Problems with the Heaven Concept

[jonJ]

The is the assertion of the Scriptures. Calling the Scriptures shallow and narcissistic accomplishes nothing.

Do you think so? I think it makes a point about the kind of people who slavishly follow them. And if it makes someone think twice about following them, then it will have accomplished a great deal.

 

[jonJ]

Not only powerful, but more powerful than anything else - and able to exert His will over everything else. Thus, if God chooses to hold people accountable for their actions, He can do so - and nobody can stop Him.

If I want to punch my children in the face, nobody can stop me, either. But that wouldn't make anybody claim I deserve to be worshipped -- at least, I hope not. Given the amount of this kind of thing we hear from theists, I'm no longer sure about that.

 

[abaddon]

Would you throw people into hell if it was your choice?

Absolutely not - but that is because I am no better than anyone else, and I cannot judge others on a different basis than I judge myself.

But if you were God, you'd throw people into hell because the standards are set, and that's that?

Or if you were God, would you change the standards to something less strict so fewer or no people would go to hell?

God, however, is better than everyone else

Not if people end up in hell he isn't.

and He can judge according to the standards He sets.

So can everyone, as we must as ethical beings. God needs to meet some minimal standards to deserve respect. But, in your depiction of him, he does not. From your posts I get the image of a super-powerful sadistic asshole.

However, His standards only determine who enters heaven and who is left outside.

No, they also determine the reasons why some are "left outside" (which means "thrown into Hell" so why don't you say that?).

The unfaithful are BAD BAD BAD! They don't have faith… What piece of shit would damn them for thinking instead of having faith? Nothing worth respecting or even believing in, let alone actually bow to the beast and worship it. In a universe where an all-powerful evil God defines what is good, the choice is: rebel or bow to the evil god.

If a person does not want to enter heaven, there is no reason why he should have to meet God's standards.

Most of the evangelists I've met think the reason we should meet his standards is so we don't burn forever in hell.

But no, there's no GOOD reason to meet God's standards since they're sick, and they're all make-believe anyway.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Most of the evangelists I've met think the reason we should meet his standards is so we don't burn forever in hell.

But no, there's no GOOD reason to meet God's standards since they're sick, and they're all make-believe anyway.

Rhutchin's a member of the One True Sect so that doesn't matter.

 

[rhutchin]

Not only powerful, but more powerful than anything else - and able to exert His will over everything else. Thus, if God chooses to hold people accountable for their actions, He can do so - and nobody can stop Him.

If I want to punch my children in the face, nobody can stop me, either. But that wouldn't make anybody claim I deserve to be worshipped -- at least, I hope not. Given the amount of this kind of thing we hear from theists, I'm no longer sure about that.

Whether deserving of worship is not really the issue. If you can punch your kids in the face, then I suspect they will do what you tell them in order to avoid getting punched. If your kids know not to challenge your authority; then God can expect you not to challenge His authority - unless, of course, you don't mind getting punched in the face.

 

[rhutchin]

If a person does not want to enter heaven, there is no reason why he should have to meet God's standards.

Most of the evangelists I've met think the reason we should meet his standards is so we don't burn forever in hell.

That's the flip side.

But no, there's no GOOD reason to meet God's standards since they're sick, and they're all make-believe anyway.

That's your faith. Of course, you can believe what you want.

 

[rhutchin]

The scriptures are fiction.

You have faith that the Scriptures are fiction. I have faith that they are truth. I have no objection to your faith. Go for it.

You have faith that the scriptures are truth.

I have evidence that the scriptures are fiction.

Not all opinions are equally valid; opinions that are supported by observation are worth more than those that are unsupported.

Your scriptures contain statements that are demonstrably untrue, when compared to observed reality; worse still, they contain statements that are incompatible with other statements elsewhere within the scriptures themselves.

Your first citation just notes interesting things the Bible says while the second asks questions to clarify that which the Scriptures say. Neither establishes your claims that "scriptures contain(s) statements that are demonstrably untrue," or that "they contain statements that are incompatible with other statements elsewhere within the scriptures themselves."

 

[dockeen]

Not only powerful, but more powerful than anything else - and able to exert His will over everything else. Thus, if God chooses to hold people accountable for their actions, He can do so - and nobody can stop Him.

