Do you believe in Heaven and Hell?

[ABM]

To misquote advice given to me by Dean Wormer: "Fat, drunk, and afraid of God is no way to go through life, son." So I'm not going to be afraid of God.

barfo

Well, in this animal house of life, I'm not afraid of God. Nor, am I fat and drunk. So, then, no double-secret probation for me. Awesome, man.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Please explain away all of these, then.

barfo

if you're really interested, and not just trying to stir the pot, there are --even in my limited laity--very easy answers to a bunch of those. Especially the ones with the "logic" applied after the verses.

 

[crowTrobot]

No, it's a misconception that "science" now involves consensus and theory, instead of actually using the scientific method and the ideas of replication and repetition.

replication of events is just a tool science uses to confirm predictions when it can do so. it is not essential to scientific knowledge. as i said the scientific method is just proposing models that make testable predictions and testing them, and always has been.

The global warming bunk science has lowered the bar in all other areas of science, outside of perhaps the medical community, where controlled trials still matter.

you have more of an issue with the media and al gore here than science itself. there never was full scientific consensus on human impact on global warming.

as far as lowering the bar, that's laughable. the technology all around you didn't just happen in spite of scientific conclusions now all being based on political agendas.

Where did those elements come from? How did they originate?

the big bang theory just states that the universe was small and compact, and then expanded. it does not address questions like where did the matter come from or what happened 'before'.

Why is the word "possibly" used in anything close to scientific "fact"?

i just meant there isn't scientific consensus on whether the big bang started from a singularity or not, although it seems unavoidable based on current knowledge.

 

[ABM]

i just meant there isn't scientific consensus on whether the big bang started from a singularity or not, although it seems unavoidable based on current knowledge.

so much dna.....so little time..

 

[VanillaGorilla]

As you can see I'm someone who puts very little confidence in the so-called "knowledge" of mankind. You can look through a telescope and tell me how the universe began, cool. I'll put my faith in God.

This is ridiculous. You have no evidence for God yet you want to put all your faith in him instead of the people who actually work to figure shit out? If believing that is what makes you have a happy life, good for you. Ignorance is bliss.

 

[barfo]

If anything these passages make the accounts more authentic. This is going by what each of the apostles and the eyewitnesses heard, if you were making up a story that never happened would you include things that clearly contradict one another?

Good try, but the problem there is that if these apostles and eyewitnesses hear such very different things, why should we believe anything they say? It's the sort of variation you get when you separate a gang of criminals and they each have to make up their alibi without hearing the others.

It's also the sort of variation you get when you paste together a bunch of old stories that have gotten confused, elaborated on, and rewritten by various parties over the years.

Anyway, you've now gone from saying "there are no contradictions in the bible" to saying "of course there are contradictions in the bible, that's what makes it authentic".

barfo

 

[MadeFromDust]

This is ridiculous. You have no evidence for God yet you want to put all your faith in him instead of the people who actually work to figure shit out? If believing that is what makes you have a happy life, good for you. Ignorance is bliss.

no evidence besides the entire physical universe and the irreducible complexity of nature and the human body? Ok then. Or do want to explain how all this popped into existence from a spontaneous, sourceless, uncaused singularity and then self-replicated to the point it's at now?

 

[MadeFromDust]

Good try, but the problem there is that if these apostles and eyewitnesses hear such very different things, why should we believe anything they say? It's the sort of variation you get when you separate a gang of criminals and they each have to make up their alibi without hearing the others.

So because they heard different things means none of it ever happened? Did you expect them to record the same exact details even though they all had different experiences with Christ? And by comparing them to criminals I want to know what you think their motive was.

It's also the sort of variation you get when you paste together a bunch of old stories that have gotten confused, elaborated on, and rewritten by various parties over the years.

And you have no proof that this ever happened. The earliest known manuscripts we have date back to within 2 and a half decades of the death of Jesus. What's the motive behind changing stories you knew were lies?

