it flies in the face of logic. In the tradition of most religions, a set of beliefs are written down and followers follow those beliefs. The thing is though, that anyone can write any belief down and given enough charm and charisma, get people to follow those beliefs. Scientology seems to have followed this pretty well., but who's to say that all regions weren't created this way? Maybe some B.C.E con man came up with the basis for all Abrahamic faiths? I need proof that everything happened the way it is claimed to have happened. I need proof that moses didn't just chisel the ten commandments himself, that the individual books of the bible weren't just written anonymously and given names like "the book of Mark," i need proof that those people ever even lived in the first place.

I guess my point is that i need proof.[/quote]

its a very good point and a thought that has always stuck with me. When I heard historians say that the story is nothing new, that there were tons of stories of someone proclaiming to be the son of god and he would rise from the dead it really makes me skeptical. The only way I would believe in a god would be that everytime I walk outside I saw this huge guy in the sky waving hi! to everyone. Other than that I'm calling B.S.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']
I guess my point is that i need proof.[/quote]
If by proof you mean, "evidence of a deity that can not be recreated through naturalistic means", then I'm with ya.
 
[quote name='The Crotch']If by proof you mean, "evidence of a deity that can not be recreated through naturalistic means", then I'm with ya.[/quote]
I just need proof that all the claims in the bible are true. That's not going to happen of course, because record keeping back then wasn't exactly what it is today.

Can you imagine walking into court and trying to convince people you're innocent without any proof at all? It isn't impossible, but for the most part you'd be screwed. However, there are always some suckers out there who will go on blind faith alone without any proof. See the connection here?
 
Thomas got to touch Jesus' wounds - how 'bout the rest of us poor schmucks? Time was, people got burning bushes, conveniently timed parting seas, and the dead being raised. Assuming the latter of those three things doesn't literally come back to bite us, I'd settle for those. I can't say that's the best use of God's abilities, but it would be enough to convince me of the existence of at least one of:

A. God
B. Loki
C. Aliens!!!!!

Of course, that probably gets in the way of the "salvation through faith" thing, but hey, that ain't my problem.

In case you're wondering, I would not accept "feeling the presence of God in my heart", as this can be recreated through naturalistic means.
 
Jesus addressed that very thing, actually, in the account of Lazarus and the Rich Man.

End of Luke 16:

He answered, 'Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father's house, for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.' "Abraham replied, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.'
" 'No, father Abraham,' he said, 'but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.'
"He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.' "

Somehow if someone did rise from the dead, I'm sure it would be explained away. Rejection of the Word of God is rejection of anything else God could use to prove himself.
 
[quote name='daroga']
He answered, 'Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father's house, for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.' "Abraham replied, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.'
" 'No, father Abraham,' he said, 'but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.'
"He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.'[/quote]And to him I say: Bullshit. Insulting bullshit, even. There's a no-longer-used graveyard, like, a kilometre from my house. I run by it nearly every day in the Spring. I see someone pop up out of of there one day (preferably someone who doesn't try to eat me), and I'm not going to be looking for a natural explanation - there ain't one. Don't tell me I've "hardened my heart" or something - I'm an atheist, not an idiot.
 
[quote name='The Crotch']And to him I say: Bullshit. Insulting bullshit, even. There's a no-longer-used graveyard, like, a kilometre from my house. I run by it nearly every day in the Spring. I see someone pop up out of of there one day (preferably someone who doesn't try to eat me), and I'm not going to be looking for a natural explanation - there ain't one. Don't tell me I've "hardened my heart" or something - I'm an atheist, not an idiot.[/quote]An interesting theory. Sadly, it's not likely to ever be tested.

Explaining the complexity, diversity, and base existence of this world on an accident is no less surprising to me than someone finding a reason for someone dead for years coming back to life. I guess I don't buy into your "Rich Man" plea, but it doesn't matter at all what a putz like me thinks.
 
[quote name='daroga']An interesting theory. Sadly, it's not likely to ever be tested.[/quote]... and who've we got to blame for that?

If I used smileys, one of them would be winking at you right now.