If I want to punch my children in the face, nobody can stop me, either. But that wouldn't make anybody claim I deserve to be worshipped -- at least, I hope not. Given the amount of this kind of thing we hear from theists, I'm no longer sure about that.

Whether deserving of worship is not really the issue. If you can punch your kids in the face, then I suspect they will do what you tell them in order to avoid getting punched. If your kids know not to challenge your authority; then God can expect you not to challenge His authority - unless, of course, you don't mind getting punched in the face.

Ah, another fundamentalist for whom child abuse is okdokee. Why am I NOT surprised.

And of course, why would an all everything, tri-omni god be so concerned about his pets questioning his authority?

 

[funinspace]

By the way, we are still waiting on you to provide us with references in the scientific literature (specifically in the geological sciences) where the researchers have concluded that the entire planet was covered by a flood of water tens of thousands of feet deep in the last few thousand years. We know you got nothing, so we are not holding our breath.

I can't even find articles in the scientific literature concluding that there could not have been a flood. I don't think scientific research places priority on the issue.

LOL...You are right scientists don't place any priority on chasing fantasies. However, they do perform climate research, oceanographic research of reefs, tree ring research, et.al. So unless you think your fluddy was over 750,000 years ago, scientific literature pretty much concludes it didn't happen in the last 750,000 years.

I think they would have noticed a world engulfing fluddy in the ice core samples:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4121-oldest-ever-ice-core-promises-climate-revelations.html

An ice core recently shipped from Antarctica has yielded its first, eagerly awaited results. The tests confirm that the 3200-metre core dates back at least 750,000 years, making the ice the oldest continuous core ever retrieved.

 

[funinspace]

I wonder if rhutchin's still around and can answer a question. It might have been asked already, I haven't read every post of the thread. But here it is:

Would you throw people into hell if it was your choice?

Not for me, but if this was the only way for people to learn to treat one another correctly, would you? What if people throw other people into various hells all the time, and the only way for them to learn to stop doing so is to be thrown into a hell in which they see the consequences of their behaviors for others?

Since hell is eternal, how do you suggest that anyone consigned there ever "learns" anything?

How do you know hell is eternal? Seems like it would cause a lot of pain for an omnipresent being. Rather, maybe a bit of hell to teach beings various things, so that they do not act in ways that create hell.

Most xtians believe in some form of hell as Eternal Conscious Torment or ECT. The idea of hell as some form of purification is in fact an idea that shows up in many universalist beliefs, and it is clearly a less evil idea than ECT.

This is a good article by a self-proclaimed Christian, reflecting on last years’ Robert Jeffress-Tim Tebow tempest. His basic point is that the idea of eternal torment for the masses is not what most Christians (at least American) actually believe in any more. Most Christians probably don’t like to talk about the hellish details much, as they really aren’t comfortable with the old fashioned idea of hell. So they have softly adjusted their beliefs until essentially only “bad” people (or such) go to hell, so it is not obscene.
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/colu...istians-really-believe-what-weve-preached.ece

Ultimately, however, I concluded that most Christians really don’t believe this one-and-only path to salvation. If not, what monsters we must be.

There’s no way we could sit complacently in our favorite pew Sunday after Sunday, or devote such energy to building pretty new sanctuaries, when most of humanity faces eternal torment without our intervention.

If we truly believed it, we would quit our jobs and spend every waking moment trying to save people from the flames — just as we would save someone from a burning house.

And as it turns out, polls show we really don’t believe it. Not most of us, anyway. One recent survey found that 70 percent of Americans agree with the statement: “Many religions can lead to eternal life.”

Even 57 percent of evangelical Christians agreed with that statement.

Other polls confirm it. In a religion survey conducted by Baylor University, only 27 percent of Protestants said their faith was the only path to salvation.

 

[funinspace]

I think Rutch is trying to imply that without God, we have no real moral code, thus we cannot justify calling anything in The Books 'bad.'
He's saying we can't explain why eternal torment is bad, without first establishing a godless morality foundation and proving that it's worth a shit.

Without the Bible, there are no absolutes. Whatever moral code exists would be relative and differ from one group to another.

