Why I Think an Afterlife is Impossible [Archive]

Interesting Ian

15th March 2004, 04:40 PM

Originally posted by INRM
At least an infinite afterlife. Living forever...

Anything that's created seems to die, or at least is subject to time. To be "timeless" as shown in near-death experiences, you would have to be without creation...

Then why are we alive? We were here forever, and then we were born and then we die and go back on forever...

Now, how come in infinite years, we could not be born, and then suddenly after infinite years, be born. Just once... and then die and live infinite years after?

It doesn't make sense, unless you count re-incarnation, but even then, that's a long-shot.

I may be wrong, but who knows. I'm half awake, but what I'm saying makes pretty good sense to me.

-INRM

We don't exist for an infinite amount of time. We merely live eternally. And BTW, I certainly do not consider reincarnation to be a long shot. Seems an eminently reasonable hypothesis to me.

Iacchus

15th March 2004, 06:03 PM

I think "improbable" would be a better choice of words ... Don't you? ;)

Iacchus

15th March 2004, 06:07 PM

Originally posted by Yahweh

For hypothetical purposes only: Why exactly am I punished with this temporary life for something my ancestors did? Because pain can turn into bliss ... Don't you think? ;)

Riddick

15th March 2004, 06:09 PM

Originally posted by Yahweh
For hypothetical purposes only: Why exactly am I punished with this temporary life for something my ancestors did?
Hypothetical noted.

We inherit the fall of our ancestors. It just doesn't seem fair...does it? But that's how it is. Sins just not fair!

But don't dispair.

There is a plan in place for you to receive immortality. Christ, God, had to come down from heaven and die to cover our ancestors and our sins. He lived here on earth as Jesus, and he was put to death. He basically gave up his life on purpose, so he could account for of man's shortcomings.

Accept Christ as your personal savior, and eternal life is yours.

If Eve hadn't of fallen, I'm sure I would have, being the jerk that I am. Could have been you. What's done is done, we just live out this temporary life. It kind of a negative energy if I continue to fault Adam and Eve for what they did. So I don't bear them any ill will.

Life here isn't too bad. You're young and attractive, I'm sure you have men desiring you. That's not such a bad deal is it? Maybe you have success in your job. So there is still enjoyment to be had in this life. Find it wherever you can.

Riddick

15th March 2004, 06:13 PM

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
And I am sure you can back this claim up with more than, "because the Bible says so". right?
Unfortunately, its not in any Physics textbook.

There just might be something mystical out there. To dismiss that notion point-blank, might be a risky propostion?

Yahweh

15th March 2004, 06:17 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Because pain can turn into bliss ... Don't you think? ;)
Sado-masochists certainly think so :zzw:!

:p

Suddenly

15th March 2004, 06:23 PM

Originally posted by Riddick

There just might be something mystical out there. To dismiss that notion point-blank, might be a risky propostion?

Yes. However it is more risky to assume that since there may be something "mystical" out there I am going to pick something pretty much at random and believe in it. Sounds quite irrational and dangerous. One person becomes a Presbyterian, the next person drinks cool-aid with Jimmy, and the last one drives a plane into a building. All are based on roughly the same evidence.

So, I stick to beliefs for which there is credible evidence. As soon as someone comes up with that for something "mystical" than I'll believe in that as well. No problem here.

Iacchus

15th March 2004, 06:32 PM

Originally posted by Yahweh

Sado-masochists certainly think so :zzw:!

:p Did you know that a transistor can oscillate at either a positive or, a negative potential? :)

Silicon

15th March 2004, 06:35 PM

All hail the Almighty Transistor!

Yahweh

15th March 2004, 06:40 PM

Originally posted by Riddick
Hypothetical noted.

We inherit the fall of our ancestors. It just doesn't seem fair...does it? But that's how it is. Sins just not fair!
The story of the Fall of Adam and Eve, being an allegorical tale, makes the idea of "inherited sin" a bit incoherent.

There is no single instance of the phrase "original sin" or the words "inherited sin". Verses Deuteronomy 24:16, Jeremiah 39:29-30, and Ezekiel 18:20 make it quite clear that I do not suffer for the sins of others.

I'm afraid there is no such thing as inherited sin.

But don't dispair.

There is a plan in place for you to receive immortality.
When people say "God has a plan", that sounds a lot like "God has predestined". In effect, there can exist no Hell if I am to accept the god you worship is a benevolent god.

I ought to recieve immortality according to my works, and not by my faith (this is according to the verses Jeremiah 17:10, Matthew 16:27, John 5:29, 2 Corinthians 5:10, and a few other verses in the bible). Good people go to Heaven, the wicked are distanced from God (or they may never see an afterlife).

Christ, God, had to come down from heaven and die to cover our ancestors and our sins. He lived here on earth as Jesus, and he was put to death. He basically gave up his life on purpose, so he could account for of man's shortcomings.

Accept Christ as your personal savior, and eternal life is yours.
I dont have that ability. If God made me, then he made me in a way where I would be absolutely incapable of accepting blind irrational faith in him (this is yet more reason to believe that a just god would not send people to hell on a basis of their beliefs).

If Eve hadn't of fallen, I'm sure I would have, being the jerk that I am. Could have been you. What's done is done, we just live out this temporary life. It kind of a negative energy if I continue to fault Adam and Eve for what they did. So I don't bear them any ill will.
The Bible is a terrific allegory, I dont think I have much motivation to blame Adam and Eve for anything much at all.

Life here isn't too bad. You're young and attractive, I'm sure you have men desiring you. That's not such a bad deal is it? Maybe you have success in your job. So there is still enjoyment to be had in this life. Find it wherever you can.
I sure I have a bright future ahead...

Iacchus

15th March 2004, 06:41 PM

Originally posted by Suddenly

Yes. However it is more risky to assume that since there may be something "mystical" out there I am going to pick something pretty much at random and believe in it. Sounds quite irrational and dangerous. One person becomes a Presbyterian, the next person drinks cool-aid with Jimmy, and the last one drives a plane into a building. All are based on roughly the same evidence.

