Why is hell even necessary?

[DontTreadOnMike]

Razeontherock also said this is a long way from saying life came from non life.

razeontherock is also a long way from being a scientist. So am I. But let's ask a biologist. Ask Science Questions And Get Answers

 

[razeontherock]

Got an answer on there?

The fact is, we are a very VERY long way from being able to show life could ever come from non-life. And if it can't, Ev becomes moot, because things didn't happen per our explanations. But this seems to be beyond the grasp of the scientific community.

 

[DontTreadOnMike]

Got an answer on there?

Ask and find out. You might be amazed at what you can learn if you ask actual experts. Sign up is free and doesnt even require an email address.

The fact is, we are a very VERY long way from being able to show life could ever come from non-life. And if it can't, Ev becomes moot, because things didn't happen per our explanations. But this seems to be beyond the grasp of the scientific community.

That's not true. The origins of life has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution has already been proven independently of abiogenesis. It doesn't hinge on whether life was specially created or not. Evolution allows for that. It only deals with how life changed once it started. If a god created the first life then he designed it to adapt and evolve because that's what it does.

 

[razeontherock]

The arrogance of saying we know how the ecosystem we find ourselves a part of came to be, while we cannot know how the process started, is just too great for words.

 

[DontTreadOnMike]

The arrogance of saying we know how the ecosystem we find ourselves a part of came to be, while we cannot know how the process started, is just too great for words.

Nature is testable, it is knowable. To know nature is to probe and understand a little bit about the mind of God. That's how Kepler felt about it and that man was brilliant.

If God made nature and he set it up to run like a well oiled machine, with rules, and predictable outcomes to actions, why would you NOT want to know as much as possible about it? If the universe exists for God's glory (it certainly doesn't exist for us. Most of it is hostile to life) then he probably wants us to learn as much as possible about it. He made the universe to be knowable and he gave us minds that are able to understand and reason and observe, why would he then want us to shut them off, or to trick us with ridiculous things like embedded age and all that nonsense? Is God the author of confusion?

There's nothing arrogant about learning how the universe works with an honest and open mind.

 

[razeontherock]

why would you NOT want to know as much as possible about it?

That is not in the least responsive to anything I've ever said. (Does illustrate my point though; taking a little knowledge and then wildly drawing conclusions)

 

[DontTreadOnMike]

That is not in the least responsive to anything I've ever said. (Does illustrate my point though; taking a little knowledge and then wildly drawing conclusions)

I think we just had a woosh moment here. The point of what I was saying was we dont have a little knowledge. We know why we see all the diversity of life that we see. How? Because god made the universe testable and knowable to our god-given brains. The only thing we dont know about life is how the very first little self replicating protein became "alive". Maybe it was god. That's fine. We can't say it wasn't. But to pretend that you know more about it than people who have devoted entire lifetimes to this subject, just because you read something in an ancient, historically unreliable text, THAT I would say is arrogant.

Who is the one jumping to conclusions based on a little information? On the one hand we have scientists who spend thier lives researching, studying, observing, testing, measuring, etc. and after all that, they say "despite our vast amount data collected, and everything we've learned, we still have no problem admitting we don't know. But we have a couple ideas. Maybe theyll turn out to be right, maybe not."

On the other hand we have a group of people who say, "Well we do know how life started. It says so right in this ancient, non-scientific text written by desert nomads who didn't know about atoms or chemistry, and believed that you can breed an animal to have stripes by showing it a striped rod while it mates."

 

[razeontherock]

I think we just had a woosh moment here.

No wooshing on this side of the screen:

The point of what I was saying was we dont have a little knowledge. We know why we see all the diversity of life that we see. The only thing we dont know about life is how the very first little self replicating protein became "alive".

I already responded to this, saying it is arrogant beyond words. That in no way means I claim to "know more about it than those who have devoted their lives to" studying natural science. It is a simple observation that our scientific community currently covers it's ears to, which is: until we can put it all together, from cosmology to abio-genesis to Ev, we can't really claim to know the process from the first spark of life to modern man the way we detail in textbooks.

What we do actually "know" is not even known, but will no doubt be overturned at least in part. Whether we choose to call our current knowledge base a lot or a little is purely subjective, but it's not nearly enough to make the claims academia makes. If we would stick to what is known and be more honest about what amounts to formalized closure, the level of debate on the issue would simmer down to something approaching what is reasonable. And of course this is more of a problem at lower grade levels. Addressing this problem would improve education, and I think that should be obvious!

