I normally try to stay out of such debates, but...
Bam,
Its good to see someone that believes in what they preach. I was raised a to be a Christian all my life, and was even an ordained minister by age 17, and took a vow of poverty for a few years at the age of 20. So I hope that my replies to your disussion about Hell do not come across as "trendy" or "Pop culture" in nature.
The concept of hell is a belief that causes many people have a problem with Christianity. I would have to agree with them. Farankly the fact that people teach this idea makes me understand completely the reson why people have such a distaste for Organized Christian religions. Like many dogmas, traditions, etc that christians have, it's interesting to really dig very deep into the origins to find the truth. Christmas is a perfect example of that, but thats for another discussion.
Nowhere in the bible does it ever say, or even suggest that Hell is a place of firery torment, that the wicked are punished eternally in torment and torture. Nowhere. Yes, it does talk about a lake of fire, but you also have to understand to what that was refering to. Outside the walls of Jeruselem was where the people threw the trash over the wall. There is where it was burned. And as we all know, if something burns it is distroyed. Not, burned for weeks, months or years. The fire consumes it, and that the end of it. It goes back to nothingness.
In the Hebrew scriptures, there was an event that took place where the israelites offered their live children to the Pagan god Molek by passing them through the fire, burning them alive. God it was written was so angry that he exicuted the entire lot because it was said, that something like that had never even come up in his heart. If there is a burning firey hell, that could not have been said, because he would have been the first to do it.
God is said to be a just, fair, loving God. As a parent, if your child does something wrong, you punish them, but you do not continue doing so for the rest of their lives. To even spank a child in todays society is sometimes viewed as barberic. If we are created in God's Image, would not he have the same feelings of compation, fairness, and justice? You would never over punish a child, but give them a punishment fitting of their actions. What could the average human do that would befit such an unspeakly horrific torment?
There is also the verse talking about Jesus, before he was resurected, being in Hell for 3 days. Why would he need to go there? He certainly wouldnt have done anything to deserve it. Or did he? If you look at the oldest manuscripts found for the scriptures, there are two words used in the place of the English word hell. Sheol in Hebrew, Hades in Greek. The literal translations for both words is in fact the common grave. Death. The state of nothingness. So, if those translations are used, guess what? Jesus was in fact in hell, or a state of death, for three days, until he was resurected.
The fact of the matter is, the idea of a tormented, tortured soul was adopted by the Church, from the pagan Greek and Roman beliefs, as a tool to control the masses, scaring them into submission. God was always talked about as a fearful, vengefull God, which he can be if nessesary, instead of the loving, kind, compationate, and forgiving God that the Bible talks about. Why? To keep a strangle-hold on the people.
No, A sinner would not be blessed with a life in Utipoia, rewarded by God. But instead would be condemed to Death. Or, Nothingness. as though that person never existed. Simple logic and common sense tells us that for the most horrific crimes a man can commit, the strongest punishment is death. Not torture for a lifetime. Why would God be any different. Even in punishment, we are compationate and loving with our children, and are we not Children of God?
I would like to see what others feel about this, so please feel free to speak up and comment.
Bam,
Its good to see someone that believes in what they preach. I was raised a to be a Christian all my life, and was even an ordained minister by age 17, and took a vow of poverty for a few years at the age of 20. So I hope that my replies to your disussion about Hell do not come across as "trendy" or "Pop culture" in nature.
The concept of hell is a belief that causes many people have a problem with Christianity. I would have to agree with them. Farankly the fact that people teach this idea makes me understand completely the reson why people have such a distaste for Organized Christian religions. Like many dogmas, traditions, etc that christians have, it's interesting to really dig very deep into the origins to find the truth. Christmas is a perfect example of that, but thats for another discussion.
Nowhere in the bible does it ever say, or even suggest that Hell is a place of firery torment, that the wicked are punished eternally in torment and torture. Nowhere. Yes, it does talk about a lake of fire, but you also have to understand to what that was refering to. Outside the walls of Jeruselem was where the people threw the trash over the wall. There is where it was burned. And as we all know, if something burns it is distroyed. Not, burned for weeks, months or years. The fire consumes it, and that the end of it. It goes back to nothingness.
In the Hebrew scriptures, there was an event that took place where the israelites offered their live children to the Pagan god Molek by passing them through the fire, burning them alive. God it was written was so angry that he exicuted the entire lot because it was said, that something like that had never even come up in his heart. If there is a burning firey hell, that could not have been said, because he would have been the first to do it.
God is said to be a just, fair, loving God. As a parent, if your child does something wrong, you punish them, but you do not continue doing so for the rest of their lives. To even spank a child in todays society is sometimes viewed as barberic. If we are created in God's Image, would not he have the same feelings of compation, fairness, and justice? You would never over punish a child, but give them a punishment fitting of their actions. What could the average human do that would befit such an unspeakly horrific torment?