As Christians aren't capable of discerning what those "absolutes" are within the various confusing Christian Bibles out there, there still isn't any absolutes for mere humans. Your perceived god could have absolutes, but that doesn't mean humanity has comprehension of them. You Christians are also in the relative and differing campgrounds...

 

[Keith&Co.]

One recent survey found that 70 percent of Americans agree with the statement: “Many religions can lead to eternal life.”

Even 57 percent of evangelical Christians agreed with that statement.

The question, then, is if by 'many religions' are they thinking: Baptist and Southern Baptist and Methodist...
Or more: Christain and Islam and Shinto...

 

[funinspace]

One recent survey found that 70 percent of Americans agree with the statement: “Many religions can lead to eternal life.”

Even 57 percent of evangelical Christians agreed with that statement.

The question, then, is if by 'many religions' are they thinking: Baptist and Southern Baptist and Methodist...
Or more: Christain and Islam and Shinto...

Maybe 30 years ago, one might wonder which one was which. However, today I don’t think there is much question. The only group that has any significant number of adherents to the idea that one needs to adhere to MY flavor of Christianity, to really be Christian, is some subsection of the fundagelicals. The fundagelicals make up only 25% of the American Christian community. So 75% of Christians are one of a couple dozen flavors of mainstream Protestant, Mormon, or Catholic. Most of all of these groups have grown up and recognize that the other sects are their brothers and sisters. The RCC has formally recognized this. The American Baptists, the UMC, the ELCA, among many others are overwhelmingly in this camp of communion.

 

[Keith&Co.]

The RCC has formally recognized this. The American Baptists, the UMC, the ELCA, among many others are overwhelmingly in this camp of communion.

That's official policy.
I was wondering what as going through the individuals' minds as they answered the question.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I think Rutch is trying to imply that without God, we have no real moral code, thus we cannot justify calling anything in The Books 'bad.'
He's saying we can't explain why eternal torment is bad, without first establishing a godless morality foundation and proving that it's worth a shit.

Without the Bible, there are no absolutes.

WITH the Books, there are no absolutes. People wave the sourcebook and the age of the universe is anywhere from billions of years to 6000 years.
Slavery is acceptable, by the Books. Except that it's not, according to people who also quote the Books.

Work on the Sabbath carries a death sentence... or maybe it's just an excuse not to leave a tip because the waitress is working on Sunday.

And people say the Books says abortion is bad, but abortion is the way to determine if a woman's guilty of infidelity.

A definite lack of absolutes, there.

Whatever moral code exists would be relative and differ from one group to another.

Yes. We'd have to muddle through on whichever one seems to work the best for the greatest number.
Or, we could burn those that disagree at the stake. That's much more moral.

Once you impose an absolute moral code on all humans, which an entity like God who sits outside can do, then penalties can be established for violating that moral code.

Yes. So, without 'GOD' there can be no moral absolutes.
And since there's no god, we're left to muddle through. We can still establish morals, and penalties that violate our not-perfect, not-absolute moral code, though.

 

[funinspace]

The RCC has formally recognized this. The American Baptists, the UMC, the ELCA, among many others are overwhelmingly in this camp of communion.

That's official policy.
I was wondering what as going through the individuals' minds as they answered the question.

Ok, yeah that is official RCC policy. However, when I speak of Christians, who are members of the UMC or the ELCA for example, I’m speaking of people I know; and they would not for a moment think of Catholics, or Baptists, or Calvinists, as anything other than Christian. They would not conflate the question in the poll regarding “other religions” to not mean “non-Christians” opting for “other Christian sects”. I don’t know many RCs well enough to have an opinion of what they vaguely think.

Sure polls are funny at times, and one needs to be careful in how one interprets the info. And obviously we never really get to know what is going on inside people’s heads for sure. But if we take that line w/o cause, then all polls are not worth mentioning or considering… So, until I see something that suggests other than what this poll I mentioned states, and also cuts against the people I know that match up with that poll, then I find no reason to doubt what it says. I think we spend far more time seeing/reading the more ugly and fundy side of Christianity…not really keeping in mind that they are the loud minority.

 

[atrib]

By the way, we are still waiting on you to provide us with references in the scientific literature (specifically in the geological sciences) where the researchers have concluded that the entire planet was covered by a flood of water tens of thousands of feet deep in the last few thousand years. We know you got nothing, so we are not holding our breath.

