What Christians really think about hell and Judgment

[Jane_the_Bane]

Trientje:

As you continuously appear to avoid or omit any issues that do not fit neatly into your pre-conceived world view, here's my question again:

If you believe that the conscience is a supernatural quality closely connected to the equally supernatural "soul" - then how come that other animals have a conscience, too, even though your religion clearly teaches that they do not possess an immortal soul at all?
How do you account for that?

You write about "synopses" [sic], yet it seems to me that you understand very little about the natural sciences, and only grab at random snippets that seem compatible with Biblical literalism or your beliefs.

 

[quatona]

I still don't understand how I'm labeling you.

I explained exactly what I meant (just like I did when I said you tell me what I will say):
I´ll do it again: I gave you my thoughts, and your only response was: "Is that relativism?". You didn´t consider what I wrote, you simply were out to put a label on it, and then elaborate on the label.

You seem defensive.

I haven´t appointed you my therapist. Your impressions of my personal traits and mental states don´t belong here.
But I´ll confess as much: I am beginning to lose my patience with you.

 

[quatona]

This is the entry that, to me was a definition of relativism. b : a view that ethical truths depend on the individuals and groups holding them. Each person forms their own beliefs and morals.

I´m still not sure how you could possibly read that into my statement - but ok: minsunderstandings happen easily here.
Have you - in the meantime - understood my explanations as to what I actually meant? Or do you want me to explain it a third time?

 

[trientje]

Trientje:

As you continuously appear to avoid or omit any issues that do not fit neatly into your pre-conceived world view, here's my question again:

If you believe that the conscience is a supernatural quality closely connected to the equally supernatural "soul" - then how come that other animals have a conscience, too, even though your religion clearly teaches that they do not possess an immortal soul at all?
How do you account for that?

You write about "synopses" [sic], yet it seems to me that you understand very little about the natural sciences, and only grab at random snippets that seem compatible with Biblical literalism or your beliefs.

What I'm trying to say is science has figured out how the brain works but has yet to prove that we have a conscience. the bible defines conscience, science can't. the conscience of the bible are God's words and we believe what God says based on faith. When we all discuss things like conscience we have no common ground as to discuss. The biological process- I gave a short definition as to how things work. In doing so I was trying to point out that yes, science has discovered certain things about the workings of the body. Science is a wonderful thing. but science hasn't proved there is a God or that there isn't a God.

 

[trientje]

Trientje:

As you continuously appear to avoid or omit any issues that do not fit neatly into your pre-conceived world view, here's my question again:

If you believe that the conscience is a supernatural quality closely connected to the equally supernatural "soul" - then how come that other animals have a conscience, too, even though your religion clearly teaches that they do not possess an immortal soul at all?
How do you account for that?

You write about "synopses" [sic], yet it seems to me that you understand very little about the natural sciences, and only grab at random snippets that seem compatible with Biblical literalism or your beliefs.

NO, I'm saying that science proves the biological events in the nervous system. But science can not prove the "conscience" described in the bible. The biological events are understandable. The biblical description of "conscience" is believed by faith. I thought I was being clear when I quoted the scripture 1 cor 13 For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully know. This verse means that there is much we don't know. Either in science or things of God. I will not defend myself in your criticism of me. You have a right to criticize me is you choose to do so.

 

[trientje]

That's pretty well correct... there is no evidence there is such thing as a soul.

right, no evidence. They don't have evidence. Therefore science doesn't know for sure.

 

[Dave Ellis]

What I'm trying to say is science has figured out how the brain works but has yet to prove that we have a conscience. the bible defines conscience, science can't. the conscience of the bible are God's words and we believe what God says based on faith. When we all discuss things like conscience we have no common ground as to discuss. The biological process- I gave a short definition as to how things work. In doing so I was trying to point out that yes, science has discovered certain things about the workings of the body. Science is a wonderful thing. but science hasn't proved there is a God or that there isn't a God.

Actually, the fact we have a conscience can be scientifically proven

 

[Dave Ellis]

right, no evidence. They don't have evidence. Therefore science doesn't know for sure.

Correct, and we have no reason to believe it exists.

 

[trientje]

Correct, and we have no reason to believe it exists.

and we have no reason to believe God doesn't exist.

 

[trientje]

Actually, the fact we have a conscience can be scientifically proven

conscience can be scientifically proven or has it been been scientifically proven? I'm talking about the definition of conscience in the bible.

 

[Crandaddy]

That's pretty well correct... there is no evidence there is such thing as a soul.

Sure there is. There are rational causes. We explain human behaviors in terms of reasons, not in terms of mechanistic brain processes. Just try coming up with a mechanistic, materialistic explanation of rational behavior that preserves its rationality.

And this isn't to mention the intractable (and I would say fatal) difficulties that mechanistic, materialistic reductionism of mental phenomena faces in the first place. Non-physicalism of mind is very well-founded.