There is also the verse talking about Jesus, before he was resurected, being in Hell for 3 days. Why would he need to go there? He certainly wouldnt have done anything to deserve it. Or did he? If you look at the oldest manuscripts found for the scriptures, there are two words used in the place of the English word hell. Sheol in Hebrew, Hades in Greek. The literal translations for both words is in fact the common grave. Death. The state of nothingness. So, if those translations are used, guess what? Jesus was in fact in hell, or a state of death, for three days, until he was resurected.
The fact of the matter is, the idea of a tormented, tortured soul was adopted by the Church, from the pagan Greek and Roman beliefs, as a tool to control the masses, scaring them into submission. God was always talked about as a fearful, vengefull God, which he can be if nessesary, instead of the loving, kind, compationate, and forgiving God that the Bible talks about. Why? To keep a strangle-hold on the people.
No, A sinner would not be blessed with a life in Utipoia, rewarded by God. But instead would be condemed to Death. Or, Nothingness. as though that person never existed. Simple logic and common sense tells us that for the most horrific crimes a man can commit, the strongest punishment is death. Not torture for a lifetime. Why would God be any different. Even in punishment, we are compationate and loving with our children, and are we not Children of God?
I would like to see what others feel about this, so please feel free to speak up and comment.
I disagree with the short-term Hell theory it sounds like you are telling about. It sounds like you It is likely that I have missed the point of what you wrote, but everything I have ever read/learned/been taught says that our "punishment" actually goes like this: First of all, we are forced to accept personal responsibility for our actions here on earth by experiencing their consequences. Liars soon have their lies catch up to them. Thieves get caught sooner or later. Murderers are not tolerated at all. Adulterers get found out. Those who have promiscuous sex place themselves in grave danger of HIV, AIDS, and other STDs, use of condoms notwithstanding in many cases. Those are some examples. The experience of those consequences should lead us as human beings to recognize God's wisdom in advising us against those things in order to be a godly person. And I think we can all agree that it's much more wise to follow the advice of those who know (God knows these things by omniscience, not by experience) and not make the mistakes in the first place than it is to make them and have to learn from them after having already made them. However, if we refuse to listen to God's teachings made widely (and for the most part, freely) available in the form of printed Bibles, then we have no one to blame but ourselves for the state the world is in. The sins that God warns us against also make us unholy and unable to be a part of God's holy kingdom, for the reasons I think I have already described in my previous post. That's when we "go to Hell" and are separated and cut off from God and all His good things forever. The holy sacrifice of Christ is the only provision made available (and only one should ever be necessary) to cover our sins and make it possible for us to enjoy eternal communion with God. Like I hope I've already said, it is not (and indeed, never was) God's pleasure to judge people unrighteous and unable to have communion with Him. However, being the supreme Being in existence and thus the One of greatest authority, the job of judging MUST fall to Him, for there are none more worthy than He is. That is why He sent Christ, to allow man one last chance to choose to return to God's care and be made holy once again and escape judgement which must come to all. We know that God desires nothing greater than to have the relationship with us that He created us for.
However, I do see something that is very true that was just posted: The saying "Made in God's own image" does not mean that we were made to look like God. Instead, it means we were made to feel like God, to experience feelings of compassion, caring, and true love both for other people and for God.
Also, because it is Christmastime, the time of year that we celerate the coming of Christ (no matter how much socitey tries to make it completely "inoffensive" and politically-correct), I offer you this quick bit on the utterly huge significance of the coming of Christ and the reason why we celebrate: The coming of Christ basically validates (to a stunning level of completeness, I might add) the prophets who foretold the coming. The resurrection basically validates everything Christ said about his own divinity, lending him supreme credibility in the other things he said.
And where does the long-raging battle over the validity of theories of evolution come into this? We as Christians can understand that because Christ came, and while on earth said many things identifying God as the Creator of mankind and eveything that is, that we exist, somehow or other, as the direct result of God's own intentions. Even if they discover tomorrow all the evidence they need to prove a law of Evolution (though that would need to be a fairly amended law from that which Darwin himself once proposed), it doesn't make one scrap of difference because we may know for certain that one way or another, no matter how it was accomplished, it was accomplished as a result of God's own intentions and by his own understanding (which does not necessarily rule out a process of evolution), and that is all the "why" any rational mind should need in order to believe unless the true reason for their unbelief lies in another issue somewhere else that results in their hard hearts toward our Maker.
However, I do see something that is very true that was just posted: The saying "Made in God's own image" does not mean that we were made to look like God. Instead, it means we were made to feel like God, to experience feelings of compassion, caring, and true love both for other people and for God.
Also, because it is Christmastime, the time of year that we celerate the coming of Christ (no matter how much socitey tries to make it completely "inoffensive" and politically-correct), I offer you this quick bit on the utterly huge significance of the coming of Christ and the reason why we celebrate: The coming of Christ basically validates (to a stunning level of completeness, I might add) the prophets who foretold the coming. The resurrection basically validates everything Christ said about his own divinity, lending him supreme credibility in the other things he said.
