What Christians really think about hell and Judgment

Status
Not open for further replies.

trientje

Newbie
May 23, 2012
886
10
✟8,577.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
^_^ Coming from the epitome of intelligence and reason that is trientje.... ^_^ ^_^



...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.



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

Wow! Why have you resorted to criticism of me? Do you not have anything more to discuss so you resort to criticism? I'm not denigrating anything. I'm simply trying to point out that science has not proven or disproved the existence of God. So for a person to state that they don't believe in God because science hasn't proven he exists is a mute reason. when a person states he believes in God, they can only say they do for subjective reasons. Those subjective reasons can not be proven either.
 
Upvote 0

Gadarene

-______-
Apr 16, 2012
11,461
2,507
London
✟75,247.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Labour
Wow! Why have you resorted to criticism of me? Do you not have anything more to discuss so you resort to criticism?

Evidently not, given that I made points after criticising the fact that what you think of science is somewhat moot ^_^

I'm not denigrating anything.

Please. You talk about ooh how awesome science is, but you're quite keen to ignore it when it's personally convenient. Not fooling anyone.

I'm simply trying to point out that science has not proven or disproved the existence of God. So for a person to state that they don't believe in God because science hasn't proven he exists is a mute reason. when a person states he believes in God, they can only say they do for subjective reasons. Those subjective reasons can not be proven either.

Right. Which is why many of us are atheists. Subjectivity and a lack of empirical evidence are not good reasons for belief, is the point. (and few people here if any have claimed that science has proved god does not exist, so in the context of the atheists you are actually trying to reach, this is a strawman)
 
Upvote 0

trientje

Newbie
May 23, 2012
886
10
✟8,577.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Evidently not, given that I made points after criticising the fact that what you think of science is somewhat moot ^_^



Please. You talk about ooh how awesome science is, but you're quite keen to ignore it when it's personally convenient. Not fooling anyone.



Right. Which is why many of us are atheists. Subjectivity and a lack of empirical evidence are not good reasons for belief, is the point. (and few people here if any have claimed that science has proved god does not exist, so in the context of the atheists you are actually trying to reach, this is a strawman)

I'm so glad you have me all figured out. What an accomplishment. Lack of empirical evidence is a good reason to keep an open mind about such things as faith.
 
Upvote 0

Gadarene

-______-
Apr 16, 2012
11,461
2,507
London
✟75,247.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Labour
I'm so glad you have me all figured out. What an accomplishment.

Now now, don't get snippy because your ignorance of science was exposed.

Lack of empirical evidence is a good reason to keep an open mind about such things as faith.

Which we do. The problem is no actual evidence that stands up is forthcoming from you or other religionists. And if such a thing is not capable of being evidenced, then if you deity does actually exist he should reconsider lighting people on fire for not believing in something that can't be evidenced reliably.
 
Upvote 0

trientje

Newbie
May 23, 2012
886
10
✟8,577.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Now now, don't get snippy because your ignorance of science was exposed.



Which we do. The problem is no actual evidence that stands up is forthcoming from you or other religionists. And if such a thing is not capable of being evidenced, then if you deity does actually exist he should reconsider lighting people on fire for not believing in something that can't be evidenced reliably.

NO, I'm not "snippy" what you don't understand is I don't expect anything better to come from you except criticism when you do not have anything constructive to add. The burden of proof that there is a creator does not lie with the believer unless the believer decides to take on a debate, which I'm not. I"m simply saying, The proof of a creator has not been proven scientifically. So if God can not be proven to exist scientifically then why do you so adamantly deny him?
 
Upvote 0

dlamberth

Senior Contributor
Supporter
Oct 12, 2003
19,212
2,813
Oregon
✟723,684.00
Faith
Other Religion
Politics
US-Others
Now now, don't get snippy because your ignorance of science was exposed.
There is the living, non-mechanical/non-chemical aspect of this Creation that science is unable to measure and quantify. It's when I started tuning into that aspect of life that I began to become a Lover of God.

.
 
