I realize now that perhaps I ask too much of people. But, since I appreciate candor, I will speak as candidly as I can, as long as you clearly understand that since I'm not GOD I don't know. And I also realize that, really, I'm wasting my time because you really don't care anyway. But I hope that, maybe, somewhere out there, someone will.
a)If I am to understand the book of Revelation (which, granted, is a tough read), then all people will be judged by God. And I mean all. Now, if you're an atheist or what have you, it doesn't really matter to you since there is no God and no impending judgement. If you're Hindu, it doesn't matter because you don't believe in the Christian God anyway. I don't really know what pagans believe. It's all relative to your religious preference. I don't concern myself with trying to reach Nirvana, and Buddhists aren't trying to get into the Christian heaven.
b)Where they will go, I don't know. Nor am I certain that hell is really a lake of fire. I think, in reality, hell is the absence of God. Either way, if it really exists, I don't wish anyone to go there.
c)Given the number of Christian missionaries and television, radio, internet, etc., I believe the likelihood of anyone NEVER hearing of the Judeo-Christian God must be pretty slim by this point. However, I want to say that there is a type of "clause" in the Bible that says that if a man has sincerely never heard the word of God he will not be sent to hell. Hell is reserved more for those who have heard the word and choose to deny it, I believe. You can choose your decisions, but you cannot choose the consequences thereof. As for where these other people go, I have no clue. Perhaps they go to an alternate universe (a fascinating concept, by the way...).
There, you asked, I answered to the best of my ability. I'm sorry if you don't like my answers, but I assumed that you wanted me to be honest. I didn't say there weren't things about Christianity that weren't pretty. But I have no control over that stuff--not my rules, I'm just playing by them. It doesn't make me a bad person anymore than it makes you a bad person. Maybe all I did was add fuel to your fire, I don't know. Like I said, I'm not here looking for converts. People here are either a) already converted or b) don't feel the need to be converted. But I will answer any questions that are posed to me as respectfully as I can. Everyone has reasons for believing whatever it is they believe and I can no more judge you for being an atheist than I can judge a Muslim for being a Muslim. Your religious (or lack of it) preference doesn't define you as a human being. Maybe I'm way off base and there is nothing, but I'm not going to know til I'm dead and by then it'll be a little late.
Now, on to the aliens :-) . . .
So ALIENS arrive from another planet, decide that this nice wasteland of a planet will be the perfect summer home, and move in. I would expect aliens to bring their own beliefs with them (since we're into splitting hairs, here). I don't think there would be anything to reconstruct. Now, would alien beliefs reflect creation or evolution? I have no flippin' clue. I would imagine that would depend on their culture, and since no one has actually communicated with REAL aliens, all I have to go on are old episodes of Star Trek: The Next Generation. Alot of those civilizations had gods, too, I believe.
point A. Revelations, the gospel of John of Patamos. First off it almost never made it in the cannon (Bible). It was most likely written right after the Jewish temples were destroyed by the Romans and John was writing this apocalyptic tale to harden stay fast Christians to keep the faith and further separate the movement from Judaism. The 666 reference some theologians say is the hebrew numerical value for Nero Ceasar who by the way was commonly referred to as the beast. Every single apocalyptic Christian Revelations doomsayer has been dead wrong with they're predictions from Dr. Miller in the 1800's actually predicting the date the world would end to The holocaust of WWII when many believe Hitler was the antichrist. David Koresh in Waco in the 1990s led his flock to they're deaths. Even the the Y2K predicted end of the world did not happen. So why should a story written by a pissed off Christian man that almost did not even make it in the Bible carry any weight? Because a bunch of Priest and Bishops all agreed what books would be concidered "Holy" and without err. In Nice Italy in the 300's. Even if fierce fights broke out and men gouged out eyes in anger, was this the holy spirit moving in these men?
b. If Hell is the absence of God and God is Omnipresent then that is a contradiction. Also the church has altered the concept of hell historically to suit the church. Attendance was dropping off so venial sins were then deemed punishable by purgurtory, if enough indulgences and prayers were said you could be released from such. Mortal sins punishable by hell . Purgutory?? and the selling of indulgences were ways to generate much needed money in the church. Instill fear, and reward compliance.
c. The Bible is clear no man goes to the father except through Jesus Christ. All who do not accept Jesus Christ as they're personal savior shall not see the kingdom of heaven. Now I know Christian like to expand on that and create loop holes. In fact in the 1960's during Vatican II the pope spoke from the chair and decreed that there are other ways to recieve grace other than through the Church sacrements. But this was the good ol' Mother Catholic church. Baptist are not Catholic. And still do not traditionally adhere to Vatican II degrees.