And where does the long-raging battle over the validity of theories of evolution come into this? We as Christians can understand that because Christ came, and while on earth said many things identifying God as the Creator of mankind and eveything that is, that we exist, somehow or other, as the direct result of God's own intentions. Even if they discover tomorrow all the evidence they need to prove a law of Evolution (though that would need to be a fairly amended law from that which Darwin himself once proposed), it doesn't make one scrap of difference because we may know for certain that one way or another, no matter how it was accomplished, it was accomplished as a result of God's own intentions and by his own understanding (which does not necessarily rule out a process of evolution), and that is all the "why" any rational mind should need in order to believe unless the true reason for their unbelief lies in another issue somewhere else that results in their hard hearts toward our Maker.
I'm no expert on these matters, but IIRC, the origin of the hell legend was Persian, as was the concept of the ongoing battle between a "good" god (e.g., Yahweh) and an "evil" god (e.g. Satan). It doesn't appear in any Hebrew writings before the conquests of Darius.
AFAIK, there is no battle over this among biologists, only among a minority of certain Protestant sects; even the Pope has come around on that one. The question of evolution was settled more than a century ago, with current debate having more to do with the relative contributions of specific mechanisms. A good reading of Ernst Mayr can prove enlightening to those who aren't familiar with the SOTA in that area.
"Evolution" isn't a law, it's an observation gleaned from mountains (literally) of evidence. And as new scientific knowledge has come forth (e.g., radioactive decay, relationships of genes to phenotype, structure of DNA, role of mitochondria, etc., etc.), the observations have only been strengthened and better correlated. Now, you may be confusing terms and equating "evolution" with "natural selection," but that's not uncommon for people who have spent more time studying theology than geology.
EDIT: Cyrus, not Darius. OK, it's been 35 years since I was at Baltimore Hebrew College, cut me some slack for forgetting one or two things!
AFAIK, there is no battle over this among biologists, only among a minority of certain Protestant sects; even the Pope has come around on that one. The question of evolution was settled more than a century ago, with current debate having more to do with the relative contributions of specific mechanisms. A good reading of Ernst Mayr can prove enlightening to those who aren't familiar with the SOTA in that area.
"Evolution" isn't a law, it's an observation gleaned from mountains (literally) of evidence. And as new scientific knowledge has come forth (e.g., radioactive decay, relationships of genes to phenotype, structure of DNA, role of mitochondria, etc., etc.), the observations have only been strengthened and better correlated. Now, you may be confusing terms and equating "evolution" with "natural selection," but that's not uncommon for people who have spent more time studying theology than geology.
EDIT: Cyrus, not Darius. OK, it's been 35 years since I was at Baltimore Hebrew College, cut me some slack for forgetting one or two things!
Bam,
I do completely agree wit the fact that we pay for our sins even while on earth. Even those who are forgiven, still suffer the consequences. Look at the example of King David. He was forgiven, but he definately paid the price.
And there was no "short term theory' with my explanation of hell. Just the opposite. Death in that sense is very long term. As in eterity. No resurection. Being completely cut off from before God. Just think the traditional sense of hell, but with no consiousness, and no torture.
I do completely agree wit the fact that we pay for our sins even while on earth. Even those who are forgiven, still suffer the consequences. Look at the example of King David. He was forgiven, but he definately paid the price.
And there was no "short term theory' with my explanation of hell. Just the opposite. Death in that sense is very long term. As in eterity. No resurection. Being completely cut off from before God. Just think the traditional sense of hell, but with no consiousness, and no torture.
On the nature of hell and the nature of its torments: A large part of it is regret for one's actions that led them to be separated. Actually, that one is debatable becasue it is unlikely that those who wind up getting sent to Hell would being themselves to blame themselves for getting sent there. Also, being mired in sinfulness, it is reasonable to assume that the damned spend a lot of time lusting after the things that those who believed had a chance to take part in. (envy, jealousy, etc.) It is also quite reasonable to expect that people who are in hell are very angry at God, again because people really do not like to take responsibility for their own actions. They most likely do not want to let the blame be placed on themselves for the consequences of their actions. People like to blame everybody else but themselves. We see it in the world today, and I can only suppose that we would also see it in the attitudes of people in hell.
SY, if this sort of thing is your bag (debating Christ and spiritual matters from the atheist point of view) I invite you to take a look at the very well-researched writings of apologetics researcher James P. Holding, which may be found at the site http://www.tektonics.org in plentiful number. The apologetics writings are so well researched, and the author is so confident that what he has written is totally solid research, that he has issued a challenge for anyone out there to refute even one of his articles. As far as I know, the clock is still ticking on that one. That is why I cite so many of that guy's articles. He's quite good at what he does.