So, I stick to beliefs for which there is credible evidence. As soon as someone comes up with that for something "mystical" than I'll believe in that as well. No problem here. Yeah, and you gotta be careful not to be wearing your concrete overshoes when you go swimming either. :D

Hmm, suddenly I don't think so ...

Iacchus

15th March 2004, 06:43 PM

Originally posted by Silicon

All hail the Almighty Transistor! :D :D :D

Lisa Simpson

15th March 2004, 06:46 PM

Originally posted by Riddick

Accept Christ as your personal savior, and eternal life is yours.

So, since I haven't (nor will I) accepted Christ as my personal savior, does that mean I won't have eternal life?

Yahweh

15th March 2004, 06:50 PM

Originally posted by Lisa Simpson
So, since I haven't (nor will I) accepted Christ as my personal savior, does that mean I won't have eternal life?
The answer is yes...

In actuality, every answer to the question "Since I havent (nor will) accepted [Insert Religious Figure Here] as my personal savior, does that mean I wont have eternal life" is yes.

It doesnt have much to do with accepting any religious belief over another, its just that pesky "afterlife" that just isnt anywhere to be found which gets people...

Nyarlathotep

15th March 2004, 06:57 PM

Originally posted by Riddick

Unfortunately, its not in any Physics textbook.

There just might be something mystical out there. To dismiss that notion point-blank, might be a risky propostion?

Pascal's wager, how quaint.

So do you think it is risky that you reject Islam, Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, Judaism, and however many other religions I could name?

I can't remember who said it, but I think there is some truth to the statement "All of us are atheists to some degree, some of us just go one god further than everyone else."

Lisa Simpson

15th March 2004, 06:58 PM

Originally posted by Yahweh

.

It doesnt have much to do with accepting any religious belief over another, its just that pesky "afterlife" that just isnt anywhere to be found which gets people...

I do recall something from school about being unable to prove a negative. So you cannot prove to me that there isn't an afterlife. Any more than I can prove there is.

Riddick

15th March 2004, 07:09 PM

Originally posted by Lisa Simpson
So, since I haven't (nor will I) accepted Christ as my personal savior, does that mean I won't have eternal life?
Well, it is probably making it much more difficult for Christ to accept you (into eternal life).

It's kind of a two-way street. You don't want to recognize him, so why should he be bound to recognize you? I mean afterall, fair is fair, isn't it?

In the end, God will decide whether you recieve eternal life.

Now, just myself speaking, I would want to be very sure about that. But that's just me. You do whatever is coolest for you.

Personally, I hope he drags you kicking and screaming into eternal life. Poor little girl. "BUT I AM AN ATHEIST, I JUST WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT GOD!" God: Fine, don't bother me.

Lisa Simpson

15th March 2004, 07:16 PM

I am sure about one thing. I lead a moral life. I'm not worried about any afterlife, one way or another. If there is one, I've done nothing to keep me out of it. If there isn't, then there is nothing to worry about either.

And if God/Jesus can't accept a person who has lived a life compassionate to others, harming others as little as possible, well, then I don't want anything to do with him, either.

WildCat

15th March 2004, 07:18 PM

Iacchus

15th March 2004, 07:20 PM

Originally posted by Lisa Simpson

I am sure about one thing. I lead a moral life. I'm not worried about any afterlife, one way or another. If there is one, I've done nothing to keep me out of it. If there isn't, then there is nothing to worry about either.

And if God/Jesus can't accept a person who has lived a life compassionate to others, harming others as little as possible, well, then I don't want anything to do with him, either. Just don't be so indignant about it, and I would suggest you would be okay. :)

Yahweh

15th March 2004, 07:22 PM

Originally posted by Lisa Simpson
I do recall something from school about being unable to prove a negative. So you cannot prove to me that there isn't an afterlife. Any more than I can prove there is.
Usually, the easiest way to prove a negative is the define all the terms, then let the Law of Contradiction do all the work for you. Of course, the hidden loophole is that while something may be logically consistent, that does not necessitate the truth of the claim.

If someone says "There is no Heaven to be found in a square circle", that statement is proven true as the defined "square circles" bit is logically incoherent (this assumes the axiom that heaven is restricted to logical consistency).

There are some fuzzy gray areas out their (this includes Unrestricted Negatives, etc.), but for what its worth the phrase "You cannot disprove a negative" (which is a negative claim as well) is disproved with the example above. I think more accurately, it should be rephrased "You cannot prove all negatives" (that sounds tautological to me, so I dont know how much its really worth).

Now I'm beginning to ramble, I think I'll find a kitty to pet...

Riddick

15th March 2004, 07:22 PM

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
Pascal's wager, how quaint.

So do you think it is risky that you reject Islam, Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, Judaism, and however many other religions I could name?

I can't remember who said it, but I think there is some truth to the statement "All of us are atheists to some degree, some of us just go one god further than everyone else."
Smarmy attitude noted. Do you have a problem? Are you going to get over it? You act like you're about 21 and think you're King $hit. So if you want to be Arrogant Jerk of the Year, go right ahead.

I've never read Pascals wager. So I have no idea what it is. I know it has some importance for Atheists. I do know that Blaise Pascal was a christian.

Allah, the God of Islam is the same as the Christian God. The followers of Islam are the descendants of Ishmael of the Bible, the family of Abraham. Judaism might be the same as the Christian God, I'm not sure.

Hinduism, Buddhism, are more reincarnate to goats and finding nirvana types. If you would, reincarnate to a pheasant so I can shoot you personally.

Iacchus

15th March 2004, 07:24 PM

Lisa Simpson

15th March 2004, 07:25 PM

I'd be less indignant about it if I just hadn't been called a "poor little girl". Condescension annoys the heck out of me.:mad:

WildCat

15th March 2004, 07:29 PM

Oh, welcome to the forum Lisa Simpson! I've always wondered, what state is Springfield in anyway? ;)

WildCat

15th March 2004, 07:30 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
It's because God is a Spiritual God, and He will greet us when we become spirits. Don't you get it? ...
No. :(

Lisa Simpson

15th March 2004, 07:31 PM

Well, according to the episode that parodied VH1's Behind the Music, the Simpsons live in Springfield, Kentucky.