So back to why hell is necessary: how else are we going to contain the Cr / Ev debate?

 

[DontTreadOnMike]

I already responded to this, saying it is arrogant beyond words. That in no way means I claim to "know more about it than those who have devoted their lives to" studying natural science.

Sure it does. You claim to know how life started. God did it with magic as described in the Bible. Am I wrong? Maybe you personally hold some unorthodox views, I don't know, but you can't deny that that's what the majority of Christians believe.

It is a simple observation that our scientific community currently covers it's ears to, which is: until we can put it all together, from cosmology to abio-genesis to Ev, we can't really claim to know the process from the first spark of life to modern man the way we detail in textbooks.

It's been said before but just because the final word on abiogenesis and evolution hasn't been written doesn't mean that the first word hasn't. You can't discount all of the knowledge we have just because we don't have one of the steps figured out yet. That's how puzzles work. The pieces fall in to place one by one. The whole pictures will never come into focus all at once. But you can't discount the HUGE chunk of the puzzle that we have finished.

What we do actually "know" is not even known, but will no doubt be overturned at least in part. Whether we choose to call our current knowledge base a lot or a little is purely subjective, but it's not nearly enough to make the claims academia makes. If we would stick to what is known and be more honest about what amounts to formalized closure, the level of debate on the issue would simmer down to something approaching what is reasonable. And of course this is more of a problem at lower grade levels. Addressing this problem would improve education, and I think that should be obvious!

So back to why hell is necessary: how else are we going to contain the Cr / Ev debate?

With all due respect, because I like you, I don't think you have a firm grasp on what scientists actually do and how much they know and understand. You think there is a greater degree of uncertainty about evolution and the cosmos than there really is. Granted, there will always technically be SOME uncertainty; that's how science works. You keep the ideas that work and throw out the ones that don't no matter how strongly your attachment is to them. (can religions say the same?)

Science is constantly moving forward and changing because we are constantly making new discoveries and honing our knowledge. But you know where science is not heading? Towards the super natural. So far, all of our knowledge-honing, theory-changing discoveries have turned out to be NOT magic. Rainbows used to be miracles. Now, not magic. Disease was cause by spirits. Actually germs; not magic. The universe used to be a series of concentric crystalline platonic solids centered around the earth. Actually it's vast and cold and indifferent. Earth is a microscopic bubble in the foam of the cosmic sea. It's a speck of dirt in a vast dust storm. Mankind used to be a race specially created just 6,000 years ago. Now, EVERY piece of evidence, without contradiction, supports the fact we are descended from a common ancestor with all of the life on earth. It turns out that we're not fallen creation, we're ascended apes. We struggled for millions of years for a place in the world and came out of top. Our minds were honed and sharpened until we were able to contemplate the cosmos and our place in it. But we also contemplate death and that causes fear. The fear of the unknown and the fear of death is what leads to religion. But some people believe in other religions and some people don't believe in any at all. It's easy for a flock to get confused and to fall away from the "one true" religion, so an incentive must be devised to keep them showing up every Sunday. That's why hell is necessary.

(Do you like how I segued back into the main topic there? )

 

[razeontherock]

You claim to know how life started. God did it with magic as described in the Bible. Am I wrong?

Yes.

Maybe you personally hold some unorthodox views, I don't know, but you can't deny that that's what the majority of Christians believe.

No, you pose a strawman. Certainly nothing orthodox.

It's been said before but just because the final word on abiogenesis and evolution hasn't been written doesn't mean that the first word hasn't. You can't discount all of the knowledge we have just because we don't have one of the steps figured out yet.

Mike, you can be reasonable and intelligent. I've seen you do it! I'm kinda missing that now ...

Again, this last post of yours is not responsive to anything I've said. EVER. Never have I "discounted all the steps of knowledge;" rather, you just can't claim such certainty in the midst of such confusion.

We know Ev has happened. We can't state to what extent. We can theorize, we can search, we can continue to learn, and we can apply what we learn, whether right or wrong. A little humility is in order, and speeds learning.

With all due respect, because I like you, I don't think you have a firm grasp on what scientists actually do and how much they know and understand. You think there is a greater degree of uncertainty about evolution and the cosmos than there really is.