Evolution or no, I again assert that it makes not a shred of difference in the "God or No God?" debate, because the coming of Christ audomatically validates everything that's meaningful. If you look back at my previous post in which I already made these assertions, you can click on the word "Christ" and read an article that refutes arguments that the entire existence of Christ was all a myth. You can click on the word "resurrection" to see an article by the same author (if the author is a reliable source it doesn't matter how many articles from that same author I cite) about how Christianity could not have survived past its earliest days if there was no true resurrection.
There is a danger that I might become too involved in this debate and that things might become personal, and that is not my aim.
SY, if this sort of thing is your bag (debating Christ and spiritual matters from the atheist point of view) I invite you to take a look at the very well-researched writings of apologetics researcher James P. Holding, which may be found at the site http://www.tektonics.org in plentiful number. The apologetics writings are so well researched, and the author is so confident that what he has written is totally solid research, that he has issued a challenge for anyone out there to refute even one of his articles. As far as I know, the clock is still ticking on that one. That is why I cite so many of that guy's articles. He's quite good at what he does.
Evolution or no, I again assert that it makes not a shred of difference in the "God or No God?" debate, because the coming of Christ audomatically validates everything that's meaningful. If you look back at my previous post in which I already made these assertions, you can click on the word "Christ" and read an article that refutes arguments that the entire existence of Christ was all a myth. You can click on the word "resurrection" to see an article by the same author (if the author is a reliable source it doesn't matter how many articles from that same author I cite) about how Christianity could not have survived past its earliest days if there was no true resurrection.
There is a danger that I might become too involved in this debate and that things might become personal, and that is not my aim.
Who said that I was an atheist? That's a telling and interesting assumption.
Debate with apologetics guys is like nailing jello to the wall and not at all what I'm interested in; I'm just trying to understand some of the statements made here actually mean. Especially the "no consciousness" one.
I would totally agree that the scientific question of mechanisms of evolution ought to concern religion not one whit. And vice versa. If one's religion can be toppled by scientific discovery, it's a pretty weak religion. Hey, even the geocentric universe assertions of religious scholars eventually died down without any churches collapsing.
Debate with apologetics guys is like nailing jello to the wall and not at all what I'm interested in; I'm just trying to understand some of the statements made here actually mean. Especially the "no consciousness" one.
I would totally agree that the scientific question of mechanisms of evolution ought to concern religion not one whit. And vice versa. If one's religion can be toppled by scientific discovery, it's a pretty weak religion. Hey, even the geocentric universe assertions of religious scholars eventually died down without any churches collapsing.
I'm not so sure about the "no consciousness" thing. It definitely warrants some further research, as the nature of the Biblical Hell is something that all Christians should truly understand. Indeed, to gloss over the reality of hell's existence just becasue the general public would rather not hear about it is very, very dishonest, and i disagree with anyone who follows that practice. If someone asks me about hell, I will answer their question. I will not deny Hell's existence to try and make people like me or to try and "sell" my faith to people. Reality is reality. To deny reality is to lie, and to lie in any context is to sin greatly agaisnt God. That being said, it is important to make sure that the information I have about Hell is the right information.
I will go ahead and admit my mistake in assuming you were an atheist based on my own limited observations. However, your answer of a question with another question "who said I was an atheist?" doesn't really answer the question, instead simply asking who is making the claims, so I will instead ask you straightforwardly. Do you consider yourself to be atheist?
I took the vigorous defense of evolution that I have seen from you in other threads here and made the hasty (and, in retrospect, dumb) generalization that everyone who vehemently defends evolution is atheist because many atheists I have met (including some I know personally) often used debate about evolution as a backdoor into their arguments against the existence of God, fully missing the point that a system of evolutionary development of species can just as easily be used as an instrument of God's own will to bring about and eliminate species. It is said that God created by his understanding, and certainly this language can be applied to everything from observations about the speed of electrons whirling about an atom being just sufficient to keep the forces of gravity from making existence at the atomic level impossible to a theory of evolutionary development of species. Indeed, one must see the (divine) wisdom in a microevolutionary system of natural selection that helps species develop and adapt to their own environment as it changes. Can we expect that the God who takes great pleasure in His creation would leave his animal and plant creations to fend for themselves entirely? Certainly not! And in that I agree that theories of evolutionary genesis do not stand in direct opposition to the Biblical truth of Creation, but simply provide a more reasonable alternative to the idea of spontaneous genesis. Christians such as myself are right to be in awe of their God who has such understanding and power! After all, the Big Bang is a very poor explanation for the origin of matter, because in order to be supercompacted into the little infinitely small dot, it would still have had to come from somewhere. The probability of the existence of things as they are is one in ten to the thirty-first power, and that is only considering cosmic factors, not even those involved in the evolutionary system of genesis. It's hard for me to see how there could not be some sort of divine intention involved in all of this. So much of the drive to acquire knowledge and understanding appears to have been in an attempt to kill belief in God, yet all of the knowledge in the world is only creating a better picture in the minds of believers of God's own massive awesomeness. It appears Nietzsche claimed victory a little too soon.