Iacchus

15th March 2004, 07:32 PM

Originally posted by Lisa Simpson

I'd be less indignant about it if I just hadn't been called a "poor little girl". Condescension annoys the heck out of me.:mad: Yeah, I know what you mean ... Except I don't think God does that to people. Do you?

Lisa Simpson

15th March 2004, 07:35 PM

God does what to people? God wasn't condescending to me, a person was.

WildCat

15th March 2004, 07:37 PM

Originally posted by Lisa Simpson
Well, according to the episode that parodied VH1's Behind the Music, the Simpsons live in Springfield, Kentucky.
Can't possibly be, Springfield is on an ocean. I'm more confused than ever now... :confused:

Lisa Simpson

15th March 2004, 07:41 PM

Plate tectonics, of course. ;)

c4ts

15th March 2004, 07:48 PM

Didn't they teach you in church that the laws of geography are meaningless? Kentucky is next to Moldovia, but you won't find that in any map. It's all because the Earth is the center of the universe and the heavens go round above.

Riddick

15th March 2004, 08:01 PM

Originally posted by WildCat
But which god? If he exists, why not appear on satellite TV and clear things up once and for all? Why did he just appear to some shepherds 1000's of years ago?

What makes the evidence for your god any greater than the evidence for any other (Zeus, Thor, Great Spirit, Ed, etc.) god?
God of the Bible. He revealed his God form to Moses. Moses didn't see his face, he only saw his backside. Because, as you know to see God's face in our imperfect form would cause our death. Although, God liked Moses so much that he took him to heaven where he lives now.

Jacob, I think it was, wrestled with Christ in his God form.

My God appeared in a pillar of fire to the Israelites at night time. And it was recorded in the bible which most around these parts don't believe in. It is just summarily dismissed. No if's, and's, or but's, just dismiss it, posthaste.

God will make an appearance here again, at his second coming. But, at that time it will be too late for many. Not everyone is going to get eternal life.

Is 2,000 years ago really that long? Sheesh, my 42 seem to have traveled by very rapidly. Shoot, they built the coliseum in what year? I know that sucker is pretty old.

Would be nice if he'd appear on cable-tv. Even if it was pay per view, I'd pay to see him. He did appear down here, and he lived down here for 33 years. But, we simply refuse to accept the evidence that he was here. There are records of Christ in the Roman Tacitus records (http://home.christianity.com/local/jesus/jesus/evidence.htm). But all you have to do is summarily dismiss Tacitus existance and his records and *poof* no more Christ. Problem easily solved.

That's the same thing that happened to the Bible. "I don't believe anything that happened in the Bible" *Poof* evidence for Christ gone. Problem easily solved again.

Seriously, that's what people do. Somehow, somewhere, the historical record will be proven accurate. I don't even care about Jesus at this point. Somewhere, somehow, the historical record must be accepted. We agree George Washington lived here in the united states, don't we? Good, we have a historical record foothold. Maybe we can work backward from there. btw, I saw GW's sarcophegous, where he and his wife lay, and there's a bible text chiseled into the stone wall on the inside. I can't remember it however.

For a lot of people, Jesus didn't exist. You know how records were kept back then. Shoddy. This Jesus might have been some mexican anyway. Who can really believe what took place back then? Aren't our beginnings all fairy tales anyway? "There was never a first human who existed." Yea right. Whatever you want to believe pal.

Iacchus

15th March 2004, 08:18 PM

Originally posted by WildCat

No. :( Well, perhaps the whole thing behind Him not revealing Himself is because He is a spririt who, because He lives in an different realm, can't be fully comprehended until we pass on and become spirits ourselves? In other words maybe He doesn't want to coddle us in our current state, otherwise we might get the wrong idea and begin to think only of him in the material sense which, could pose a problem later when we become spirits.

I don't know, does this make any more sense?

Some Friggin Guy

15th March 2004, 08:25 PM

Originally posted by Riddick

Hinduism, Buddhism, are more reincarnate to goats and finding nirvana types. If you would, reincarnate to a pheasant so I can shoot you personally.

Smarmy attitude noted.

Before you go making comments about beliefs you don't hold, I would recommend doing a little research on them so you don't come off looking like a boob.

I admit to knowing little about Hinduism, therefore I don't talk about it, but i do know that saying Hinduism and Buddhism are "reincarnate to goats and finding nirvana types" is a lot like someone saying Christians and Jews are worshippng a 3-day-old zombie and snacking on human flesh types.

Iacchus

15th March 2004, 08:25 PM

Originally posted by Lisa Simpson

God does what to people? God wasn't condescending to me, a person was. Yes, this is what I thought you meant ... Sorry. :)

WildCat

15th March 2004, 08:31 PM

Originally posted by Riddick

God of the Bible. He revealed his God form to Moses. Moses didn't see his face, he only saw his backside. Because, as you know to see God's face in our imperfect form would cause our death. Although, God liked Moses so much that he took him to heaven where he lives now.

Jacob, I think it was, wrestled with Christ in his God form.

My God appeared in a pillar of fire to the Israelites at night time. And it was recorded in the bible which most around these parts don't believe in. It is just summarily dismissed. No if's, and's, or but's, just dismiss it, posthaste.

God will make an appearance here again, at his second coming. But, at that time it will be too late for many. Not everyone is going to get eternal life.

Is 2,000 years ago really that long? Sheesh, my 42 seem to have traveled by very rapidly. Shoot, they built the coliseum in what year? I know that sucker is pretty old.

Would be nice if he'd appear on cable-tv. Even if it was pay per view, I'd pay to see him. He did appear down here, and he lived down here for 33 years. But, we simply refuse to accept the evidence that he was here. There are records of Christ in the Roman Tacitus records (http://home.christianity.com/local/jesus/jesus/evidence.htm). But all you have to do is summarily dismiss Tacitus existance and his records and *poof* no more Christ. Problem easily solved.

That's the same thing that happened to the Bible. "I don't believe anything that happened in the Bible" *Poof* evidence for Christ gone. Problem easily solved again.

