4 ms·

I won't repeat what I said above, but I stand by it. We're not children; we're not so incompetent about ethics. "It's the fundamentalists who get into this "la

by gort 17y ago

I won't repeat what I said above, but I stand by it. We're not children; we're not so incompetent about ethics. "It's the fundamentalists who get into this "lake of fire" bit and such." Indeed. Nevertheless, it is in the Bible you know: Matthew 25:41, Mark 9:43, Luke 16:22-24, Revelation 14:9-11, probably others: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2025:41,%20Mark%209:43,%20Luke%2016:22-24,%20Revelation%2014:9-11;&version=47 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2025:41,...; "I also think that you're arguing with what some bunch of folks "think" some other (probably imaginary) being will do, and that seems really, really silly to me." My great hope is that they will come to see that their concept of God is contradictory. "Better to determine what you think about the idea of God in general" What I think is that P(God), while low, is much, much higher than P(God and Hell).

rms 17y ago
My preferred explanation of heaven and hell works for the religious and non-religious. Heaven is eternal union with God. Hell is eternal disconnect from God.
- DanielBMarkham 17y ago
  From my reading this seems to be the preferred usage by more modern Christians as well. It certainly is a much more defensible position.
  - gort 17y ago
    It's defensible because it's so vague. But if it's fleshed out so that the afterlife of the damned is so unpleasant that they would end their existence if they could, it comes to much the same thing. If it simply means annihilation, then fine. As I've noted, that's not how Jesus put it (according to the gospel authors, anyway). But OK.
- Radix 17y ago
  From my experience with my families denomination, they see hell as the temporary disconnect from God followed by a lapse into non-existence. Which is an example of Daniel's point. There are different interpretations, so attacking a specific one, such as the hell fire interpretation, results in a weak argument. I would sooner choose hell than follow a God that was holding damnation over my head, though I think I would be happier if I was so delusional. Ah, well, the thread is dead.
  - rms 17y ago
    http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/152270 http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/152270 (sorry for presumed IP block to all those outside of the USA)
DanielBMarkham 17y ago
"I won't repeat what I said above, but I stand by it. We're not children; we're not so incompetent about ethics." You take a lot more comfort than I do. If we went back 400 years and had this conversation, you would be just as sure of our moral understandings. So I'm not convinced in the least that if we went forward 400 years that our understanding of morality and ethics will remain the same. Perhaps you are. But I take too much faith in human progress to think we're anywhere near being done. Yes, instead of allegorical and spiritual stories, the definition of fundamentalists is that they take holy writings just the same as we would a newspaper, or encyclopedia. Lots of stuff in the Bible (even more in the Koran, but I digress) I don't think it does justice to the word "religion" to pick some one stance and attack it -- there are as many micro-versions of religion as there are people probably. Most modern atheists take some form of fundamentalism to use as their straw man. If that makes your boat float, fine. But Christianity has always evolved -- much more than the other religions. It's not a static target, and I bet (based on history) it will continue to evolve for many centuries to come.
- gort 17y ago
  It's fairly likely that our civilisation, should it survive, will make great ethical progress and regard many of our views today as absurd. It's extremely unlikely that this progress will include approval of eternal torture.
  - thismat 17y ago
    I believe in God, and I will admit that I don't understand a lot of the reasoning's in the Bible and why certain things happened, it's beyond my comprehension, but I realize that in the text, God wasn't the only one with the ability to affect things. Keep in mind, just like the Good vs. Evil idea, there is God vs. Devil (which in terms of the Bible, is catalyst for tempting us out of paradise). Now, lets look at the fundamental morals behind the Bible, New Testament of course, because with the New Testament we were given a new law. - Love one another - Be a generous, helpful person - Accept personal responsibility - Don't have a sense of entitlement - Honor and cherish your spouse - Don't mislead or abuse children - Honor your parents - Be proactive - Resist conformity - Abide by the laws - Don't be judgmental - Be kind - Be compassionate - Be empathetic - Don't be obsessed with possessions or wealth - Work hard - Ignorance is not an excuse - People are people, no matter their ethnicity - Be tolerant - Don't cheat - Everything in moderation I could probably go on if I thought about it more, these are the immediate things that I try to keep in my mind from my studying. Say what you will, but that's a pretty good model for living life. One that I try my best to implement, and constantly fail at, but hey, practice makes habit.