[quote name='daroga'] Explaining the complexity, diversity, and base existence of this world on an accident is no less surprising to me than someone finding a reason for someone dead for years coming back to life. [/quote]The planet itself formed four and a half billion years ago - not exactly by accident, but not on purpose, either. The really short answer: A lot of dust in space gathered together via gravity and electrostatics.

The long answer, and I'm just an armchair here, so someone with a better grounding in this can correct me if they wnat: planets and stars begin as large clouds of gas (nebulae). A nebula contracts due to its own gravity, heating up, increasing the rate at which it spins, and flattening out. The center becomes denser and denser, and after tens of millions of years, it reaches a temperature and a pressure great enough to initiate nuclear fusion, and boom - we gots a star. The "remains" cool off gradually, forming metals, ice, etc. These bump into each-other while floating through the floaty bits, and stay together. This stage of planetary formation is more-or-less like the formation of a star. The planetesimals gradually grow through accretion and collision with other planetesimals (with the largest ones growing fastest for obvious reasons), eventually forming protoplanets. Solar winds eventually clear out the assorted gases, leaving only the protoplanets and planetesimals. These collide, forming the planets we now have.

There are other explanations for the origins of life and the complexity of life, but the former is really boring, and I think we've already gone over the latter. Regardless, the point is: there's an explanation, and not even a particularly crazy explanation (remember my "short answer"?). Compare this with a corpse - a brainless corpse, a skeleton, incapable of holding together, let alone moving around or speaking - suddenly getting up and shaking my hand. Saying that the former is the same as the latter is either an insult to me or a massive failure of imagination.
 
[quote name='daroga']Jesus addressed that very thing, actually, in the account of Lazarus and the Rich Man.

End of Luke 16:

He answered, 'Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father's house, for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.' "Abraham replied, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.'
" 'No, father Abraham,' he said, 'but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.'
"He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.' "

Somehow if someone did rise from the dead, I'm sure it would be explained away. Rejection of the Word of God is rejection of anything else God could use to prove himself.[/quote]Well if it could be explained, then yeah i hope it would be.
 
[quote name='daroga']Rejection of the Word of God is rejection of anything else God could use to prove himself.[/quote]

Come on, you know that's ridiculous. Crotch shouldn't even have to try to explain why that's a horrible argument.
 
[quote name='SpazX']Come on, you know that's ridiculous. Crotch shouldn't even have to try to explain why that's a horrible argument.[/quote]You'll note that I didn't, opting instead for a total nerd-out.
 
[quote name='SpazX']Come on, you know that's ridiculous. Crotch shouldn't even have to try to explain why that's a horrible argument.[/quote]I don't recall ever saying he had to.

And I never said that someone rising from the dead had to be explained by "How'd that happen?!" Far more likely it would be explained by others and perhaps even by Crotch himself by saying "You're nuts; you're seeing things." Or the conspiracy theory of it being a hoax.

To prove Jesus point we don't have to look too far. Jesus was raising people from the dead, healing them, and preaching the Word of God in his ministry. Those who rejected the latter preaching also hated the former miracles.

You act as if everyone who saw a miracle instantly became a believer in their God. I'd direct you to Pharaoh of the Exodus, the Jewish leaders at the time of Christ. The second group even was there for Christ's resurrection from the dead and had to make up the "his disciples stole his body!" lie to cover their butts.

We've got the Bible explicitly saying that miracles of any caliber to not convert people, we've got examples showing that they don't convert people.

The principle issue here is the sinful mind of man warring against its creator because of the sin. It's a divide so great and so foundational that you can't see beyond it. See the yellow-tinted-contacts analogy from about 50 posts back.
 
I'd love it if people could be brought back from the dead and healed,it's just that anyone who claims to have seen it/ done it are clearly crazy. You'd might as well believe in these day time psychics on TV. If a calm, sane, educated person claims to have seen it/done it and has some sort of evidence, then I'd at least be more inclined to believe them.IT would have to be clear evidence though, not some blurry video of big foot.
 