Seriously, that's what people do. Somehow, somewhere, the historical record will be proven accurate. I don't even care about Jesus at this point. Somewhere, somehow, the historical record must be accepted. We agree George Washington lived here in the united states, don't we? Good, we have a historical record foothold. Maybe we can work backward from there. btw, I saw GW's sarcophegous, where he and his wife lay, and there's a bible text chiseled into the stone wall on the inside. I can't remember it however.

For a lot of people, Jesus didn't exist. You know how records were kept back then. Shoddy. This Jesus might have been some mexican anyway. Who can really believe what took place back then? Aren't our beginnings all fairy tales anyway? "There was never a first human who existed." Yea right. Whatever you want to believe pal.
Whether or not Jesus existed isn't the point. Many, many people throughout history have believed they were a god. The Japanese of the WWII era believed Emperor Hirohito to be a living god. Didn't make it so.

Much of the Old Testament of the Bible is clearly borrowed from earlier Sumerian myths, which are probably derived from even older tribal myths, and so on. What makes the Christian version the correct one?

Riddick

15th March 2004, 08:33 PM

Originally posted by Some Friggin Guy
Smarmy attitude noted.

Before you go making comments about beliefs you don't hold, I would recommend doing a little research on them so you don't come off looking like a boob.

I admit to knowing little about Hinduism, therefore I don't talk about it, but i do know that saying Hinduism and Buddhism are "reincarnate to goats and finding nirvana types" is a lot like someone saying Christians and Jews are worshippng a 3-day-old zombie and snacking on human flesh types.
Sorry if I offended you.

I know that you've never meant anything offensive to Christians.

Lisa Simpson

15th March 2004, 08:35 PM

Originally posted by Some Friggin Guy

Smarmy attitude noted.

Before you go making comments about beliefs you don't hold, I would recommend doing a little research on them so you don't come off looking like a boob.

I admit to knowing little about Hinduism, therefore I don't talk about it, but i do know that saying Hinduism and Buddhism are "reincarnate to goats and finding nirvana types" is a lot like someone saying Christians and Jews are worshippng a 3-day-old zombie and snacking on human flesh types.

I'm glad someone said this. I'm Buddhist and there is no reincarnating to goats and Nirvana just means finding peace within yourself while you are alive.

Have to say, Some Friggin Guy, worshipping a 3-day-old zombie is the most interesting description I've ever heard of for Christianity.

WildCat

15th March 2004, 08:37 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Well, perhaps the whole thing behind Him not revealing Himself is because He is a spririt who, because He lives in an different realm, can't be fully comprehended until we pass on and become spirits ourselves? In other words maybe He doesn't want to coddle us in our current state, otherwise we might get the wrong idea and begin to think only of him in the material sense which, could pose a problem later when we become spirits.

I don't know, does this make any more sense?
Now I'm even more confused, I'm afraid. If this god is strictly spiritual, why make a material world? Why not just make all exist in a spiritual world and skip all this BS?

Does the material world exist solely to tempt and confuse in order to send those unlucky enough to pick the wrong way (eat or don't eat pork, work or not on the sabbath, etc.) to an eternity of misery and torture in that spiritual place called hell?

Riddick

15th March 2004, 08:39 PM

Originally posted by WildCat
Whether or not Jesus existed isn't the point. Many, many people throughout history have believed they were a god. The Japanese of the WWII era believed Emperor Hirohito to be a living god. Didn't make it so.

Much of the Old Testament of the Bible is clearly borrowed from earlier Sumerian myths, which are probably derived from even older tribal myths, and so on. What makes the Christian version the correct one?
If you chose to believe the bible, it would necessarily be the first one. I mean, since it covers creation, the forming of earth, and the creation of human beings Adam and Eve, it would necessarily be the first official text. Isn't that right? But, if you don't believe it, then all bets are off.

Unfortunately, Emperor Hirohito is 6 feet below ground. Strange place for a God to be. Doesn't God have a neverending quality?

Again, you refute the bible like I already told you that you would. So its no surprise to me.

Some Friggin Guy

15th March 2004, 08:39 PM

Originally posted by Riddick

Sorry if I offended you.

I know that you've never meant anything offensive to Christians.

First, I was not offended. It takes a lot more than a single generalization to offend me.

Second, I can't tell if you are being honest in your assessment of me or not. If you are being sarcastic, let me say that I have nothing against anyone who is strong in their faith, whatever faith that happens to be. Therefore, I have never meant anything offensive to Christians.

I do take offense to people who go out of their way to force their beliefs on others. (Yes, this means atheists as well, though technically, that would be forcing a lack of belief.)

So, if my strongly Christian neighbour wants to have a civil discourse on Christianity and Buddhism, I'm all for it. If he wants to sneak onto my property and drop a Chick Tract in my mailbox, I get annoyed. If he follows me to the mall and puts a "Jesus fish" on my car, I get royally torqued.

If you're wondering, that, to me, is the difference between a Christian, a "Rabid" Christian, and a Fundy.

Some Friggin Guy

15th March 2004, 08:42 PM

Originally posted by Lisa Simpson

I'm glad someone said this. I'm Buddhist and there is no reincarnating to goats and Nirvana just means finding peace within yourself while you are alive.

Have to say, Some Friggin Guy, worshipping a 3-day-old zombie is the most interesting description I've ever heard of for Christianity.

Lisa, welcome. I can't take credit for that one, I'm afraid. That is the creation of my wife, in her love of George Romero movies.

I am a Buddhist, as well, of the Zen variety. I suppose that helps me look at the world in a different light than most people I've met.

WildCat

15th March 2004, 08:48 PM

Originally posted by Riddick
Unfortunately, Emperor Hirohito is 6 feet below ground. Strange place for a God to be. Doesn't God have a neverending quality?

Your sig line:
" 'As surely as I live,' says the Lord, 'every knee will bow before me; every tongue will confess to God.' " - Romans 14:11
It's also strange for an infinitely powerful and everlasting being to be so petty and vindictive towards lowly humans, don't you think? Caligula was more modest and restrained by comparison.