I will go ahead and admit my mistake in assuming you were an atheist based on my own limited observations. However, your answer of a question with another question "who said I was an atheist?" doesn't really answer the question, instead simply asking who is making the claims, so I will instead ask you straightforwardly. Do you consider yourself to be atheist?
I took the vigorous defense of evolution that I have seen from you in other threads here and made the hasty (and, in retrospect, dumb) generalization that everyone who vehemently defends evolution is atheist because many atheists I have met (including some I know personally) often used debate about evolution as a backdoor into their arguments against the existence of God, fully missing the point that a system of evolutionary development of species can just as easily be used as an instrument of God's own will to bring about and eliminate species. It is said that God created by his understanding, and certainly this language can be applied to everything from observations about the speed of electrons whirling about an atom being just sufficient to keep the forces of gravity from making existence at the atomic level impossible to a theory of evolutionary development of species. Indeed, one must see the (divine) wisdom in a microevolutionary system of natural selection that helps species develop and adapt to their own environment as it changes. Can we expect that the God who takes great pleasure in His creation would leave his animal and plant creations to fend for themselves entirely? Certainly not! And in that I agree that theories of evolutionary genesis do not stand in direct opposition to the Biblical truth of Creation, but simply provide a more reasonable alternative to the idea of spontaneous genesis. Christians such as myself are right to be in awe of their God who has such understanding and power! After all, the Big Bang is a very poor explanation for the origin of matter, because in order to be supercompacted into the little infinitely small dot, it would still have had to come from somewhere. The probability of the existence of things as they are is one in ten to the thirty-first power, and that is only considering cosmic factors, not even those involved in the evolutionary system of genesis. It's hard for me to see how there could not be some sort of divine intention involved in all of this. So much of the drive to acquire knowledge and understanding appears to have been in an attempt to kill belief in God, yet all of the knowledge in the world is only creating a better picture in the minds of believers of God's own massive awesomeness. It appears Nietzsche claimed victory a little too soon.
I don't mean to offend, but this reflects a serious lack of understanding of the basics of physics.
Ditto. You may want to reflect on Augustine of Hippo's admonition for believers not to make theological statements about material things that they don't understand; his thesis was that it makes the religion look ignorant.
No.
I always marvel at the idea of many Christians that my ancestors, creators of some of the greatest prose and poetry in recorded history, were too stupid or ignorant to be able to write allegory. Apparently, that was reserved for enlightened Gentiles like the John of Revelations.
SY said:
Actually, who says they are wrong on that point? While yes God has the ability to raise the dead, bring them to heaven, etc, it does not mean he has to. Ecclesiastes 9:5 says" For the Living are conscious that they will Die, but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all, niether do they have anymore wages, because the rememberance of them has been forgotten"
I'm not one to go around quoting scriptures. But I think that one explains it perfectly.
In verse 10 it talks about what hell is like. "all that your hands find to do, do with your very power, for there is no work. nor devising, nor knowlage, nor wisdom in Sheol (Hell) the place to which you are going."
Well, SY, I suppose that only leaves two loose ends to tie up.
Loose End #1:
Enlighten me, then: Do subatomic particles have gravity? What is it that keeps the electrons whirling about the nucleus with enough straignt-forward force that they can balance their forward motion momentum with the force of gravity pulling in on them?
Loose End #2:
Because the word allegory is not a word I regularly come in contact with, I had to look it up. I discovered that allegory means, basically, "a symbolic representation". Now, being the relatively stupid person that I admit that I am, I have to ask: You say that some schools of thought make claims that make it seem that your ancestors were too stupid to write things in this symbolic representation ("allegory"), using things like analogy and/or metaphor (which I would assume are two systems of symbolic representation in writing). In the interest of making sure I fully understand what you are saying, which of these two options would say that your statment is most in reference to?
Option 1: It was in reference to the very possibilty that the Biblical book of Genesis was written using metaphor and analogies of the time such that the people of the time, without formal understanding of many natural processes, could still get the whole (very important) gist of the thing: that all that is in existence enjoys that very state of existence as the result of God's own intentions.
Option 2: It was in reference to a claim that instead of a literally existent God as Christianity purports, these natural systems might either be as the result of a deity (a god who created and governs the operation of the universe but has no interest in the affairs of human beings) instead of a god like the God of the Bible (who is very interested in an intimate personal relationship with us) or that the natural systems themselves might be what we have been referring to as "God" all this time when in reality, they exist and operate as they do simply as the result of a grand cosmic "fluke" or anomaly of probability.
This certainly has been a mind-expanding debate...
Loose End #1:
Enlighten me, then: Do subatomic particles have gravity? What is it that keeps the electrons whirling about the nucleus with enough straignt-forward force that they can balance their forward motion momentum with the force of gravity pulling in on them?