[quote name='daroga']
And I never said that someone rising from the dead had to be explained by "How'd that happen?!" Far more likely it would be explained by others and perhaps even by Crotch himself by saying "You're nuts; you're seeing things." Or the conspiracy theory of it being a hoax.[/quote]If the limit of God's powers is creating a grainy video, then yes, I'd probably call it a hoax. Fortunately, all-powerful entities are not limited to this, so raising the dead en masse is well within his power. You're placing bizarre limitations on the size and the scope of the miracles here.

[quote name='daroga'] To prove Jesus point we don't have to look too far. Jesus was raising people from the dead, healing them, and preaching the Word of God in his ministry. Those who rejected the latter preaching also hated the former miracles.

You act as if everyone who saw a miracle instantly became a believer in their God. I'd direct you to Pharaoh of the Exodus, the Jewish leaders at the time of Christ. The second group even was there for Christ's resurrection from the dead and had to make up the "his disciples stole his body!" lie to cover their butts.[/quote]Congratulations! You've just backed up the Bible by quoting... the Bible.

fuck

If I pointed you to a line in another holy book that said "Everything said here is the absolute, inerrant word of X", it would be totally meaningless to you. Same goes for what you just said to anyone who doesn't already believe the same things as you.
 
[quote name='The Crotch']Congratulations! You've just backed up the Bible by quoting... the Bible.[/quote]Yep, that's exactly what I did. Sola Scriptura. I've already gone through the importance of interpreting Scripture with Scripture previously in this thread. You can head on back there if want some more details on the hermeneutic.
[quote name='The Crotch']fuck[/quote]Easy there, tiger.

[quote name='The Crotch']If I pointed you to a line in another holy book that said "Everything said here is the absolute, inerrant word of X", it would be totally meaningless to you. Same goes for what you just said to anyone who doesn't already believe the same things as you.[/quote]There's a big difference though. We're not talking about a logic formula here. The Word of God isn't just a collection of facts, it has the unique ability through the Holy Spirit to actually create the faith to believe what was just said. "Faith comes through hearing the message," etc.

As to the miracles thing, we might have been talking past each other a bit on that. I was coming at it from the direction of faith in the true God, I think you were coming at it from a knowledge of a god or supernatural force. I'll grant you that a wide-spread resurrection would certainly convince some people that there was a god. It would not, however, force anyone into believing that Jesus is their Savior from sin.

I think we've kinda hit a dead end again here in things, so anyone mind if I ask a few questions?

What are you personal beliefs (anyone, not just Crotch or Spaz) about death? Afterlife of any sort? Dead and gone? Reincarnation?
 
[quote name='daroga']Yep, that's exactly what I did. Sola Scriptura. I've already gone through the importance of interpreting Scripture with Scripture previously in this thread. You can head on back there if want some more details on the hermeneutic.[/quote]The problem is - and I think this was the last sentence of my last post - that's only convincing to people who already believe it, anyway. When talking to an atheist, you might as well say "Blabahoobahoober."

Which, for the record, is my new catch-phrase, so no using that one.
[quote name='daroga'] Easy there, tiger.[/quote]...

Easy there, Schpel Tiger?

[quote name='daroga'] There's a big difference though. We're not talking about a logic formula here. The Word of God isn't just a collection of facts, it has the unique ability through the Holy Spirit to actually create the faith to believe what was just said. "Faith comes through hearing the message," etc.[/quote]... and yet, in a crapload of cases, that faith hasn't come. I eagerly await any attempt to explain that without coming across as egotistical (Yes, I am pretty sure I already know what the explanation is. I pay attention in class.).

[quote name='daroga']I'll grant you that a wide-spread resurrection would certainly convince some people that there was a god. It would not, however, force anyone into believing that Jesus is their Savior from sin.[/quote]How about a giant, "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"-style message written in fire in the sky? Maybe "Jesus is the Savior from sin." in a billion different languages?

I think that'd do it for me, regardless of what you say I'd believe.

[quote name='daroga'] What are you personal beliefs (anyone, not just Crotch or Spaz) about death? Afterlife of any sort? Dead and gone? Reincarnation?[/quote]The second one, there. Dead and gone. Mind and matter are inseperable - once the matter starts losing it, the mind is gone.
 