Cecil

15th March 2004, 08:52 PM

Originally posted by Lisa Simpson
Well, according to the episode that parodied VH1's Behind the Music, the Simpsons live in Springfield, Kentucky. No, the actors that play the Simpsons come from Kentucky. :D

Iacchus

15th March 2004, 08:54 PM

Originally posted by WildCat

Now I'm even more confused, I'm afraid. If this god is strictly spiritual, why make a material world? Why not just make all exist in a spiritual world and skip all this BS?

Does the material world exist solely to tempt and confuse in order to send those unlucky enough to pick the wrong way (eat or don't eat pork, work or not on the sabbath, etc.) to an eternity of misery and torture in that spiritual place called hell? Well I can see you're just as confused as the rest of the bunch then. ;)

By the way, whether God exists or not, the suffering is not going to go away. In which case we really only have ourselves to blame. Comprender?

Lisa Simpson

15th March 2004, 08:58 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
By the way, whether God exists or not, the suffering is not going to go away. In which case we really only have ourselves to blame. Comprender?

Unless of course, one is a Buddhist. In which case suffering will end when one achieves enlightenment. :D

Iacchus

15th March 2004, 09:01 PM

Originally posted by Lisa Simpson

Unless of course, one is a Buddhist. In which case suffering will end when one achieves enlightenment. :D Yes, but when exactly did the Buddha achieve Nirvana? When he passed on? Actually I'm not sure here, but it seems like I heard something to this effect? ... ;)

Lisa Simpson

15th March 2004, 09:02 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes, but when exactly did the Buddha achieve Nirvana? When he passed on? Actually I'm not sure of this, but it seems like I heard something to this effect ... ;)

No. He achieved Nirvana and then lived another 45 years or so afterward, teaching others.

Some Friggin Guy

15th March 2004, 09:04 PM

Originally posted by Lisa Simpson

No. He achieved Nirvana and then lived another 45 years or so afterward, teaching others.

I suppose many would view what I'm aboput to say as semantic, but I prefer to think the Buddha helped others to learn, rather than taught them.

Lisa Simpson

15th March 2004, 09:08 PM

Originally posted by Some Friggin Guy

I suppose many would view what I'm aboput to say as semantic, but I prefer to think the Buddha helped others to learn, rather than taught them.

Yes. He helped others to learn.

Yes. It's semantic.

In my defense, I was simplifying, responding to someone who doesn't know much about Buddhism.

Iacchus

15th March 2004, 09:10 PM

Originally posted by Lisa Simpson

Yes. He helped others to learn.

Yes. It's semantic.

In my defense, I was simplifying, responding to someone who doesn't know much about Buddhism. "Buddhism" is just a word ... which implies a state of mind.

Some Friggin Guy

15th March 2004, 09:11 PM

Originally posted by Lisa Simpson

Yes. He helped others to learn.

Yes. It's semantic.

In my defense, I was simplifying, responding to someone who doesn't know much about Buddhism.

Understandable, of course. And, for the record, I was not attempting to correct you, merely putting in my 2 cents.

Now I feel like such a jerk.

Some Friggin Guy

15th March 2004, 09:12 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
"Buddhism" is just a word, which implies a state of mind.

No, Buddhism is a word which implies a philosophical system of beliefs. Nirvana is a word which implies a state of mind.

Or a Seattle-based musical group.

Lisa Simpson

15th March 2004, 09:13 PM

Please don't feel like a jerk. I meant to put a smiley face after the "Yes. It's semantic" comment, but I'm multi-tasking tonight, and I forgot. :(

Some Friggin Guy

15th March 2004, 09:15 PM

No problem. I feel like a jerk because I forgot the smiley after my semantics.

Yahweh

15th March 2004, 09:29 PM

Originally posted by Riddick
God of the Bible. He revealed his God form to Moses. Moses didn't see his face, he only saw his backside.
Exodus 33:11
"And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend."

Because, as you know to see God's face in our imperfect form would cause our death. Although, God liked Moses so much that he took him to heaven where he lives now.
Enoch also saw the likes of God:
Gen 5:22 And Enoch walked with God after he begat Methuselah three hundred years, and begat sons and daughters:
Gen 5:23 And all the days of Enoch were three hundred sixty and five years:
Gen 5:24 And Enoch walked with God: and he [was] not; for God took him.

Jacob, I think it was, wrestled with Christ in his God form.

My God appeared in a pillar of fire to the Israelites at night time. And it was recorded in the bible which most around these parts don't believe in. It is just summarily dismissed. No if's, and's, or but's, just dismiss it, posthaste.
For those strange contrasts (and even playful nature) of God, I chose the name Yahweh. An interesting character he is, the name fits me (quite interesting myself) very well :)

God will make an appearance here again, at his second coming. But, at that time it will be too late for many. Not everyone is going to get eternal life.

Is 2,000 years ago really that long? Sheesh, my 42 seem to have traveled by very rapidly. Shoot, they built the coliseum in what year? I know that sucker is pretty old.

Would be nice if he'd appear on cable-tv. Even if it was pay per view, I'd pay to see him. He did appear down here, and he lived down here for 33 years. But, we simply refuse to accept the evidence that he was here. There are records of Christ in the Roman Tacitus records (http://home.christianity.com/local/jesus/jesus/evidence.htm). But all you have to do is summarily dismiss Tacitus existance and his records and *poof* no more Christ. Problem easily solved.
There may have been a character in the area of Nazareth by the name of Yeshua. However, the Jesus Christ of the bible probably never existed (http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/).

That's the same thing that happened to the Bible. "I don't believe anything that happened in the Bible" *Poof* evidence for Christ gone. Problem easily solved again.
You truncate the reasoning: I dont believe anything that happened in the bible because of its questionable historical and scientific accuracy, the absurdity of the stories (as a literal interpretation), and the great deal of inconsistencies and contradictory passages in the bible.

Seriously, that's what people do. Somehow, somewhere, the historical record will be proven accurate. I don't even care about Jesus at this point. Somewhere, somehow, the historical record must be accepted. We agree George Washington lived here in the united states, don't we? Good, we have a historical record foothold. Maybe we can work backward from there. btw, I saw GW's sarcophegous, where he and his wife lay, and there's a bible text chiseled into the stone wall on the inside. I can't remember it however.