I have nothing more to add. I respect your beliefs and feel you are secure in them. I was only offering you another point of view. Thats whats great about forums such as these, variety is the spice of life. Be well.
"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche
I don't argue Catholic dogma because I'm not Catholic, nor have I ever been. While I was raised Baptist, I am now Lutheran and the only use I had for the Catholic Church was the history that came along with my study on Martin Luther. In which case, I believe we can all agree that Indulgences were wrong. Whether or not Revelation "almost never made it into the Canon", I'm sure there are other useful references in the Bible that refer to God's judgement upon man. Since you seem so well versed in the Bible yourself, I will let you go look them up. Also, may it be said here that the only branch of the Christian church that even claims Purgatory is the Catholic branch. The rest of us want nothing to do with it. We also don't read from the Apocrypha. I have read exactly two books out of the Apocrypha and that was for a New Testament Studies class I took in college. The Catholic Church of the 1500's (and before and some after) was a horribly corrupt system full of money-hungry people. Even Dante saw fit to throw some Popes into Hell they were so corrupt. No, the Holy Spirit was no more moving in those men than it was in the men who flew the planes into the Pentagon and the Twin Towers.
I'm not even going to touch the hell stuff. There's alot of debate about hell in the Christian church, so I'm not even going to bother.
I never said that those who never heard the word of God went to the Father. I just said they didn't go to hell. Now, you see why there's debate in the Christian church about hell. So many different languages; so many different ideas of what hell is. Maybe Dante had it right--maybe there is some outer sanctum of hell where all the righteous pagans are held. I don't know.
Anyway, you seem like a good person, 1.61803. I appreciate your willingness to discuss this intelligently and for respecting my beliefs (I get alot of "You must be an idiot" looks). I will try to look up specific verses--especially the part about those not hearing the word of God not going to hell. I honestly did read that somewhere--I just have to remember where it was.
Granted, the Bible has its flaws. But I think it gets it's main point across well and the rest is just debate fodder.
For what it's worth to you, God's peace be upon you. Megan
This may seem contrary to Occam's Razor, but if all things are assumed equal in this instance then the idea that a creator made the universe is as equally plausible as the idea that it created itself. Save the arguments that Occam's Razor eliminates the need for a God hypothesis because everything can be explained without him
Irregardless of Occam's razor,a creator is not equally plausible as a spontaneous uncaued universe.In order for us to allow for a creator we need ask things that are not resolvable such as what created the creator? What is the means by which a creator is able to create? Where would you locate a creator? What,indeed , do we even mean by a creator?
The result of our present investigations and understandings point towards a pattern that in the world that pretty much eliminates a creatoras being an entity indistinguishable from from no entity at all.There also emerges a pattern in human nature that points more to inherent fallacies of perception by people ofthe world around them than towards a entity that exists outside our own brains.
Without a plausible answer to the means by which we postulate a creator we gain no further clarity of the world and ,indeed, we confuse things to the point that a creator's likelihood is no different from any other thing we can dream up but would not seriously substitute as an answer to the world around us.
Good to talk with you ,hope to answer specific questions you may have,Good day.
This message has been edited by sidelined, 10-27-2004 07:32 AM
[W]hen people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together
Re: Original title: Asking for a clarification from Creationists.
My question is posed to those who attempt by use of science to support creationism of any kind, be it YEC, theistic evolution, or intelligent direction. How can the shifting standards of proof inherent in such a position be justified?
If God is the Creator then how could science contradict the existence of a Creator ?
My question to atheists is: Why do you use science to support atheism ?