Anyway, you've now gone from saying "there are no contradictions in the bible" to saying "of course there are contradictions in the bible, that's what makes it authentic".

barfo

No I really haven't, as someone who's currently studying Bible and going to college to become a theologian/philosopher I can say the contradictions are in the heads of people who don't understand what they are reading.

 

[PapaG]

I have no idea what you're talking about. I don't need to prove an "Edge" to the universe.

http://astro.berkeley.edu/~mwhite/darkmatter/hubble.html

The expansion of the Universe has been observed and calculated, you're just randomly denying it.

The size of the universe is unknown. Talking about the 'edge' of it is silly. Read the artilcle again.

 

[barfo]

if you're really interested, and not just trying to stir the pot, there are --even in my limited laity--very easy answers to a bunch of those. Especially the ones with the "logic" applied after the verses.

I'm not actually very interested. Whether the bible is self-consistent or not is to me a fairly irrelevant point. Neither consistency nor inconsistency proves that it is the word of God as opposed to a collection of ancient fairy tales, laws, and Dear Abby columns bound together.

barfo

 

[crowTrobot]

so much dna.....so little time..

since nobody actually knows what happened, or the specs involved, any statement about probability is just a matter of opinion. if a self-replicating organism is numerous and replicates rapidly you could have a massive number (like potentially quadrillions or quintillions) of trials in a very short time. you can't say DNA couldn't evolve in a million years, much less billions.

 

[PapaG]

since nobody actually knows what happened, or the specs involved, any statement about probability is just a matter of opinion. if a self-replicating organism is numerous and replicates rapidly you could have a massive number (like potentially quadrillions or quintillions) of trials in a very short time. you can't say DNA couldn't evolve in a million years, much less billions.

I do agree with much of what you're posting. I just found the "as close to scientific fact" claim to be baseless, as there are so many variables that are unknown to even those who propose these theories.

 

[MadeFromDust]

I'm not actually very interested. Whether the bible is self-consistent or not is to me a fairly irrelevant point. Neither consistency nor inconsistency proves that it is the word of God as opposed to a collection of ancient fairy tales, laws, and Dear Abby columns bound together.

barfo

Besides the fact that there's is not a single archaeological finding that contradicts the events recorded in the Bible. In fact it's the exact opposite, the more discoveries made the more it backs the stories told in the Bible. If there was a discovery that contradicted the Bible, you'd have heard about. People have been trying to do it for centuries.

 

[barfo]

So because they heard different things means none of it ever happened? Did you expect them to record the same exact details even though they all had different experiences with Christ?

Yeah, I would think that Christ's last words would not be something they could have had 'different experiences' with. Unless you are claiming that in some supernatural way he spoke different last words to each of them as he died.

And you have no proof that this ever happened.

Occam's Razor. It's by far the simplest explanation that fits the facts.
No, I can't prove it. So what? You can't prove that God exists.

The earliest known manuscripts we have date back to within 2 and a half decades of the death of Jesus. What's the motive behind changing stories you knew were lies?

Could be all sorts of motives. Might be political, might be social, might be religious, might just be to make the story more entertaining for the listener.

No I really haven't, as someone who's currently studying Bible and going to college to become a theologian/philosopher I can say the contradictions are in the heads of people who don't understand what they are reading.

So tell me, what were Jesus' last words?

barfo

 

[barfo]

Besides the fact that there's is not a single archaeological finding that contradicts the events recorded in the Bible. In fact it's the exact opposite, the more discoveries made the more it backs the stories told in the Bible. If there was a discovery that contradicted the Bible, you'd have heard about. People have been trying to do it for centuries.

The historical truth of some of the events in the bible doesn't make it the word of God, any more than the historical truth of the events in yesterday's newspaper make the Oregonian the word of God.

barfo

 

[crowTrobot]

Besides the fact that there's is not a single archaeological finding that contradicts the events recorded in the Bible.

you should do a little objective research on this subject. the events in genesis and exodus are almost entirely contradicted by every relevant branch of science.