 

[Freodin]

NO, I'm saying that science proves the biological events in the nervous system. But science can not prove the "conscience" described in the bible. The biological events are understandable. The biblical description of "conscience" is believed by faith. I thought I was being clear when I quoted the scripture 1 cor 13 For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully know. This verse means that there is much we don't know. Either in science or things of God. I will not defend myself in your criticism of me. You have a right to criticize me is you choose to do so.

But the "biblical description of 'conscience'" is contradicted by factual evidence. There are things that are true that could not be true if your version was correct.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Sure there is. There are rational causes. We explain human behaviors in terms of reasons, not in terms of mechanistic brain processes. Just try coming up with a mechanistic, materialistic explanation of rational behavior that preserves its rationality.

And this isn't to mention the intractable (and I would say fatal) difficulties that mechanistic, materialistic reductionism of mental phenomena faces in the first place. Non-physicalism of mind is very well-founded.

The neurosciences (and I along with them) conceive of the mind as an emergent property of the nervous system. And again, other species are capable of abstract, rational thought as well.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

and we have no reason to believe God doesn't exist.

Unlike the conscience, God is not testable, and as such unfalsifiable.

That, in itself, does not mean that (a) god does not exist - it just means that if there's a deity, its existence cannot be determined by scientific means, because science can only analyze natural, repeatable processes.

HOWEVER, looking at the Biblical myths and contrasting them with what can be determined about this world and its history makes it perfectly clear that what we find in the pages of the Good Book is just another collection of ancient mythology: primitive tribesmen trying to explain things that were yet beyond their comprehension, and attributing it to an anthropomorphic supernatural source.

Any literalist reading of the Bible has been off the table for roughly two hundred years now, and not just because of the much maligned Mr. Darwin and his discovery of natural selection. Geology, astronomy, astrophysics, archaeology, historical linguistics, biology... you'll be hard-pressed to find any scholarly discipline whose findings are compatible with Biblical literalism. You may try to attribute that to some secret conspiracy against "Christianity", but in that case, reality itself must have conspired to bring it down. The age of the universe, the age of the earth, the absence of a global flood, the absence of any evidence of the exodus (on any scale approximating what's described in the Bible), etc.

 

[trientje]

Sure there is. There are rational causes. We explain human behaviors in terms of reasons, not in terms of mechanistic brain processes. Just try coming up with a mechanistic, materialistic explanation of rational behavior that preserves its rationality.

And this isn't to mention the intractable (and I would say fatal) difficulties that mechanistic, materialistic reductionism of mental phenomena faces in the first place. Non-physicalism of mind is very well-founded.

So you are talking about Mechanistic-materialism. The so-called scientific revolution?Thomas Hobbs? You are carrying this a little to far. What I'm trying to simply say is this. Science can not prove there is such a thing as a conscience as described in the bible. Science can show how the brain works, to a certain degree, and the chemical reactions that take place to form thought and such but they can not show or prove the description of conscience that is in the bible, which, according to the bible is the prompting of the Holy spirit. The fact remains, science can not prove there is a God but they also can't prove there isn't a God. All of it remains a mystery. So for one to say that they don't believe in God because science has proved it, or for one to say there isn't evidence of a God according to science so therefore God doesn't exist, is a mute reason. As a Christian I will tell you that science hasn't proved there isn't a God or that there is a God. I believe there is a God based on faith.

 

[Gadarene]

So you are talking about Mechanistic-materialism. The so-called scientific revolution?Thomas Hobbs? You are carrying this a little to far. What I'm trying to simply say is this. Science can not prove there is such a thing as a conscience as described in the bible. Science can show how the brain works, to a certain degree, and the chemical reactions that take place to form thought and such but they can not show or prove the description of conscience that is in the bible, which, according to the bible is the prompting of the Holy spirit. The fact remains, science can not prove there is a God but they also can't prove there isn't a God. All of it remains a mystery. So for one to say that they don't believe in God because science has proved it, or for one to say there isn't evidence of a God according to science so therefore God doesn't exist, is a mute reason. As a Christian I will tell you that science hasn't proved there isn't a God or that there is a God. I believe there is a God based on faith.

Not proving there isn't a god isn't a good argument for your case. And apart from anything else, it's basically special pleading, as everything that can't be proved to not exist you do not believe in based on faith.

Science hasn't proved there is no god, but the fact that it has shown a lot of prior religious claims to be false (age of the earth/universe, for example) and the fact that no evidence-based claims for any gods stand up to scrutiny makes the case for non-belief far stronger than that of belief.

If science does not describe the conscience as the Bible describes it, then there is simply no good reason to think the conscience as the Bible describes it exists, as an assertion is not evidence, nor is dualism/god of the gaps.