For a lot of people, Jesus didn't exist. You know how records were kept back then. Shoddy. This Jesus might have been some mexican anyway. Who can really believe what took place back then? Aren't our beginnings all fairy tales anyway? "There was never a first human who existed." Yea right. Whatever you want to believe pal.
Homer's Illiad has more "evidence" than the Bible (hey! We actually found the city of Troy!), why shouldnt I believe that as an accurate description of the past?

Yahweh

15th March 2004, 09:52 PM

Originally posted by Riddick
If you chose to believe the bible, it would necessarily be the first one. I mean, since it covers creation, the forming of earth, and the creation of human beings Adam and Eve, it would necessarily be the first official text. Isn't that right? But, if you don't believe it, then all bets are off.
There was never any written "bible".

The "bible" as you know it today used to exist in the form of 100s of books throughout the areas of Asia Minor. Those books of the bible compose today's Christian Bible, the Roman Catholic Bible, the Greek Orthodox Bible, the Torah, the Koran, and the many other iterations of the Bible.

Before those books were organized into a library (properly called a "bible"), they went through two canonizations (a canonization is a process where the religious heads meet to discuss which books will come to form a bible). In fact, the Christian church lasted for 300 years without the bible as we know it. The First Canonization occurred at around 367 CE, the Second Canonization (called the Reformation) occurred during the 1500s, and if I remember correctly the Roman Catholic Church is currently considering a re-codification of the bible.

There are many missing books of the bible, these include The Gospels of Thomas, The Wisdom of Solomon, The Song Of Songs, The Books of Daniel, The Books of Enoch, and a good long list of other books.

The Bible you are familiar with today has been edited quite heavily (for instance, all of those chapters and verse numbers were never part of the original writing, and the Original Gospel of Mark never spoke of Jesus revealing himself to the prophets). The Book of Revelation has been taken so far out of context, that a showing of the original context of the book (being so radically mundane and intending nothing in the form of apocalypse) would seem alien to the Rapture Folk.

Again, I'll reiterate what I've said plenty of times before: There is nothing to be gained from a literal interpretation of the Bible, if you intend to make it mean anything at all I suggest an allegorical approach to understanding the bible. The bible is intended as a tool to guide humans to living a moral loving life, not as a history book.

Some Friggin Guy

15th March 2004, 10:39 PM

Originally posted by Yahweh

Again, I'll reiterate what I've said plenty of times before: There is nothing to be gained from a literal interpretation of the Bible, if you intend to make it mean anything at all I suggest an allegorical approach to understanding the bible. The bible is intended as a tool to guide humans to living a moral loving life, not as a history book.

Actually, the main problem with viewing the bible as a guide to living a moral life is that it is morally contradictive. A brief example is the not allowing murder, but advocating the murder of "witches".

I tend to look at the bible more as a book dealing with the political climate of the time.

Yahweh

15th March 2004, 11:00 PM

Originally posted by Some Friggin Guy
Actually, the main problem with viewing the bible as a guide to living a moral life is that it is morally contradictive. A brief example is the not allowing murder, but advocating the murder of "witches".

I tend to look at the bible more as a book dealing with the political climate of the time.
Good point! :)

Jesus taught in parables, the bible is allegorical from the first page to the last (though there are some parts, such as the killing of witches you mentioned, which really have no symbolic meaning), God himself expressed his intentions in form of symbols (such as rainbows and pillars of fire). Specifically, Christianity is the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, but that definition I think the moral teachings would come from Jesus.

The political symbols include the book of Revelation (in which the Great Whore of Babylon represents the Roman Empire and its persecution of the early Christians), Abel's sacrifice of goats to God (this act notes that one of the later editors of the bible posessed specific knowledge of Jewish Sacrificial Law), the olive tree symbolizes the salvation of the Gentiles and of Israel, a great deal number of other political symbols.

Some Friggin Guy

15th March 2004, 11:08 PM

Originally posted by Yahweh

Good point! :)

Jesus taught in parables, the bible is allegorical from the first page to the last (though there are some parts, such as the killing of witches you mentioned, which really have no symbolic meaning), God himself expressed his intentions in form of symbols (such as rainbows and pillars of fire). Specifically, Christianity is the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, but that definition I think the moral teachings would come from Jesus.

The political symbols include the book of Revelation (in which the Great Whore of Babylon represents the Roman Empire and its persecution of the early Christians), Abel's sacrifice of goats to God (this act notes that one of the later editors of the bible posessed specific knowledge of Jewish Sacrificial Law), the olive tree symbolizes the salvation of the Gentiles and of Israel, a great deal number of other political symbols.

Admittedly, the teachings of Jesus would be moralistic (for the most part. IIRC, there are still one or two questionable bits, but I'd have to look it up to be sure.) As such, We can view these parts as a moral guide.

The problem with that is in the seperation of certain sections of the bible from others. I believe that the bible (in its current, connonical form) needs to be taken as a whole, whether you take it literally (which makes no sense, since it is so contradictory) or figuratively.

That's why I view the entire book as a statement of politics at the time.

We can view the teachings of Jesus as a way of saying that there were those who disagreed with the political structure and attitudes in that time, much like the hippies of the 60s.

Yahweh

15th March 2004, 11:15 PM

Originally posted by Some Friggin Guy
Admittedly, the teachings of Jesus would be moralistic (for the most part. IIRC, there are still one or two questionable bits, but I'd have to look it up to be sure.) As such, We can view these parts as a moral guide.
Probably one or two questionable bits (http://www.bettybowers.com/biblequiz.html)...

Some Friggin Guy

15th March 2004, 11:26 PM

Originally posted by Yahweh

Probably one or two questionable bits (http://www.bettybowers.com/biblequiz.html)...

Okay, okay. SO there are one or two dozen questionable bits. :D

c4ts

15th March 2004, 11:26 PM

Originally posted by Riddick

Well, it is probably making it much more difficult for Christ to accept you (into eternal life).

It's kind of a two-way street. You don't want to recognize him, so why should he be bound to recognize you? I mean afterall, fair is fair, isn't it?

In the end, God will decide whether you recieve eternal life.

Now, just myself speaking, I would want to be very sure about that. But that's just me. You do whatever is coolest for you.