The inability to deduce ID is explained in the Bible as a penalty from God for deliberately and summarily rejecting Him as the ultimate Creator.
Instead, atheists use science to imply that fossils and such evidence-against the Creator of Genesis, when in fact the evidence says no such thing but only the interpretation of the worldview is speaking = philosophic conclusion made under the disguise of scientific enquiry.
Re: Original title: Asking for a clarification from Creationists.
Hi Willowtree, I do not think that atheist use science to support atheism. (Some may albeit.) I always thought that scientific methodology demands that what ever the premise/hypothesis it must be supported by evidence that can be held up to the scrutiny of all who may inquire. God is not supported by science because the very premise is based on the supernatural. God according to theist simply is. Period. End of story. Well this line of reasoning does not hold up well to inquiry. Evidence for God is usually given as either a bible reference or Intelligent design argument/ anthropic argument, faith, first cause arguments. These arguments are illogical and circular and do not hold up to the stringent inquiry that good science demands. There simply is no evidence of a unbias nature to support theist claims. If there were then there would be very few atheist indeed. So atheism does not use science for support. Rather the lack of support from science for theism breed atheism and a whole host of agnostics as well. This was not meant in any way meant to demean or offend you. It is simply just a opinion. Be well.
Re: Original title: Asking for a clarification from Creationists.
quote:Instead, atheists use science to imply that fossils and such evidence-against the Creator of Genesis, when in fact the evidence says no such thing but only the interpretation of the worldview is speaking = philosophic conclusion made under the disguise of scientific enquiry.
It is your own worldview that is entering the arena. The interpretation that life changed over millions of years does not exclude a Creator. The question becomes how an interpretation of Genesis can contradic the very Creation that it speaks about. If God created the universe and the life in it, then shouldn't we trust the evidence in the creation?
I don't think that there is enough evidence to say that it is likely that God doesn't exist.
I don't think that there is enough evidence to say that it is likely that God does exist.
Right. That's the proof for atheism - there's no reason to believe in God.
Yeah, yeah, agnostics. I hear you muttering. But here's the thing - there's a whole fuckton of things that there is no reason to believe in, like invisible ninjas or spectral tapiers or honest Republicans. But I don't see agnostics going around sitting on those fences; they're as content as the rest of us to relegate those to the "not going to worry about it" pile.
But, for some reason, to agnostics, God gets special treatment. Even though they're "atheist" about everything else with exactly the same amount of evidence for, they're oh-so-careful to set God apart.
Get over yourselves, agnostics. There's no difference between your beliefs and atheism.
You make a good point Crash, there seems to be in my opinion a progression from theist to agnostic to atheist to nihlist. Going from I believe in GOD. to...there may be a God or maybe not....to There is no god....to ...everything is abitrary and absurd. Agnostics have not given up that there may be a God. Atheist have not given up that even though there is no god the laws of nature explain existance. So my question is atheist when are you going to get over yourself and jump into the abyss of nihlism!
Hang on a minute Crash, don't get so hostile! I realise this is probably straying off-topic but let me explain:
I prefer to classify myself as a "Borderline Atheist" (an Agnostic who wants to sit on one more fence) . I used to classify myself as an atheist but then, after a lot of thinking, I realised that although I believed that a belief in God shouldn't affect the way we live our life neither should a disbelief in God (btw I know this sounds a bit twee, but I can't think of a better way of putting it).
People should be able to believe whatever they want to believe, as long as it doesn't impose on anybody else. If people want to believe in invisible ninjas that's their look out. If people want to believe that the evidence for God is presented every time somebody publishes a paper in Cell, fine by me.
My belief is that the existance of God is irrelevant to how you treat people, and how we interpret evidence. It may not be a million miles away from your beliefs, but I just can't discount the possibility.
This message has been edited by Ooook!, 10-28-2004 05:12 PM
It does not matter if one is atheist or agnostic, you will both burn in hell equally so why not just get it over with and kill yourselves. What does it matter one less carbon based bag of water . Just kidding. LOL!!! *edit typo.
This message has been edited by 1.61803, 10-28-2004 05:27 PM