Problems with the Heaven Concept

[rhutchin]

How will they be seen? on a movie screen, Looking down from heaven or what?

I don't know. Maybe a two way mirror.

Um... Did you mean a one-way mirror?
A two way mirror would be a mirror from both directions. Or, you know: Mylar.

A one-way mirror allows only for the reflection of the person looking into it.

A two-way mirror allows for a person on the other side to see through the glass.

http://www.ehow.com/how_4587662_way-mirror.html

 

[rhutchin]

I think believers can have great confidence that God will respond to their prayers on behalf of their children and their children will be with them in heaven. Of course, non-believing parents can expect to be with their children also - but this is not guaranteed.

You are saying that - contrary to what your bible clearly says, sinners and unbelievers, fornicators and homosexuals will all go to heaven even if they do not accept Jesus into their hearts, just because their parents prayed hard?

That's a new one. No wonder it's so comforting if you can just make shit up whenever there's an uncomfortable hole in your padded box.

One way for "sinners and unbelievers, fornicators and homosexuals to enter heaven" is through the prayers of their parents (not that prayers are the only ingredient in this process, but they are a good start). Of course, for many, the parents don't pray for them.

 

[rhutchin]

I am sure as shit going to be surprised if there is a judgement.

Unpleasantly surprised presumably - but not ignorant of the possibility. The question is whether you will pout and cry and go ballistic at that time.

 

[dockeen]

To me the key point is that to people like rhutchin, Ed, and Tigers!, eternal conscious torment is an entirely reasonable act by their god.

It is entirely reasonable that God establish standards for entry into heaven. Failure to meet those standards means failure to enter heaven (and reside in eternal conscious torment). God has explained all this in the Bible. I don't see that there should be an issue with this - other than that people just don't like that system.

The fact that you see no problem with it speaks volumes about your moral character, and no, it is not good.

 

[Rhea]

The sole basis for believing that there is a heaven is because the Bible speaks of it. Without the Bible, people would only be concerned with this life.

Here is obvious evidence that rhutchin suffers from narcissism, a particularly virulent form of it known as fundamentalist christianity.

Are you really truly honestly completely unaware of any other religion's afterlife stories?

Can you really be THAT unaware of the world around you!? Wow. Just, wow. The observant reader wonders, "what other incredibly obvious things rhutchin misses about the world around him? And what other false things does he believe without checking for truth or thinking even once about its veracity? perhaps the resurrection?"

 

[dockeen]

A person who believes ETC is reasonable. Such people would have no problem lynching, burning or torturing others in the name of their faith, if society were to allow it.

 

[Keith&Co.]

A one-way mirror allows only for the reflection of the person looking into it.

Evidently not: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/one-way+mirror
I'd never, ever heard it referred to as a two-way mirror before.
That seems counter intuitive.
A 1 way mirror is a mirror from one way, a window from the other way.
A 2-way mirror is the same thing, though you can't really see through it from both ways and you can't really use it as a mirror both ways.
Must be a briticism.

 

[funinspace]

To me the key point is that to people like rhutchin, Ed, and Tigers!, eternal conscious torment is an entirely reasonable act by their god.

It is entirely reasonable that God establish standards for entry into heaven. Failure to meet those standards means failure to enter heaven (and reside in eternal conscious torment). God has explained all this in the Bible. I don't see that there should be an issue with this - other than that people just don't like that system.

I think the "issue" with your eternal torment for the masses is that most people find the construct rather vile and depraved, not that people can't see the construct (as one of several possible interpretations) within the Christian Bible.

Anywho, it seems you still have quandaries regarding 2 constructs within your theology (not that either one devastates general Christian theology, as there are many sects that don't think your way).

Hellfire and brimstone for the masses: Your God will have to give humans some form of lobotomy, in order for humans not to mourn, cry, or be in emotional pain by knowing/seeing their loved ones (mothers, or fathers, or sons, or daughters, or brothers, or sisters, or grandchildren) are suffering within eternal conscious torment. Can you honestly tell me that you have no relatives (or have Christian friends that would face this) that you suspect won't make the cut within your own theological construct? Yeah, maybe 60 or 70 years ago, most everyone at least pretended to be Christian, as social pressures would make it difficult to not at least pretend. So either, you and all your saved brethren, will need extensive lobotomies to radically change how humans think/behave, or your "eternal torment for the masses" construct is flawed. I really don't see another way out of this theological box considering Rev 21:4.