[quote name='The Crotch']... and yet, in a crapload of cases, that faith hasn't come. I eagerly await any attempt to explain that without coming across as egotistical (Yes, I am pretty sure I already know what the explanation is. I pay attention in class.).[/quote]Can't answer that one for you. God does what he wants when he wants. You'll have to bring it up with him. His word does always have an effect though, wither creating/strengthening faith or hardening of the heart as someone rejects it yet again.

[quote name='The Crotch']I think that'd do it for me, regardless of what you say I'd believe.[/quote]Sure thing. That thought kinda surprises me. Written words up to this point haven't done it, but words in fire-writing in the sky would?

[quote name='The Crotch'] The second one, there. Dead and gone. Mind and matter are inseperable - once the matter starts losing it, the mind is gone.[/quote]With an outlook like that, what do you say at a funeral to a woman whose just lost her husband of 30 years, or a parent their young child? How do you as an atheist deal with the grief and loss of death?
 
[quote name='daroga']
Sure thing. That thought kinda surprises me. Written words up to this point haven't done it, but words in fire-writing in the sky would?[/quote]There are plenty of books in the world, but seemingly spontaneously appearing messages written in every single language, dead or not, that blaze endlessly in the sky are rather rare.
[quote name='daroga'] With an outlook like that, what do you say at a funeral to a woman whose just lost her husband of 30 years, or a parent their young child?[/quote]I'm self-diagnosed with Aspergers Syndrome, so don't ask me. I suck at that stuff. Besides that, "It was God's will/He's with God now" always seemed like a pretty jerk thing to say to me.
[quote name='daroga']How do you as an atheist deal with the grief and loss of death?[/quote]Pretty much the same way a theist does. I always hear people saying how "they wouldn't have been able to get through it without their faith," but the difference as I see it is negligible.
 
[quote name='daroga']With an outlook like that, what do you say at a funeral to a woman whose just lost her husband of 30 years, or a parent their young child? How do you as an atheist deal with the grief and loss of death?[/quote]

Well I pretty much agree with Crotch that a dead brain means no experience and so there is no afterlife. Reincarnation doesn't make any sense to me either since there's nothing to transfer in order to reincarnate.

And so with that answered I'll start off answering these questions by saying that what you'd say at a funeral or how you'd deal with death/loss is no way to determine your outlook on life, so that's a secondary concern. I agree with Crotch here too that "it was their time" or whatever God-based comments always seem kinda dickish to me. It's basically something you say with you have nothing to say. There isn't any substance to that, it's a speculation about a speculation that doesn't really mean anything. Like "I'll pray for you" is something you say when you won't/can't really do anything to help somebody. In regards to those comments I'd rather have nothing to say than to say nothing.

In those situations I would hope that those people enjoyed all the time that they had with those who died and that's about all I could say to them. The fact that they lost something means they really had something to lose in the first place. You have to live life to the fullest because you only get one shot.
 
[quote name='SpazX']Well I pretty much agree with Crotch that a dead brain means no experience and so there is no afterlife. Reincarnation doesn't make any sense to me either since there's nothing to transfer in order to reincarnate.[/quote]

I know it's just a movie but have you seen "Sunshine".

I thought it was pretty sweet how they played off the fact that we are all basically animated stardust.

IMO reincarnation works something like that
(the part before it turns into a goofy slasher movie)
 
[quote name='camoor']I know it's just a movie but have you seen "Sunshine".

I thought it was pretty sweet how they played off the fact that we are all basically animated stardust.

IMO reincarnation works something like that
(the part before it turns into a goofy slasher movie)
[/quote]

I haven't seen the movie. While I'd say we are all "stardust" (everything is), maybe you can explain the reincarnation aspect of it.

Reincarnation doesn't make sense to me because regardless of the fact that everything is made of the same matter and energy, who we are as an individual is due to the particular structure of our brains caused by both genetic and environmental factors. There's nothing that you could transfer from that into another brain. In order to make another person that was the same (and therefore transfer their mind/thoughts/feelings/whatever to another person/thing) would be to make an exact copy of them.

And another thing I just thought of - Who we are is constantly changing and so you could only make a copy of a person at a certain time, past that their different experiences would make them different people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top