Loose End #2:
Because the word allegory is not a word I regularly come in contact with, I had to look it up. I discovered that allegory means, basically, "a symbolic representation". Now, being the relatively stupid person that I admit that I am, I have to ask: You say that some schools of thought make claims that make it seem that your ancestors were too stupid to write things in this symbolic representation ("allegory"), using things like analogy and/or metaphor (which I would assume are two systems of symbolic representation in writing). In the interest of making sure I fully understand what you are saying, which of these two options would say that your statment is most in reference to?
Option 1: It was in reference to the very possibilty that the Biblical book of Genesis was written using metaphor and analogies of the time such that the people of the time, without formal understanding of many natural processes, could still get the whole (very important) gist of the thing: that all that is in existence enjoys that very state of existence as the result of God's own intentions.
Option 2: It was in reference to a claim that instead of a literally existent God as Christianity purports, these natural systems might either be as the result of a deity (a god who created and governs the operation of the universe but has no interest in the affairs of human beings) instead of a god like the God of the Bible (who is very interested in an intimate personal relationship with us) or that the natural systems themselves might be what we have been referring to as "God" all this time when in reality, they exist and operate as they do simply as the result of a grand cosmic "fluke" or anomaly of probability.
This certainly has been a mind-expanding debate...
I'll show you the knot for loose end 1, but a complete explanation of the basics of quantum theory are a little more than I can hope to put into a post. Given that limitation, you'll have to accept a couple things on faith, but I can assure you that you can easily confirm any of this with some study of the science and the experimental evidence and confirmations that lead us to our current understanding:
First, gravity is an amazingly weak force. It is proportional to the product of the masses of the two bodies in question. These are extraordinarily low masses. The overwhelmingly predominant force between electrons and nuclei is the electromagnetic force. Gravity is smaller than negligible. Quantum theory is difficult and abstract, not suited for Machian analogy, but if you accept its postulates, you find that it describes and predicts accurately what Nature does.
Second, it is meaningless to speak of electrons in atoms as having "speed" or "whirling about." Electrons and their behavior are described by state functions or vectors, which describe probability amplitudes, waves in space and time. One can't localize an electron and simultaneously know anything about its velocity (analogously, one cannot pick an arbitrarily small time interval and be able to specify mass-energy, which is a basis of misunderstanding of your earlier talk about points of mass at the beginning of time). In fact, one can't even distinguish one electron from another- it's meaningless to talk about the path of "an" electron.
Third, given the known laws of electromagnetism and the basics of the quantum theory, one can exactly describe the observable behavior of an electron in a hydrogen atom. In fact, this perfect explanation of long-observed but never-understood behavior (e.g., the absorption and emission of photons from hydrogen) was one of the great triumphs of early quantum theories. And other atoms and molecules can also have their observable properties predicted and calculated to arbitrarily high accuracy.
First, gravity is an amazingly weak force. It is proportional to the product of the masses of the two bodies in question. These are extraordinarily low masses. The overwhelmingly predominant force between electrons and nuclei is the electromagnetic force. Gravity is smaller than negligible. Quantum theory is difficult and abstract, not suited for Machian analogy, but if you accept its postulates, you find that it describes and predicts accurately what Nature does.
Second, it is meaningless to speak of electrons in atoms as having "speed" or "whirling about." Electrons and their behavior are described by state functions or vectors, which describe probability amplitudes, waves in space and time. One can't localize an electron and simultaneously know anything about its velocity (analogously, one cannot pick an arbitrarily small time interval and be able to specify mass-energy, which is a basis of misunderstanding of your earlier talk about points of mass at the beginning of time). In fact, one can't even distinguish one electron from another- it's meaningless to talk about the path of "an" electron.
Third, given the known laws of electromagnetism and the basics of the quantum theory, one can exactly describe the observable behavior of an electron in a hydrogen atom. In fact, this perfect explanation of long-observed but never-understood behavior (e.g., the absorption and emission of photons from hydrogen) was one of the great triumphs of early quantum theories. And other atoms and molecules can also have their observable properties predicted and calculated to arbitrarily high accuracy.
SY said:
That was how I chose to interpret JCoffeys interpretation ie if your not going to heaven thats it, you cease to exist.
What I felt about it was that it was a positive thing, in that you can think of going to heaven (everlasting life.... whatever) as being a reward for your hard work (at being a "good" person) rather than thinking you will be punished for being a bad person.
Seems to fit a lot better with the "Loving God" image to me
Of course it doesn't have that whole scare factor thing that Hell has, but I don't think that people are more deserving of going to heaven if they have been scared into it, on the contrary, if you achieve it without that whole scare tactics thing, then I would say you were much more worthy of going to heaven!
Tony.
Hell?
I think the subject of Hell is very intriguing, so I’ll have to just comment here, although it seems like Bam has done an excellent job of describing Christian faith and I am in full agreement with his POV.
To expound on Hell just a bit, here is my personal insight on what Hell is.
And just like Sy said about Science, you have to make a leap of faith to believe any of this as well, but then again IMO it takes a far larger leap of faith to believe the big bang theory than any religion, the big bang is an accident that just happened to create everything with purpose, which is completely illogical in any book.