Rev 21:4 "He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away."

With OSAS: You still need to have a host of people either be liars (no I’m not asking you to get into trouble on the board for calling myself or any others a liar) in how they describe their lengthy and fervent Christian past. Atheos has described his past of being a preacher/minister on this board, is another example beyond my details of post #65. Or your construct requires such people to be capable of fooling themselves for even decades. But that would make a mockery of the notion of assurance of salvation, as people would then not be able to even trust their own feelings and thoughts. That aspect really doesn't help your theology much. Of course, you could also modify your OSAS dogma to just let those who walked away from faith, still getting that fabulous E-ticket; or even just dump the OSAS notion all together. Wouldn't that be a crack up, having people arriving at the pearly gates that spent later decades scoffing at the God notion? Of course we would be getting the same required lobotomy, so we'd also being happy singing kumbaya for the 4,882,390,388,449,538,299,288 time.

 

[bilby]

I am sure as shit going to be surprised if there is a judgement.

Unpleasantly surprised presumably - but not ignorant of the possibility. The question is whether you will pout and cry and go ballistic at that time.

Given that the source of my surprise would be my rock solid certainty that the whole religion thing is pure fiction, your assumption that I am aware of the possibility is badly flawed.

I would be hugely surprised if, on my next visit to London, I was to meet the famous detective Sherlock Holmes; and for the exact same reason.

I am aware of both Holmes and God as fictional characters; to assume that either might one day interact with me would be quite literally insane.

Oddly enough, you can't persuade me of the real existence of either character by playing silly word games. I am particularly unimpressed with the cheap salesman's trick of presenting a falsehood in such a way as to force the mark to say something insulting about himself in the rejection.

If you say "...but you are aware of the possibility", it is easy for me to say "No, I am not aware of any such thing.". It is psychologically less easy for most people to counter "...but you are not ignorant of the possibility", because people have a strong aversion to saying "Yes, I am ignorant of the possibility", as the starting point for a rebuttal, as that suggests, falsely, that the problem is perhaps one of ignorance on my part, rather than the foolishness of the supposed knowledge.

Sadly for your sales figures this week, I am simply not in the market for the Brooklyn Bridge, or a bottle of Snake Oil, or a God, right now.

 

[funinspace]

I am sure as shit going to be surprised if there is a judgement.

Unpleasantly surprised presumably - but not ignorant of the possibility. The question is whether you will pout and cry and go ballistic at that time.

Given that the source of my surprise would be my rock solid certainty that the whole religion thing is pure fiction, your assumption that I am aware of the possibility is badly flawed.

I would be hugely surprised if, on my next visit to London, I was to meet the famous detective Sherlock Holmes; and for the exact same reason.

I am aware of both Holmes and God as fictional characters; to assume that either might one day interact with me would be quite literally insane.

Oddly enough, you can't persuade me of the real existence of either character by playing silly word games. I am particularly unimpressed with the cheap salesman's trick of presenting a falsehood in such a way as to force the mark to say something insulting about himself in the rejection.

Oh yeah. But won't rhutchin be sure as shit surprised when Allah denies him entrance thru those pearly gates After all, he certainly wasn't ignorant of the possibility.

 

[dockeen]

Can you imagine the disappointment for a fundamentalist if they were told something like one or more of the following.:

1 - No, the bible is not my "word"

2 - No, I'm sorry, but your understanding of my word and ways is stupid and completely wrong.

3 - No, there is no eternal torture chamber here

4 - Yes, everyone is here, including Hitler and that dickish guy from freethought.org, in fact dockeen and
I are going to go draft a new fantasy football league team.