Personally, I hope he drags you kicking and screaming into eternal life. Poor little girl. "BUT I AM AN ATHEIST, I JUST WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT GOD!" God: Fine, don't bother me.

Before anyone else new deals with Riddick, I would like to present a brief overview of how his mind works. I find it is somewhat similar to the case of Muscleman, though not nearly as extreme. You see, to Riddick, you do not exist. Nor do any other people belonging to other religions. Instead, there is a rather large army of invading strawmen in their place, each one representing a different religion, who threaten to destroy Riddick's beliefs. Every strawman has an obvious weakness, which can easily be defeated by any of the following: asserting that Riddick is correct, by an argument tailored to the exact specifications of the strawman, or by the strategic use of the caps lock key. Rhetoric is applied heavily to any of the above options. The key to Riddick's rhetoric is his ability to use pathos, meaning he can appeal to and display a wide range of emotions. To him, this is somehow superior to things like complex reasoning or correct spelling. Because of this, he will appear to become upset if you try to reason with him like a normal human being about a topic religious in nature, and it is impossible to reason with him anyway, since he assumes that he is correct before you even start. Truly, Riddick can teach us much about the operation and mechanisms of a closed mind in action.

Some Friggin Guy

15th March 2004, 11:56 PM

Originally posted by c4ts

Before anyone else new deals with Riddick, I would like to present a brief overview of how his mind works. I find it is somewhat similar to the case of Muscleman, though not nearly as extreme. You see, to Riddick, you do not exist. Nor do any other people belonging to other religions. Instead, there is a rather large army of invading strawmen in their place, each one representing a different religion, who threaten to destroy Riddick's beliefs. Every strawman has an obvious weakness, which can easily be defeated by any of the following: asserting that Riddick is correct, by an argument tailored to the exact specifications of the strawman, or by the strategic use of the caps lock key. Rhetoric is applied heavily to any of the above options. The key to Riddick's rhetoric is his ability to use pathos, meaning he can appeal to and display a wide range of emotions. To him, this is somehow superior to things like complex reasoning or correct spelling. Because of this, he will appear to become upset if you try to reason with him like a normal human being about a topic religious in nature, and it is impossible to reason with him anyway, since he assumes that he is correct before you even start. Truly, Riddick can teach us much about the operation and mechanisms of a closed mind in action.

It is for these very reasons that I think it is helpful to debate someone like Riddick. I find it is much like trying to convince a brick wall to let you pass.

Nyarlathotep

16th March 2004, 09:24 AM

Originally posted by Riddick

Smarmy attitude noted. Do you have a problem? Are you going to get over it? You act like you're about 21 and think you're King $hit. So if you want to be Arrogant Jerk of the Year, go right ahead.

Projecting are we?

I've never read Pascals wager. So I have no idea what it is. I know it has some importance for Atheists. I do know that Blaise Pascal was a christian.

Pascal's wager is exactlythe same lame "dilemma" that you and some other Christian types throw around, often thinking that they are presenting some fresh new idea. It basicly boils down to the argument "If Christianity is right, then Christians go to heaven and atheists go to hell while if Atheism is right, both merely die. Therefore you have more to gain from Christianity than atheism and therefore atheists should become Christians because it is a risk free position". The problem with it is that it assumes that the only possible choices are Christianity and atheism. FOr all either of us knows, The Vikings had it right and Odin is getting angrier andangrier with us since we haven't slain a foe in his neme in our entire lives. In short, you are taking a risk no matter what position you take.

Allah, the God of Islam is the same as the Christian God. The followers of Islam are the descendants of Ishmael of the Bible, the family of Abraham. Judaism might be the same as the Christian God, I'm not sure.

Irrelevant. I am sure that if I tried I could find scads of Muslim and/or Jewish worshippers who are just as sure that you are going to hell for being a Christian as you are that I am for being an atheist. And they can back it up with their resepctive holy books too.

Hinduism, Buddhism, are more reincarnate to goats and finding nirvana types. If you would, reincarnate to a pheasant so I can shoot you personally.

Also irrelevant, I don't know much about either religion but I am willing to bet that people who are strongly devoted to either of those religions would conclude that your devotion to Christianity is a block to whatever spiritual goal those religions have in mind.

Tricky

16th March 2004, 10:04 AM

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep

Irrelevant. I am sure that if I tried I could find scads of Muslim and/or Jewish worshippers who are just as sure that you are going to hell for being a Christian as you are that I am for being an atheist. And they can back it up with their resepctive holy books too.

Heck, you don't have to leave Christianity for that. Many denominations believe that other Christians are going to hell for imprecicely believing in Jesus. Some Jehovah's Witnesses set the number to enter heaven at 144,000, meaning most of their own people won't make it.

Tricky

16th March 2004, 10:06 AM

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep

Irrelevant. I am sure that if I tried I could find scads of Muslim and/or Jewish worshippers who are just as sure that you are going to hell for being a Christian as you are that I am for being an atheist. And they can back it up with their resepctive holy books too.

Heck, you don't have to leave Christianity for that. Many denominations believe that other Christians are going to hell for imprecisely believing in Jesus. Some Jehovah's Witnesses set the number to enter heaven at 144,000 (from Revelations 7:4 "And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel") , meaning most of their own people won't make it.

Nyarlathotep

16th March 2004, 10:12 AM

Originally posted by Tricky

Heck, you don't have to leave Christianity for that. Many denominations believe that other Christians are going to hell for imprecisely believing in Jesus. Some Jehovah's Witnesses set the number to enter heaven at 144,000 (from Revelations 7:4 "And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel") , meaning most of their own people won't make it.

Good point.

Beerina

16th March 2004, 11:09 AM

> We inherit the fall of our ancestors. It just doesn't seem
> fair...does it? But that's how it is. Sins just not fair!

Hypothesis: There is a perfect and good God.

According to the Bible, we are made in the image of God. This does not mean fingers and toes. It means a brain capable of judging.

God punishes people for the sins of their ancestors. We humans hereby judge this unethical. Since God is perfect, there either is no perfect god, or God does not exist. QED

> I'm afraid there is no such thing as inherited sin.