First off, Hell is not a place; it’s the absence of all physical things, literally the Void that many bibles speak of during the creation of the Heavens and Earth. As Bam mentioned all good is created by God, so nothing God created would be in hell, it couldn’t or it would break a fundamental law of God.
Another thing many don’t grasp is that everything God created is and always will be in existence, every person, drop of water, spec of dirt and every molecule is still hear and can never be removed completely. Things may change from one state to another but they never leave. So since we are a creation of God and we are a Spirit and live in a body, the body will die and go back to the original form that it was; “the earth”, but the Spirit is literally Gods spirit and cannot die nor be destroyed, it will always exist in it’s true form, and existed even before we were borne. That being the case means that if you do choose hell then there will be consciousness’ as the spirit is what makes us consciences. The nateral affection of the Body is self which equals Hell, the natural affection of the spirit is to God which equals Heaven, so if you follow the Spirit that you are then you will have etirinity with God, however if you are week and follow the Body or Flesh as the Bible puts it then you will go away from God and towards Hell.
Now after we die we have no body so we feel no physical pain because there is nothing to hurt, no flesh or bone (unless you have accepted God’s truth, then you get a glorified body) so there can’t be physical fire in hell, there is nothing to burn.
In reality, (in my belief) Hell is far worse than anyone could imagine with the mortal mind, until you can grasp eternity you cant grasp why Hell is so bad.
In a nutshell Hell is a Void, no heat (think of the cold of deep space) no light no nothing. Just a black hole where those who refused to have anything to do with God will go for eternity with full consciousness and ability to feel the worst king of all pain Mental, or Soulful pain for ever with no chance of it ever ending. Not because God hates or is punishing but because he has no choice because he gave the choice to us, and will respect that choice even if it means than we will be forever in misery.
This may be hard for some to understand, but consider that even in the Physical world things are the same, if you care and Love someone with all your heart and will even give your life for them you still cannot make them listen care or Love you even if your presence will save them from a fate worse than death, you can not make anyone do anything or believe anything, they must choose to of there own free will. This is what separates us from the animal kingdom, choice.
If you spit in Gods face and tell him he is a liar or just doesn’t exist and that you will lean on yourself for your own salvation then that’s exactly what you will get, and you will be forever separated from those who choose to go the other way, and so it should be, as we all know one bad apple will spoil the bunch. No sin (evil) can be in the presence of God and those who choose to dwell with him.
I think the subject of Hell is very intriguing, so I’ll have to just comment here, although it seems like Bam has done an excellent job of describing Christian faith and I am in full agreement with his POV.
To expound on Hell just a bit, here is my personal insight on what Hell is.
And just like Sy said about Science, you have to make a leap of faith to believe any of this as well, but then again IMO it takes a far larger leap of faith to believe the big bang theory than any religion, the big bang is an accident that just happened to create everything with purpose, which is completely illogical in any book.
First off, Hell is not a place; it’s the absence of all physical things, literally the Void that many bibles speak of during the creation of the Heavens and Earth. As Bam mentioned all good is created by God, so nothing God created would be in hell, it couldn’t or it would break a fundamental law of God.
Another thing many don’t grasp is that everything God created is and always will be in existence, every person, drop of water, spec of dirt and every molecule is still hear and can never be removed completely. Things may change from one state to another but they never leave. So since we are a creation of God and we are a Spirit and live in a body, the body will die and go back to the original form that it was; “the earth”, but the Spirit is literally Gods spirit and cannot die nor be destroyed, it will always exist in it’s true form, and existed even before we were borne. That being the case means that if you do choose hell then there will be consciousness’ as the spirit is what makes us consciences. The nateral affection of the Body is self which equals Hell, the natural affection of the spirit is to God which equals Heaven, so if you follow the Spirit that you are then you will have etirinity with God, however if you are week and follow the Body or Flesh as the Bible puts it then you will go away from God and towards Hell.
Now after we die we have no body so we feel no physical pain because there is nothing to hurt, no flesh or bone (unless you have accepted God’s truth, then you get a glorified body) so there can’t be physical fire in hell, there is nothing to burn.
In reality, (in my belief) Hell is far worse than anyone could imagine with the mortal mind, until you can grasp eternity you cant grasp why Hell is so bad.
In a nutshell Hell is a Void, no heat (think of the cold of deep space) no light no nothing. Just a black hole where those who refused to have anything to do with God will go for eternity with full consciousness and ability to feel the worst king of all pain Mental, or Soulful pain for ever with no chance of it ever ending. Not because God hates or is punishing but because he has no choice because he gave the choice to us, and will respect that choice even if it means than we will be forever in misery.
This may be hard for some to understand, but consider that even in the Physical world things are the same, if you care and Love someone with all your heart and will even give your life for them you still cannot make them listen care or Love you even if your presence will save them from a fate worse than death, you can not make anyone do anything or believe anything, they must choose to of there own free will. This is what separates us from the animal kingdom, choice.