 

[Tars Tarkus]

Can you imagine the disappointment for a fundamentalist if they were told something like one or more of the following.:

1 - No, the bible is not my "word"

2 - No, I'm sorry, but your understanding of my word and ways is stupid and completely wrong.

3 - No, there is no eternal torture chamber here

4 - Yes, everyone is here, including Hitler and that dickish guy from freethought.org, in fact dockeen and
I are going to go draft a new fantasy football league team.

I always thought that if God existed, your number 4 would be a great test for the newly arrived. Any disappointed utterance or thought and 'whoosh' into the lake of fire for them, and hearing God yell down to them 'I taught you to forgive, Goddammit!'

 

[Rhea]

Can you imagine the disappointment for a fundamentalist if they were told something like one or more of the following.:

1 - No, the bible is not my "word"

2 - No, I'm sorry, but your understanding of my word and ways is stupid and completely wrong.

3 - No, there is no eternal torture chamber here

4 - Yes, everyone is here, including Hitler and that dickish guy from freethought.org, in fact dockeen and
I are going to go draft a new fantasy football league team.

I always thought that if God existed, your number 4 would be a great test for the newly arrived. Any disappointed utterance or thought and 'whoosh' into the lake of fire for them, and hearing God yell down to them 'I taught you to forgive, Goddammit!'

5. What kind of asshole are you that you thought a book like that would be the word of a loving god?
6. Didn't it occur to you that I gave you a brain for a reason?
7. And if you couldn't overcome that test of basic decency - whoosh off to hell with you. Where you won't be burned but you sure don't get to hang around with people who loved with their hearts instead of their egos.

 

[rosy tetra]

There's really, really no reason to think any story about an afterlife is true. The best reasoning I have heard (from "experts") boils down to, "There must be an afterlife, because I really, really want there to be one, and it's going to be just the way I want it to be." Well that's fine. If we're going to play fantasyland, I'll stick with my surfer heaven. It's a heck of a lot better than bible heaven.

The sole basis for believing that there is a heaven is because the Bible speaks of it. Without the Bible, people would only be concerned with this life.

Ah, yes, we cannot depend on our reasoning and senses to determine what is true. Our sole basis for believing anything is - the Bible, which unfortunately we must use our reasoning and senses to read and interpret. Ah, but the Lord guides us in our reading of the Bible, so that it is not our own reasoning that discerns truth, but the Lord causes the truth to be revealed to us through our act of faith of reading the Bible. We know this to be true because - the Bible tells me so!

All those other people who believe in an afterlife who are not Christians are obviously mistaken about their ideas of the afterlife because - the Bible tells me so!

All those Christians who believe in various versions of the afterlife that are totally inconsistent with the one(s) described in the Bible - the Bible tells them so!

 

[dockeen]

I anticipate words like "wishful thinking", " atheist fantasies" and "will never happen because the bible says".


Words like " Nothing would make me happier than to find out I am wrong, and no one will experience ECT, I would rejoice in the power of the lord to save all" would
be more appropriate, but....

 

[rhutchin]

There's really, really no reason to think any story about an afterlife is true. The best reasoning I have heard (from "experts") boils down to, "There must be an afterlife, because I really, really want there to be one, and it's going to be just the way I want it to be." Well that's fine. If we're going to play fantasyland, I'll stick with my surfer heaven. It's a heck of a lot better than bible heaven.

The sole basis for believing that there is a heaven is because the Bible speaks of it. Without the Bible, people would only be concerned with this life.

Ah, yes, we cannot depend on our reasoning and senses to determine what is true. Our sole basis for believing anything is - the Bible, which unfortunately we must use our reasoning and senses to read and interpret. Ah, but the Lord guides us in our reading of the Bible, so that it is not our own reasoning that discerns truth, but the Lord causes the truth to be revealed to us through our act of faith of reading the Bible. We know this to be true because - the Bible tells me so!

All those other people who believe in an afterlife who are not Christians are obviously mistaken about their ideas of the afterlife because - the Bible tells me so!

All those Christians who believe in various versions of the afterlife that are totally inconsistent with the one(s) described in the Bible - the Bible tells them so!