 

[PapaG]

I saw a mention of abiogenesis in this thread as an explanation for the origin of organic and animate life. If that theory is true, it shouldn't be difficult to find many examples of it throughout history. Unless, of course, it was a one-time event, in which case, is just as faith-based as any tales of creationism.

ETA - I do find abiogenesis in terms of the creation of crude oil to be much more plausible than the old and tired "fossil fuel" conventional wisdom.

 

[ABM]

So tell me, what were Jesus' last words?

barfo

The Good News is, Jesus rose again. Hence:

“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” MAT 28:18-20 NIV

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Doesn't work for me. One could better justify never getting on an airplane, or in a car, because they might crash. Or never walking down a street, because a safe or a piano might fall from an upper story window. Or never having sex because you might catch a disease. Or never doing anything at all other than cowering under the bed in hopes that no bad thing ever happens.

Not really comparable, because probability and cost-benefit also have to be factored in. The "benefit" obtained via a godless life is far outweighed by the potential benefit of a godly life, and the probability of one versus the other is much more favorable than in the examples you cited.

 

[MadeFromDust]

Yeah, I would think that Christ's last words would not be something they could have had 'different experiences' with. Unless you are claiming that in some supernatural way he spoke different last words to each of them as he died.

I already explained the first two to you, clearly what He says in the gospel of Luke happened after what He said in Matthew. There's no reason all three of those saying couldn't have happened.

Occam's Razor. It's by far the simplest explanation that fits the facts.
No, I can't prove it. So what? You can't prove that God exists.

Nice cop out. I think God's existence is pretty self evident because of existence. Plus a Creator makes more sense than everything just "happened", especially when you look at it objectively.

Could be all sorts of motives. Might be political, might be social, might be religious, might just be to make the story more entertaining for the listener.

You realize for the first 300 years of Christianity you would be heavily persecuted or even killed/martyred for adhering to the faith, right? Hell of a way for people to go to spread something they knew to be a lie just to be "entertaining". All of Jesus disciples were executed by the Jews and authorities.

 

[D-Rock]

Interesting data. You make Mormonism seem a bit more rational than 'regular' Christianity (no original sin, no Hell for babies).
Questions: Where do you stand on mook's kill-all-the-babies question? Wouldn't I be better off avoiding all Mormon missionaries while I'm alive, then I can just choose Heaven when I get to the Great Waiting Room in the Sky? [And if I find myself in the Great Waiting Room, it would be a pretty easy choice at that point to believe]. Why bother with religion while I'm alive? Is the line in the Great Waiting Room really really long? Are the chairs uncomfortable? Are there forms to fill out?

barfo

While Mook's question is pretty morbid, I can definitely see the philosophical dilemma. I would say the problem with this is that they're being denied experiences needed from the perspective of eternal progression. One of the big things you have to keep in mind when discussing virtually any "Mormon" doctrine is the eternal nature of our spirits. We don't just cease to exist after we die, nor do we spend the rest of eternity kneeling and praising God. We still have a lot to learn as we progress through the eternities. There are many things that are immeasurably easier to learn and understand while in possession of a physical body. We can't understand and truly have compassion for someone dying of cancer if we don't have a physical body to understand what pain is. Those lessons will have to be learned by some other means. So yes, if all you're concerned about is being saved, it makes twisted sense to kill as many babies as you can to ensure their eternal reward, but potentially screw yourself over in the process. (I say potentially, because you'd have to be a certain kind of insane to do something like that, and God takes things like that into account when evaluating your ability to understand right and wrong and to choose the right.) However, if there's a broader eternal perspective, you're not doing the children as great a favor as you think you are. Separation from one's body is not a pleasant experience. Can you imagine losing the ability to feel anything tangible? Taste? We will be chomping at the bit for the resurrection to come so we can be reunited with our physical bodies. Additionally, in the pre-mortal existence, we fought for the opportunity to come to earth and gain a physical body. Having it taken away from us would not be our first choice.