Actually I have lots of first-hand experience with "what scientists do," and have expressed no opinion about anything you state here. What I am pointing out is that w/o a working model for the creation of life, we can't go from big bang to modern man. And therefore a HUGE amount of (so called) scientific claim is bunk.

This in no way reflects poorly upon any one piece of data, or reasonable conclusions. And that is where working scientists normally confine themselves to! Not the far-reaching sort of sweeping conclusions we encounter here so often ...

Speculation is fun. Seeing a big picture emerge is, too. The trait of human closure should be expelled via the scientific method, and in due time, I expect it will be. Right now the pendulum has swung in the direction of a little clique,
congratulating one another prematurely. Just like the worst elements of any religion

Case in point: you theorize I will show up to minister on Sunday out of fear of hell. You are wrong. And science, in any capacity, has nothing to do with it either. (Actually the thread "ask a physicist" has some really cool stuff most Church-goers would never care about, let alone be able to fathom, under discussion right now!)

 

[createdtoworship]

razeontherock is also a long way from being a scientist. So am I. But let's ask a biologist. Ask Science Questions And Get Answers

macro evolution is like a Boeing 747 came from a dust storm hitting a junk yard. micro evolution (evolution between species only and not genra) is possible

 

[DontTreadOnMike]

Yes.



No, you pose a strawman. Certainly nothing orthodox.

You're very difficult to talk to because you never actually say anything or tell us what you believe. You seem to delight in just saying "nope! that's not what i think. guess again."

Mike, you can be reasonable and intelligent. I've seen you do it! I'm kinda missing that now ...

Again, this last post of yours is not responsive to anything I've said. EVER. Never have I "discounted all the steps of knowledge;" rather, you just can't claim such certainty in the midst of such confusion.

We know Ev has happened. We can't state to what extent. We can theorize, we can search, we can continue to learn, and we can apply what we learn, whether right or wrong. A little humility is in order, and speeds learning.



Actually I have lots of first-hand experience with "what scientists do," and have expressed no opinion about anything you state here. What I am pointing out is that w/o a working model for the creation of life, we can't go from big bang to modern man. And therefore a HUGE amount of (so called) scientific claim is bunk.

This in no way reflects poorly upon any one piece of data, or reasonable conclusions. And that is where working scientists normally confine themselves to! Not the far-reaching sort of sweeping conclusions we encounter here so often ...

Speculation is fun. Seeing a big picture emerge is, too. The trait of human closure should be expelled via the scientific method, and in due time, I expect it will be. Right now the pendulum has swung in the direction of a little clique,
congratulating one another prematurely. Just like the worst elements of any religion

Case in point: you theorize I will show up to minister on Sunday out of fear of hell. You are wrong. And science, in any capacity, has nothing to do with it either. (Actually the thread "ask a physicist" has some really cool stuff most Church-goers would never care about, let alone be able to fathom, under discussion right now!)

I never said that's why YOU go to church. I said that's why the doctrine of hell exists in the first place.

 

[DontTreadOnMike]

macro evolution is like a Boeing 747 came from a dust storm hitting a junk yard. micro evolution (evolution between species only and not genra) is possible

The fact that you would use this argument shows me that not only do you have no clue what evolutionary scientists say evolution is, but you have no interest in learning. In addition, I've already covered the ridiculous "Tornado in a junk yard" argument so I'm not going to go over it again. If you missed it or if you want more clarification, post a thread in the Evolution vs. Creationism section because razeontherock is right, we should probably get back to the original topic.

If you really want to talk about it, I'll even post the thread for you.

 

[createdtoworship]

The fact that you would use this argument shows me that not only do you have no clue what evolutionary scientists say evolution is, but you have no interest in learning. In addition, I've already covered the ridiculous "Tornado in a junk yard" argument so I'm not going to go over it again. If you missed it or if you want more clarification, post a thread in the Evolution vs. Creationism section because razeontherock is right, we should probably get back to the original topic.

If you really want to talk about it, I'll even post the thread for you.

no thanx, but I have posted a lot on this topic as well in creationism in the public school forum.

here is some information on topic....