Note the "Yes" column is much longer than the "No". (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/iniquity.html) In any event, there are unambiguous distinct instances that are very clear. This thing did [supposedly] happen at least a few times, even if just to specific people.

Silicon

16th March 2004, 12:04 PM

Bereena,

Of course your proof supposes that the biblical account of sins visited on others is an accurate depiction of God's will.

I think you have merely proven the errancy of the Bible, rather than the non-existence of a perfect God.

RandFan

16th March 2004, 12:26 PM

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
Good point. So good he posted it twice. :D

It's true though. I was Mormon and though I believed in Christ and accepted him and lived a "Christ like life" is was NOT a Christian according to most Christians. This always struck me as not very Christian.

Lisa Simpson

16th March 2004, 12:34 PM

Originally posted by RandFan

It's true though. I was Mormon and though I believed in Christ and accepted him and lived a "Christ like life" is was NOT a Christian according to most Christians. This always struck me as not very Christian.

How much do you have to believe to be considered Christian? Or is it only Mormons that aren't considered Christian by others Christians?

I was talking with my mom the other day about this very subject. The minister of her church doesn't believe in any of the mystic aspects of Christ's life. For example, the virgin birth, the various miracles and most important, the Resurrection. I always thought one sort of had to believe in those things in order to be "Christian".

Nyarlathotep

16th March 2004, 12:50 PM

Originally posted by Lisa Simpson

How much do you have to believe to be considered Christian? Or is it only Mormons that aren't considered Christian by others Christians?

I was talking with my mom the other day about this very subject. The minister of her church doesn't believe in any of the mystic aspects of Christ's life. For example, the virgin birth, the various miracles and most important, the Resurrection. I always thought one sort of had to believe in those things in order to be "Christian".

The thing is, every Christian denomination seems to have varying rules about what is considered a Christian. As RandFan said (and I can back him on thisone, since I used to be a Mormon myself) it's very common for other churches to consider Mormons as non-Christians (which, like RandFan, I always found puzzling since we did beleive in Christ and all that). Some Christian churches beleive that everyone is going to heaven regardless, some beleive that only their particular sect is and everyone else is going to roast in hell. I've also seen Christian sects claim that the Catholics are not Christians, and are thus going to hell, which I find odd since Catholics are pretty much the oldest sect of Christianity there is. On the other hand I have seen Catholics who insist that only Catholics go to heaven, everyone else gets purgatory at best.

In short I don' think you can make any sort of generalization as to what constitutes a Christian since the Christians themselves can't even agree on it. No matter what definition of Christian you can come up with, odds are you can find SOME sect of Christianity to agree with you and some other sect to tell you that you are wrong and thatyou wil go to hell if you believe that.

Riddick

16th March 2004, 06:27 PM

Originally posted by c4ts

Before anyone else new deals with Riddick, I would like to present a brief overview of how his mind works. I find it is somewhat similar to the case of Muscleman, though not nearly as extreme. You see, to Riddick, you do not exist. Nor do any other people belonging to other religions. Instead, there is a rather large army of invading strawmen in their place, each one representing a different religion, who threaten to destroy Riddick's beliefs. Every strawman has an obvious weakness, which can easily be defeated by any of the following: asserting that Riddick is correct, by an argument tailored to the exact specifications of the strawman, or by the strategic use of the caps lock key. Rhetoric is applied heavily to any of the above options. The key to Riddick's rhetoric is his ability to use pathos, meaning he can appeal to and display a wide range of emotions. To him, this is somehow superior to things like complex reasoning or correct spelling. Because of this, he will appear to become upset if you try to reason with him like a normal human being about a topic religious in nature, and it is impossible to reason with him anyway, since he assumes that he is correct before you even start. Truly, Riddick can teach us much about the operation and mechanisms of a closed mind in action.
Hey man, I'm Bipolar, we're known for open minds.

Masculinity, strength and passion are the highest qualities in a person - Nietzsche

Yahweh

16th March 2004, 07:59 PM

Originally posted by Lisa Simpson
How much do you have to believe to be considered Christian? Or is it only Mormons that aren't considered Christian by others Christians?
Personally, I would say a Christian is a person who's personal beliefs are based on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ.

The more conservative sects of Christianity tend to be the most excluding. The Southern Baptists (a denomination of Biblical Literalists) do not consider Catholics, Mormons, or the unbaptized to be Christians. As part of the Southern Baptist community, I remember a few folks in general who were willing to concede that even a newborn infant would go to Hell if it died unbaptized. Praise god.

The Rapture Folk are another group of Biblical Literalists (well, in all technicality, their beliefs have nothing whatsoever to do with the teachings found in the Bible), they seem to be caught up in the idea of so-called True-Christians. In other words, there are people who call themselves Christians, but dont really mean it, hence they are not "True-Christians", and other nonsense like that.

Momma Yahweh grew up in a Lutheran household, apparently Lutheran is the "one true religion of Christ".

I was talking with my mom the other day about this very subject. The minister of her church doesn't believe in any of the mystic aspects of Christ's life. For example, the virgin birth, the various miracles and most important, the Resurrection. I always thought one sort of had to believe in those things in order to be "Christian".
You dont have to believe those things, but everyone knows all True Christians™ most certainly do! :p

The minister is certainly not alone. In fact, there is a guy who is loved by half the Christian community and deemed "satanic" by the other half. He goes by the name of Bishop Spong (http://www.bishopspong), he is a Biblical Revisionist. He's written a few books including "Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism" and "Why Christianity Must Change or Die". Apparently, quite a few ministers are adopting the Biblical Revisionary point of view.

WildCat

16th March 2004, 08:27 PM

I was raised a Catholic, was even confirmed. Catholics believe that you must partake in all the Catholic sacraments to get into heaven, especially communion and confessing your sins. Therefore, Riddick and all his Protestant Pope-denying infidel heathen brethren will find themselves swimming in the lake of fire some day.

I'm so glad I don't believe in any of this nonsense any more.

c4ts

16th March 2004, 11:18 PM

Originally posted by Riddick

Hey man, I'm Bipolar, we're known for open minds.

You are arguing ad hominem once again.

Dorian Gray

17th March 2004, 12:05 AM