Upvote 0

Jane_the_Bane

Gaia's godchild
Feb 11, 2004
19,359
3,426
✟168,333.00
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
UK-Greens
I don't look at any of this as a conspiracy against Christianity.
And yet you don't exactly seem to look at it as established fact, either.
There's really no debating that the world is significantly older than 6,000 years; that no global flood has devastated the earth and killed every species that was not aboard a single ship at any point during history or pre-history; that Egypt was never struck by the plagues described in the Bible; that no pharaoh in the long history of Egypt ever drowned in the Re(e)d Sea, especially not Rameses; that languages evolved and grew apart long before the supposed construction of the notorious tower reaching for heaven (which would have been smaller than any skyscraper we build today, and did not have the potential to reach the sky/heaven in any case); that neither an earthquake nor an eclipse was reported in ca. 33 CE, etc.
Darwin, was just a man, a crazy man at that, but his discoveries are part of history.
What exactly constituted Darwin's "craziness"? No all of his observations have withstood the test of time (as he did not know about DNA, and thought that acquired traits could be passed down directly from parent to child, for example), but for the most part, his hypothesis was spot-on, and has consistently been proven to be correct.

The age of the universe, the earth and the events stated in the bible are but theories.
If we're talking in terms of scientific language, a "theory" is the closest thing you'll ever get to facts etched in stone. By the time a hypothesis is granted the name of "theory" it is WAY beyond the phase of blind and unsupported speculation commonly associated with the term in colloquial usage.

Accordingly, "it's just a theory" is about the worst defense of Biblical literalism anybody could ever come up with, because it not only fails as an argument, it also betrays a profound (cultivated) ignorance WRT the subject matter.

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.
I'm excited that the Hittite libraries have been found, yet it should not really come as a surprise that the ancient Israelites were able to name the peoples and places that existed in their time correctly.
None of that helps to establish that the supernatural events described in the Bible are anything other than myth, just as discovering Troy based on descriptions in the Iliad did not establish that the Olympian gods were actually walking the earth during the Trojan war, squabbling about a golden apple.

As for God inspiring medical progress: if things worked that way, why didn't God use the Bible (which you believe to be his infallible and timeless Word) to communicate that knowledge a long time ago? I'm sure the ancients would have been glad to discover than some of the more gruesome diseases out there would have lost their menace if they could only get their hands on some anti-biotics. That caesarean sections needn't be lethal for mothers if you managed to keep the wound sterile and relatively small. Or that plagues could be prevented by vaccination.
 
Upvote 0

Freodin

Devout believer in a theologically different God
Mar 9, 2002
15,711
3,761
Germany, Bavaria, Middle Franconia
Visit site
✟242,764.00
Faith
Atheist
There is the living, non-mechanical/non-chemical aspect of this Creation that science is unable to measure and quantify.
There is? Is it only unmeasurable and unquantifiable, or is it unmentionable also?
 
Upvote 0

trientje

Newbie
May 23, 2012
886
10
✟8,577.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Darwin, was just a man, a crazy man at that, but his discoveries are part of history.
What exactly constituted Darwin's "craziness"? No all of his observations have withstood the test of time (as he did not know about DNA, and thought that acquired traits could be passed down directly from parent to child, for example), but for the most part, his hypothesis was spot-on, and has consistently been proven to be correct.

What exactly constituted Darwin's "craziness"? No all of his observations have withstood the test of time (as he did not know about DNA, and thought that acquired traits could be passed down directly from parent to child, for example), but for the most part, his hypothesis was spot-on, and has consistently been proven to be correct.


If we're talking in terms of scientific language, a "theory" is the closest thing you'll ever get to facts etched in stone. By the time a hypothesis is granted the name of "theory" it is WAY beyond the phase of blind and unsupported speculation commonly associated with the term in colloquial usage.

Accordingly, "it's just a theory" is about the worst defense of Biblical literalism anybody could ever come up with, because it not only fails as an argument, it also betrays a profound (cultivated) ignorance WRT the subject matter.


I'm excited that the Hittite libraries have been found, yet it should not really come as a surprise that the ancient Israelites were able to name the peoples and places that existed in their time correctly.
None of that helps to establish that the supernatural events described in the Bible are anything other than myth, just as discovering Troy based on descriptions in the Iliad did not establish that the Olympian gods were actually walking the earth during the Trojan war, squabbling about a golden apple.

As for God inspiring medical progress: if things worked that way, why didn't God use the Bible (which you believe to be his infallible and timeless Word) to communicate that knowledge a long time ago? I'm sure the ancients would have been glad to discover than some of the more gruesome diseases out there would have lost their menace if they could only get their hands on some anti-biotics. That caesarean sections needn't be lethal for mothers if you managed to keep the wound sterile and relatively small. Or that plagues could be prevented by vaccination.[/quote]


Darwin, was just a man, a crazy man at that, but his discoveries are part of history.
What exactly constituted Darwin's "craziness"? No all of his observations have withstood the test of time (as he did not know about DNA, and thought that acquired traits could be passed down directly from parent to child, for example), but for the most part, his hypothesis was spot-on, and has consistently been proven to be correct.