by gort 17y ago

rms 17y ago

My preferred explanation of heaven and hell works for the religious and non-religious. Heaven is eternal union with God. Hell is eternal disconnect from God.

DanielBMarkham 17y ago
From my reading this seems to be the preferred usage by more modern Christians as well. It certainly is a much more defensible position.
- gort 17y ago
  It's defensible because it's so vague. But if it's fleshed out so that the afterlife of the damned is so unpleasant that they would end their existence if they could, it comes to much the same thing. If it simply means annihilation, then fine. As I've noted, that's not how Jesus put it (according to the gospel authors, anyway). But OK.
Radix 17y ago
From my experience with my families denomination, they see hell as the temporary disconnect from God followed by a lapse into non-existence. Which is an example of Daniel's point. There are different interpretations, so attacking a specific one, such as the hell fire interpretation, results in a weak argument. I would sooner choose hell than follow a God that was holding damnation over my head, though I think I would be happier if I was so delusional. Ah, well, the thread is dead.
- rms 17y ago
  http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/152270 http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/152270 (sorry for presumed IP block to all those outside of the USA)

DanielBMarkham 17y ago

"I won't repeat what I said above, but I stand by it. We're not children; we're not so incompetent about ethics." You take a lot more comfort than I do. If we went back 400 years and had this conversation, you would be just as sure of our moral understandings. So I'm not convinced in the least that if we went forward 400 years that our understanding of morality and ethics will remain the same. Perhaps you are. But I take too much faith in human progress to think we're anywhere near being done. Yes, instead of allegorical and spiritual stories, the definition of fundamentalists is that they take holy writings just the same as we would a newspaper, or encyclopedia. Lots of stuff in the Bible (even more in the Koran, but I digress) I don't think it does justice to the word "religion" to pick some one stance and attack it -- there are as many micro-versions of religion as there are people probably. Most modern atheists take some form of fundamentalism to use as their straw man. If that makes your boat float, fine. But Christianity has always evolved -- much more than the other religions. It's not a static target, and I bet (based on history) it will continue to evolve for many centuries to come.

gort 17y ago
It's fairly likely that our civilisation, should it survive, will make great ethical progress and regard many of our views today as absurd. It's extremely unlikely that this progress will include approval of eternal torture.
- thismat 17y ago
  I believe in God, and I will admit that I don't understand a lot of the reasoning's in the Bible and why certain things happened, it's beyond my comprehension, but I realize that in the text, God wasn't the only one with the ability to affect things. Keep in mind, just like the Good vs. Evil idea, there is God vs. Devil (which in terms of the Bible, is catalyst for tempting us out of paradise). Now, lets look at the fundamental morals behind the Bible, New Testament of course, because with the New Testament we were given a new law. - Love one another - Be a generous, helpful person - Accept personal responsibility - Don't have a sense of entitlement - Honor and cherish your spouse - Don't mislead or abuse children - Honor your parents - Be proactive - Resist conformity - Abide by the laws - Don't be judgmental - Be kind - Be compassionate - Be empathetic - Don't be obsessed with possessions or wealth - Work hard - Ignorance is not an excuse - People are people, no matter their ethnicity - Be tolerant - Don't cheat - Everything in moderation I could probably go on if I thought about it more, these are the immediate things that I try to keep in my mind from my studying. Say what you will, but that's a pretty good model for living life. One that I try my best to implement, and constantly fail at, but hey, practice makes habit.