What would cause a person to believe in an afterlife unless they are given some basis for doing so? The Bible does this. Without the Bible, people would believe that they live and they die and that is all there is.

 

[rhutchin]

Oh yeah. But won't rhutchin be sure as shit surprised when Allah denies him entrance thru those pearly gates After all, he certainly wasn't ignorant of the possibility.

If "Allah" turns out to be the real God, I will be surprised. But, each person puts his faith in one of the many gods out there or in no god. So, if it turns out that such faith is misplaced, you can expect surprise.

 

[rhutchin]

I am sure as shit going to be surprised if there is a judgement.

Unpleasantly surprised presumably - but not ignorant of the possibility. The question is whether you will pout and cry and go ballistic at that time.

Given that the source of my surprise would be my rock solid certainty that the whole religion thing is pure fiction, your assumption that I am aware of the possibility is badly flawed.

When rock solid certainty proves false, great is one's surprise.

 

[rhutchin]

To me the key point is that to people like rhutchin, Ed, and Tigers!, eternal conscious torment is an entirely reasonable act by their god.

It is entirely reasonable that God establish standards for entry into heaven. Failure to meet those standards means failure to enter heaven (and reside in eternal conscious torment). God has explained all this in the Bible. I don't see that there should be an issue with this - other than that people just don't like that system.

I think the "issue" with your eternal torment for the masses is that most people find the construct rather vile and depraved, not that people can't see the construct (as one of several possible interpretations) within the Christian Bible.

There are a lot of people who think God just saves everyone just because he ought to. Obviously, anyone who objects to being held accountable for their actions and then to have their actions judged would think that such judgment is vile and depraved. God describes such people as vile and depraved. So, I guess it depends on one's perspective.

Anywho, it seems you still have quandaries regarding 2 constructs within your theology (not that either one devastates general Christian theology, as there are many sects that don't think your way).

Hellfire and brimstone for the masses: Your God will have to give humans some form of lobotomy, in order for humans not to mourn, cry, or be in emotional pain by knowing/seeing their loved ones (mothers, or fathers, or sons, or daughters, or brothers, or sisters, or grandchildren) are suffering within eternal conscious torment. Can you honestly tell me that you have no relatives (or have Christian friends that would face this) that you suspect won't make the cut within your own theological construct? Yeah, maybe 60 or 70 years ago, most everyone at least pretended to be Christian, as social pressures would make it difficult to not at least pretend. So either, you and all your saved brethren, will need extensive lobotomies to radically change how humans think/behave, or your "eternal torment for the masses" construct is flawed. I really don't see another way out of this theological box considering Rev 21:4.

Rev 21:4 "He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away."

With OSAS: You still need to have a host of people either be liars (no I’m not asking you to get into trouble on the board for calling myself or any others a liar) in how they describe their lengthy and fervent Christian past. Atheos has described his past of being a preacher/minister on this board, is another example beyond my details of post #65. Or your construct requires such people to be capable of fooling themselves for even decades. But that would make a mockery of the notion of assurance of salvation, as people would then not be able to even trust their own feelings and thoughts. That aspect really doesn't help your theology much. Of course, you could also modify your OSAS dogma to just let those who walked away from faith, still getting that fabulous E-ticket; or even just dump the OSAS notion all together. Wouldn't that be a crack up, having people arriving at the pearly gates that spent later decades scoffing at the God notion? Of course we would be getting the same required lobotomy, so we'd also being happy singing kumbaya for the 4,882,390,388,449,538,299,288 time.

Or God can allow those in heaven to see those in hell as He sees them. No lobotomy necessary; just the opening of a person's eyes to see others as they really are.

 

[rhutchin]

A one-way mirror allows only for the reflection of the person looking into it.

Evidently not: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/one-way+mirror
I'd never, ever heard it referred to as a two-way mirror before.
That seems counter intuitive.
A 1 way mirror is a mirror from one way, a window from the other way.
A 2-way mirror is the same thing, though you can't really see through it from both ways and you can't really use it as a mirror both ways.
Must be a briticism.

Interesting.