Darwin was a tormented man and if you read about his Grandfathers it might be noted that his mental problems could have been inherited. Nevertheless he has gone down in history. His theory of evolution is still a topic argued and looked at today. Was his hypothesis "spot on"? thats still being argued. But still, the fact that he did have mental problems should be a fact in considering his hypotheses.


As for God inspiring medical progress: if things worked that way, why didn't God use the Bible (which you believe to be his infallible and timeless Word) to communicate that knowledge a long time ago? I'm sure the ancients would have been glad to discover than some of the more gruesome diseases out there would have lost their menace if they could only get their hands on some anti-biotics. That caesarean sections needn't be lethal for mothers if you managed to keep the wound sterile and relatively small. Or that plagues could be prevented by vaccination.
[/QUOTE]

Well gee! why doesn't God grow back the leg of an amputee??? Why didn't he just heal everyone over all history, after all he is God. Deut 6:16- It is written again, You shall not tempt the Lord your God. Were back to the same old argument. Who is God? And the same old mindset, if there really is a God then he must perform the way I think he ought to perform and if he doesn't I will mock him and claim he is inept and even go as far as to deny him. OR I will choose to make my own God, I will search the bible and take what I like out of it, then I will go to other gods and take what I like from them and WHALLA!!!!! I now have a god that I created.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Freodin

Devout believer in a theologically different God
Mar 9, 2002
15,711
3,761
Germany, Bavaria, Middle Franconia
Visit site
✟242,764.00
Faith
Atheist
Oh...it's more than mentioned by the Poet and Song writer or the Lover of Nature.

.
And there is anything that the poets and songwriters and lovers of nature mention that is not based on "mechanical" and "chemical" aspects?

What is it?
 
Upvote 0
C

crimsonleaf

Guest
And there is anything that the poets and songwriters and lovers of nature mention that is not based on "mechanical" and "chemical" aspects?

What is it?
Your question is better directed as "what triggers the chemical and mechanical responses that nature lovers experience". I've yet to discover the biological imperative for the appreciation of a good view, or a fine painting. Perhaps you could explain?
 
  • Like
Reactions: dlamberth
Upvote 0

Freodin

Devout believer in a theologically different God
Mar 9, 2002
15,711
3,761
Germany, Bavaria, Middle Franconia
Visit site
✟242,764.00
Faith
Atheist
Your question is better directed as "what triggers the chemical and mechanical responses that nature lovers experience". I've yet to discover the biological imperative for the appreciation of a good view, or a fine painting. Perhaps you could explain?
A very simplistic explanation: brain chemistry. It is the complex reaction of a complex machinery to an outside stimulus.

And if you in turn could now explain the NON-biological imperative for the appreciation of a good view or a fine painting?
 
Upvote 0

Freodin

Devout believer in a theologically different God
Mar 9, 2002
15,711
3,761
Germany, Bavaria, Middle Franconia
Visit site
✟242,764.00
Faith
Atheist
How would you describe the outside stimulus called poetry?

.
Language, sound and rhythm, syntax and semantics, content and connotation.

All of it processed by the brain, in a complex system, but a material system nontheless.

To you also the request: explain the alternative!


I have discussed this topic before, and I know some of the reactions I get. "You reduce it all to materialism. You think all the beauty and poetry and love is mere physics, just chemisty, only electrons in your brain."
And this is were these reactions go wrong, and where I hope you (and the other readers) will not go. It is not "mere and just and only". It is what it is.

Beauty is something our brain does. Poetry is something our brain does. Love is something our brain does.

The things that our brain does are awesome! Heck, "awesome" is something that our brain does!

And now really: explain the alternative! So there is something else. Something "higher". Something not based on the material, physical, chemical world. Call it "soul", if you want. Call it something else.

Is beauty and poetry and love now merely, only, just what our soul does?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Gadarene

-______-
Apr 16, 2012
11,461
2,507
London
✟75,247.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Labour
NO, I'm not "snippy" what you don't understand is I don't expect anything better to come from you except criticism when you do not have anything constructive to add.