 

[Freodin]

So you are talking about Mechanistic-materialism. The so-called scientific revolution?Thomas Hobbs? You are carrying this a little to far. What I'm trying to simply say is this. Science can not prove there is such a thing as a conscience as described in the bible. Science can show how the brain works, to a certain degree, and the chemical reactions that take place to form thought and such but they can not show or prove the description of conscience that is in the bible, which, according to the bible is the prompting of the Holy spirit. The fact remains, science can not prove there is a God but they also can't prove there isn't a God. All of it remains a mystery. So for one to say that they don't believe in God because science has proved it, or for one to say there isn't evidence of a God according to science so therefore God doesn't exist, is a mute reason. As a Christian I will tell you that science hasn't proved there isn't a God or that there is a God. I believe there is a God based on faith.

So there is a phenomenon, which can be and is explained by science. But you "believe on faith" this phenomenon is in fact something different, something supernatural that science cannot "disprove".

We have a perfectly valid explanation... so why would we add another one, an unverifiable and unfalsifiable one?

 

[trientje]

Unlike the conscience, God is not testable, and as such unfalsifiable.

That, in itself, does not mean that (a) god does not exist - it just means that if there's a deity, its existence cannot be determined by scientific means, because science can only analyze natural, repeatable processes.

HOWEVER, looking at the Biblical myths and contrasting them with what can be determined about this world and its history makes it perfectly clear that what we find in the pages of the Good Book is just another collection of ancient mythology: primitive tribesmen trying to explain things that were yet beyond their comprehension, and attributing it to an anthropomorphic supernatural source.





Any literalist reading of the Bible has been off the table for roughly two hundred years now, and not just because of the much maligned Mr. Darwin and his discovery of natural selection. Geology, astronomy, astrophysics, archaeology, historical linguistics, biology... you'll be hard-pressed to find any scholarly discipline whose findings are compatible with Biblical literalism. You may try to attribute that to some secret conspiracy against "Christianity", but in that case, reality itself must have conspired to bring it down. The age of the universe, the age of the earth, the absence of a global flood, the absence of any evidence of the exodus (on any scale approximating what's described in the Bible), etc.

That, in itself, does not mean that (a) god does not exist - it just means that if there's a deity, its existence cannot be determined by scientific means, because science can only analyze natural, repeatable processes.

that is true.

Any literalist reading of the Bible has been off the table for roughly two hundred years now, and not just because of the much maligned Mr. Darwin and his discovery of natural selection. Geology, astronomy, astrophysics, archaeology, historical linguistics, biology... you'll be hard-pressed to find any scholarly discipline whose findings are compatible with Biblical literalism. You may try to attribute that to some secret conspiracy against "Christianity", but in that case, reality itself must have conspired to bring it down. The age of the universe, the age of the earth, the absence of a global flood, the absence of any evidence of the exodus (on any scale approximating what's described in the Bible), etc.

[/QUOTE]

I don't look at any of this as a conspiracy against Christianity. Darwin, was just a man, a crazy man at that, but his discoveries are part of history. The age of the universe, the earth and the events stated in the bible are but theories. How marvelous that we can look into the universe and learn what we have, How exciting that the archaeologists are unearthing ancient ruins and discovering things that were described in the bible. And most of all, how wonderful for mankind that medical discoveries are being made every day to combat disease and make surgical procedures more successful. Could it be that all these discoveries are not the results of man himself but they are discoveries that God has deemed to provide them with? Should man take full responsibility for them? We don't know.

 

[Gadarene]

I don't look at any of this as a conspiracy against Christianity. Darwin, was just a man, a crazy man at that, but his discoveries are part of history.

Coming from the epitome of intelligence and reason that is trientje....

The age of the universe, the earth and the events stated in the bible are but theories.

...who then confirms her ignorance of the word theory.

Theory in science does not mean conjecture, they're based on facts.

In addition, you have no problem with atomic "theory" or gravitational "theory" because those don't cause issues with your subjective, personal interpretation of the Bible, so another double standard appears.

How marvelous that we can look into the universe and learn what we have, How exciting that the archaeologists are unearthing ancient ruins and discovering things that were described in the bible. And most of all, how wonderful for mankind that medical discoveries are being made every day to combat disease and make surgical procedures more successful. Could it be that all these discoveries are not the results of man himself but they are discoveries that God has deemed to provide them with? Should man take full responsibility for them? We don't know.

Don't pretend that you actually care about these discoveries when you selectively denigrate them to defend your feeble religion.

 

[trientje]

If you believe that the conscience is a supernatural quality closely connected to the equally supernatural "soul" - then how come that other animals have a conscience, too, even though your religion clearly teaches that they do not possess an immortal soul at all?
How do you account for that?

You write about "synopses" [sic], yet it seems to me that you understand very little about the natural sciences, and only grab at random snippets that seem compatible with Biblical literalism or your beliefs.

How do you know that animals have a conscience?