I can't even find articles in the scientific literature concluding that there could not have been a flood. I don't think scientific research places priority on the issue.

You are missing the point. If the planet had been covered by a cataclysmic flood thousands of years ago, the evidence of the flood would have been abundant all over the surface of the planet, and would have been discussed extensively in the literature. Yet I have not been able to find a single reference in the literature that describes such evidence or even speculates on the possibility of a Biblical flood, and I often do geological studies as part of my day job. Therefore, the Bible is wrong, and the planet was NOT covered by a cataclysmic flood within the previous few thousand years.

Geologists have conducted (and continue to conduct) extensive studies to define the geological strata to depths of thousands of feet, and publish such information as maps (plan and profile/section data typically broken up into quadrangles) and as reports. The geology of much of the United States has been documented in this way. If you insist that such a flood happened, you need to show us on the maps where the evidence lies for this event and cite references to reports that disucss this evidence. We all know you will do no such thing, so I am not holding my breath

 

[atrib]

If a person does not want to enter heaven, there is no reason why he should have to meet God's standards.

Most of the evangelists I've met think the reason we should meet his standards is so we don't burn forever in hell.

That's the flip side.

But no, there's no GOOD reason to meet God's standards since they're sick, and they're all make-believe anyway.

That's your faith. Of course, you can believe what you want.

No. I think most people on this planet can agree that burning people alive in a lake of fire for all eternity is a sick thing to do. You won't accept it because then you would have to acknowledge the perverse nature of your faith.

- - - Updated - - -

The scriptures are fiction.

You have faith that the Scriptures are fiction. I have faith that they are truth. I have no objection to your faith. Go for it.

You have faith that the scriptures are truth.

I have evidence that the scriptures are fiction.

Not all opinions are equally valid; opinions that are supported by observation are worth more than those that are unsupported.

Your scriptures contain statements that are demonstrably untrue, when compared to observed reality; worse still, they contain statements that are incompatible with other statements elsewhere within the scriptures themselves.

Your first citation just notes interesting things the Bible says while the second asks questions to clarify that which the Scriptures say. Neither establishes your claims that "scriptures contain(s) statements that are demonstrably untrue," or that "they contain statements that are incompatible with other statements elsewhere within the scriptures themselves."

The Bible claims the planet was covered by a flood to the top of the highest mountain just a few thousand years ago. This is demonstrably false.

The Bible claims snakes can talk. This is demonstrably false.

Which part of "demonstrably false" do you not understand?

 

[Kharakov]

The Bible claims the planet was covered by a flood to the top of the highest mountain just a few thousand years ago. This is demonstrably false.

The Bible claims snakes can talk. This is demonstrably false.

What if the quantum wavefunction collapse of the universe required observation of the natural laws before they became reality, so the more natural laws that are observed, the more tightly bound the universe is to natural law.

So, prior to the observation of natural laws and the particulate nature of matter over the last few hundred years, there were no laws binding matter/energy to the forms they have now. Prior to the observation that life does not spontaneously arise from matter following the laws that have been observed, life did spontaneously arise from matter.

Remember, natural laws, along with everything else in the universe, ultimately follow QM principles. Without an observer of the law, law is not applied.

What happened is a steady addition of various observations of the universe, which steadily collapsed the wavefunction and narrowed the possibility of what exists. Before certain laws were observed, other laws could have been observed.


Before these observations of the law, the biblical narrative could and did exist (as did other narratives that were observed). However the wave function collapse eventually pulled evolution and various other possible universal forms into the mix that we now experience due to the observation of the first men of certain possibilities that resulted in the fall of man into "natural law".

Luckily, other smart beings observed other means to save those trapped in the law from the law- by binding together many by the law, so that many can be saved by the law. You know- the law of observation of the law. Some people take observation of the law quite literally... and still are guided to the right observation.

 

[Keith&Co.]

What if the quantum wavefunction collapse of the universe required observation of the natural laws before they became reality, so the more natural laws that are observed, the more tightly bound the universe is to natural law.

What if Superman fought The Hulk?
What if Superman had a light saber and The Hulk had a kryptonite toe ring?