Which is funny, because I actually gave you constructive criticism by pointing out your misunderstanding of the word theory.

If you actually paid attention, you would have learned this.

The burden of proof that there is a creator does not lie with the believer unless the believer decides to take on a debate, which I'm not. I"m simply saying, The proof of a creator has not been proven scientifically.

Oh, how convenient for you, eh trientje? Means you can just say whatever you want and not be held to it.

If your nonsense faith really is true, why do you have to hold to so many double standards, and evade so many questions and evade the burden of proof?

So if God can not be proven to exist scientifically then why do you so adamantly deny him?

Point out ONE post where I have denied that God exists.

I have said that there is no evidence and reason to think he does exist, but that is not the same thing.

Again, trientje, it really would help if you actually paid attention to those who actually know what they're talking about once in a while, you'll go far.
 
Upvote 0

Gadarene

-______-
Apr 16, 2012
11,461
2,507
London
✟75,247.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Labour
Darwin was a tormented man and if you read about his Grandfathers it might be noted that his mental problems could have been inherited. Nevertheless he has gone down in history. His theory of evolution is still a topic argued and looked at today. Was his hypothesis "spot on"? thats still being argued. But still, the fact that he did have mental problems should be a fact in considering his hypotheses.

Well, great. We tested his hypothesis, and it turns out to be true. Now what?

And it's also thought that the vision on the road to damascus was Paul having some kind of mental seizure or hallucination.

You going to accept that hypothesis, trientje, or are we back to double-standard time again?

Well gee! why doesn't God grow back the leg of an amputee???

Good question! It would be something móre than the laughable "healings" he supposedly does today.

Why didn't he just heal everyone over all history, after all he is God. Deut 6:16- It is written again, You shall not tempt the Lord your God. Were back to the same old argument. Who is God? And the same old mindset, if there really is a God then he must perform the way I think he ought to perform and if he doesn't I will mock him and claim he is inept and even go as far as to deny him. OR I will choose to make my own God, I will search the bible and take what I like out of it, then I will go to other gods and take what I like from them and WHALLA!!!!! I now have a god that I created.

When you have presented no good reasons to the contrary - pretty much, yeah.
 
Upvote 0

dlamberth

Senior Contributor
Supporter
Oct 12, 2003
19,212
2,813
Oregon
✟723,684.00
Faith
Other Religion
Politics
US-Others
And now really: explain the alternative! So there is something else. Something "higher". Something not based on the material, physical, chemical world. Call it "soul", if you want. Call it something else.
I call it "Life".

Is beauty and poetry and love now merely, only, just what our soul does?
Seeing and experiencing Love, Harmony and Beauty is one of the things that makes us Human Beings. I see Life as bit more than putty made of material, physical or chemical.

But I understand a bit more now. If a person is not opened to the awareness of anything beyond the material, physical or chemical, they are not going to be aware of what might be beyond that. Each of us has our own place in life.

.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
C

crimsonleaf

Guest
A very simplistic explanation: brain chemistry. It is the complex reaction of a complex machinery to an outside stimulus.

And if you in turn could now explain the NON-biological imperative for the appreciation of a good view or a fine painting?

Nah, brain chemistry is the result of the stimuli. What are the stimuli? Try again.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Crandaddy

Classical Theist
Aug 8, 2012
1,315
81
✟21,142.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Private
The neurosciences (and I along with them) conceive of the mind as an emergent property of the nervous system.

The mind may be emergent in some sense, but I don't see why emergentism necessarily entails physicalism. William Hasker, for example, defends a non-physicalist form of emergentism, and I myself subscribe to a species of hylemorphic dualism, which isn't terribly unlike it.

But perhaps the main reason why I reject physicalism of mind is because the mind has the ability to apprehend formal aspects of physical objects in a way that physical objects themselves cannot. This is to say that when we form abstract concepts of physical objects, or when we perform mathematical operations or draw valid logical inferences, the formal objects we entertain in abstraction are precisely determinate of the content of our thoughts in a way they cannot be of physical objects. Yet such determinacy is indispensable, for without it, knowledge (or at the very least, knowledge ascertained by way of rational thought processes) would be impossible. James Ross spells this out in greater detail here.

And again, other species are capable of abstract, rational thought as well.
Perhaps they can. This is of course an empirical matter, but I'd need to assess the evidence myself.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.