The reason you accept religion now as opposed to later in the Great Waiting Room in the Sky, is that the dispositions and proclivities and habits you have in mortality carry over into the spirit world. You won't magically change into a saint if you were a murderer or rapist while on earth. Obviously those are extreme examples, but the principle is the same. If you aren't doing the things you were supposed to while on earth, you're not going to do them just because you discover there is life after death. That being said, I'm not certain as to the make up of the "waiting room". It's not just a bunch of different living rooms where missionaries come to your door and teach you the gospel. That much I do know. Additionally, God determines when you've had sufficient opportunity to accept the gospel. If you're intentionally avoiding it or simply electing to do your own thing after feeling the promptings of the Holy Spirit to change your life, you may not be afforded the opportunity later on; or more likely, you will simply choose to reject them again for the same reasons as before. I have no idea what "sufficient opportunity" means, but I'm sure it won't be a passing thing. God loves all of us and wants all his children to return to him, so He's going to give you every opportunity to accept the gospel, but there comes a point where He resigns himself to the fact that you're going to use your agency and reject the gospel.

 

[MadeFromDust]

you should do a little objective research on this subject. the events in genesis and exodus are almost entirely contradicted by every relevant branch of science.

I actually have, and nothing. If you'd like to point some out I'll gladly listen.

 

[MadeFromDust]

I saw a mention of abiogenesis in this thread as an explanation for the origin of organic and animate life. If that theory is true, it shouldn't be difficult to find many examples of it throughout history. Unless, of course, it was a one-time event, in which case, is just as faith-based as any tales of creationism.

the fact that scientists STILL can't recreate a single-celled organism (the most basic building block of life) should tell you something...

 

[PapaG]

you should do a little objective research on this subject. the events in genesis and exodus are almost entirely contradicted by every relevant branch of science.

They aren't, though. Is it more believable? I think so. Does that mean it contradicts another faith-based story? Not to me.

 

[MadeFromDust]

The historical truth of some of the events in the bible doesn't make it the word of God, any more than the historical truth of the events in yesterday's newspaper make the Oregonian the word of God.

barfo

When archaeological discoveries back what it says in the scriptures say I'll put more weight in that than what scientists "think they know what happened", especially when it makes NO sense. It's easy to see why people want to eliminate God from the picture, they don't want to be held accountable for their actions.

 

[barfo]

Not really comparable, because probability and cost-benefit also have to be factored in. The "benefit" obtained via a godless life is far outweighed by the potential benefit of a godly life, and the probability of one versus the other is much more favorable than in the examples you cited.

Well, of course we disagree about the probabilities. The gain from a godly life is obviously huge, but the probability of there being a God (of the Christian variety) is (in my opinion, obviously) very tiny. I think there are several more zeros after the decimal point in the latter than there are zeros in front of the decimal point in the former, but different people draw very different conclusions about that, and come out with very different cost-benefit analyses as a result.

barfo

 

[crowTrobot]

They aren't, though. Is it more believable? I think so. Does that mean it contradicts another faith-based story? Not to me.

what are you referring to specifically? it's evidence-based scientific fact that the earth formed 4.5 billion years ago and life evolved gradually in a different order than specified in genesis, there was no global flood in biblical times, modern human races evolved tens of thousands of years before the time of the tower of babel story (there's a reason the pope had to endorse the first 7 chapters of genesis as 'allegory'). also millions of hebrews were never in egypt, never spent 40 years in the sinai, never colonized canaan etc.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Well, no one still has shown me any biblical contradictions or disproven it.

I'll just wait...

 

[PtldPlatypus]

the probability of there being a God (of the Christian variety) is (in my opinion, obviously) very tiny.

So, then, there's the crux of the matter. Why is it that you believe the probability of God's existence to be so remote? Do you feel the same about all concepts of deity, or just about the notion of a singular omnipotent creator?

 

[crowTrobot]

I actually have, and nothing. If you'd like to point some out I'll gladly listen.

if you're the type who believes stories in genesis are literally true then i don't think you would listen. no even slightly informed objective person would consider them anything more than allegorical.

the exodus story is slightly more interesting because it lends itself more to looking at archeological findings than just deciding to turn your brain on.