If you spit in Gods face and tell him he is a liar or just doesn’t exist and that you will lean on yourself for your own salvation then that’s exactly what you will get, and you will be forever separated from those who choose to go the other way, and so it should be, as we all know one bad apple will spoil the bunch. No sin (evil) can be in the presence of God and those who choose to dwell with him.
You completely misunderstood what I said. By "taking it on faith," I was merely referring to taking my quickie explanation of atomic physics. I most absolutely did NOT mean that science has to be taken on faith. It's just that to get to the point where you can understand that the bound states of an electron in a hydrogen atom can be described by the product of a Laguerre polynomial and a spherical harmonic function takes at least a solid year of study, once you've mastered calculus and basic Newtonian physics.
Science has the virtue that it makes testable predictions. It succeeds or fails by how well its predictions correspond to reality. The Big Bang theory made all sorts of predictions, and guess what? They all (so far) have tested out to a fabulous degree of accuracy.
"Science has the virtue that it makes testable predictions. It succeeds or fails by how well its predictions correspond to reality. The Big Bang theory made all sorts of predictions, and guess what? They all (so far) have tested out to a fabulous degree of accuracy."
SY:
Not True, all of science creation theories demand a huge leap of faith, and none can be tested as there is no known absolute reference point from which to measure, only speculations.
Like wise many things that I have read about science and there predictions (especially of late) only more so prove the existence of a God like entity.
Also reality can be perceived many different ways, basing any assumptions on such a flawed system will always have inaccurate results, that’s why the scientific community keeps contradicting it’s self. What’s true today will be false tomorrow, hell the guy who first mentioned that there were tiny little microscopic germs causing illness was thought to be a loon at the time (by popular Scientist), now it’s common knowledge, before his discovery they had a completely different theory. How can Science be right if it keeps changing?
To properly measure something you must have an absolute to measure it from, science provides no absolute only ever changing theories, God is the only absolute and the only Truth, and all knowledge comes from knowing God, not science. Science is a smug foolish self-righteous ism vainly trying to explain what cannot be explained without God.
Not trying to offend, but scientist trying to prove how the fabric of the universe came to be is a direct assault on Christianity and thus offends me when it is in that context. Just what makes people think that they are so insightful as to unravel the mysteries of creation when they cant do the simplest things first? We have perfected nothing yet we claim to know how it works, that is the very definition of foolishness IMO. Even if scientist were given all the answers, how would they know? A person who believes any scientific explanation of creation has more faith than any Christian I know of, at least there is continuity in the religious beliefs.
SY:
Not True, all of science creation theories demand a huge leap of faith, and none can be tested as there is no known absolute reference point from which to measure, only speculations.
Like wise many things that I have read about science and there predictions (especially of late) only more so prove the existence of a God like entity.
Also reality can be perceived many different ways, basing any assumptions on such a flawed system will always have inaccurate results, that’s why the scientific community keeps contradicting it’s self. What’s true today will be false tomorrow, hell the guy who first mentioned that there were tiny little microscopic germs causing illness was thought to be a loon at the time (by popular Scientist), now it’s common knowledge, before his discovery they had a completely different theory. How can Science be right if it keeps changing?
To properly measure something you must have an absolute to measure it from, science provides no absolute only ever changing theories, God is the only absolute and the only Truth, and all knowledge comes from knowing God, not science. Science is a smug foolish self-righteous ism vainly trying to explain what cannot be explained without God.
Not trying to offend, but scientist trying to prove how the fabric of the universe came to be is a direct assault on Christianity and thus offends me when it is in that context. Just what makes people think that they are so insightful as to unravel the mysteries of creation when they cant do the simplest things first? We have perfected nothing yet we claim to know how it works, that is the very definition of foolishness IMO. Even if scientist were given all the answers, how would they know? A person who believes any scientific explanation of creation has more faith than any Christian I know of, at least there is continuity in the religious beliefs.
No offense intended, sincerely, but I think you need to learn a lot more about cosmology, the underlying theory, the evidence, the tests to which models have been put, the state of our knowledge and lack of same in various regimes, and the basic concepts of falsifiability before making blanket statements like this.
I've got a lot of Christian friends, many of whom are scientists, yet none feel that their faith has been threatened by the ever-expanding sphere of scientific knowledge. Quite the opposite- their view is that the more we know about the Universe, the more marvelous and wonderful it seems and the greater their appreciation for the work of their god. As I said before, it's a pretty poor faith that can be shaken by discoveries about the world we live in. Eppur si muove, or something like that.
I've got a lot of Christian friends, many of whom are scientists, yet none feel that their faith has been threatened by the ever-expanding sphere of scientific knowledge. Quite the opposite- their view is that the more we know about the Universe, the more marvelous and wonderful it seems and the greater their appreciation for the work of their god. As I said before, it's a pretty poor faith that can be shaken by discoveries about the world we live in. Eppur si muove, or something like that.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.