Hell

Daniel 12:2 Everlasting Abhorrence

Matthew 5:22 Go Into Fiery Hell

Matthew 5:29-30 Maimed / Heaven & Whole/ Hell

Matthew 8:12 Darkness, Weeping, Teeth Gnashing

Matthew 10:28 Fear Who Destroys Body/Soul in Hell

Matthew 24:51 Weeping, Teeth Gnashing

Matthew 25:30 Darkness, Weeping, Teeth Gnashing

Matthew 25:41 Eternal Fire

Matthew 25:46 Eternal Punishment / Eternal Life

Mark 9:42-48 Better Millstone Thrown Into the Sea

Mark 9:43-48 Unquenchable Fire Worm Doesn’t Die

Luke 3:17 Unquenchable Fire

Luke 16:19-28 Rich Man in Hell and Beggar

2 Thessalonians 1:8-9 Eternal Destruction Away From God

Jude 7 Punishment of Eternal Fire

Jude 13 Darkness Reserved Forever

Revelation 14:10-11 Torment & No Rest

Revelation 19:20 Lake of Fire Burning With Brimstone

Revelation 20:1-3 The Abyss

Revelation 20:13-15 Lake of Fire

Degrees of Punishment

Matthew 10:15 More Tolerable for Sodom

Matthew 11:22, 24 More Tolerable for Sodom

Matthew 16:27 Repay According to Man’s Deeds

Luke 12:47-48 Many Lashes vs Few Lashes

Hebrews 10:29-31 Severer Punishment / Terrifying God

Revelation 22:12 Repay According to What Man Did

 

[LOCO]

Sure it does. You claim to know how life started. God did it with magic as described in the Bible. Am I wrong? Maybe you personally hold some unorthodox views, I don't know, but you can't deny that that's what the majority of Christians believe.

Hello Don'ttreadonmike,

Just an interjection here, that is not what a majority of Christians believe. Catholic Christians (1billion plus) are the majority of Christians and we are free to believe in Genesis or a theistic evolutionary process.

It doesn't matter because God has a hand in ALL creation.

For Catholics we are free to believe that God chose the Genesis 6 day method to create Adam/Eve, nature and the universe or we can choose to believe a theistic evolutionary process made Adam/Eve etc...which may have taken longer. What is a day to God?

There is debate over whether the Genesis story is to be taken to mean a literal 6 day or a longer period.

The Genesis creation story was written by Jewish scribes and throughout history and today they have never interpreted it literally. The literal interpretation of the Genesis creation story is a new manmade invention.

Catholics are not allowed to believe that the soul evolved. It was specially made by God and is not inherited from our parents like our bodies.

For Catholics creation vs evolution is not important in the bigger scheme because believing in either does not determine whether you go to heaven or hell.

Sorry for butting in, just had to make the correction there.

 

[createdtoworship]

This coming from a parent who would,if he could, have his own children tortured and suffer forever if they didn't "worship" him enough or to his liking. You sir have lost ANY and ALL credability in anything with me. No morally sound individual in this whole forum would ever agree to believe this notion let alone want this ghastly proposition to exist.

God's ways are higher than our ways besides only painful eternal punishment has the power to deter from sin. Annihilation is too easy (like suicide). It's the easy way out of eternal damnation. Too easy for the Bible.

 

[LOCO]

no thanx, but I have posted a lot on this topic as well in creationism in the public school forum.

here is some information on topic....

Hell

Daniel 12:2 Everlasting Abhorrence

Matthew 5:22 Go Into Fiery Hell

Matthew 5:29-30 Maimed / Heaven & Whole/ Hell

Matthew 8:12 Darkness, Weeping, Teeth Gnashing

Matthew 10:28 Fear Who Destroys Body/Soul in Hell

Matthew 24:51 Weeping, Teeth Gnashing

Matthew 25:30 Darkness, Weeping, Teeth Gnashing

Matthew 25:41 Eternal Fire

Matthew 25:46 Eternal Punishment / Eternal Life

Mark 9:42-48 Better Millstone Thrown Into the Sea

Hello Gradyll,


Death by Bible verses is unlikely to be convincing to atheists.

Maybe expanding on one or two of verses would be wiser.

The Bible was not written for individual interpretation.

 

[createdtoworship]

Hello Gradyll,


Death by Bible verses is unlikely to be convincing to atheists.

Maybe expanding on one or two of verses would be wiser.

The Bible was not written for individual interpretation.

oh I didn't see the description for the forum. But to answer the op of the forum, hell is necessary to deter from sin, thats its purpose. If I decide to sin a lot, that means I need to fear repercussions in hell. What ever the church I go to doesn't matter, it's a sin thing. The soul that sins shall die ezekiel says. But there are nicer verses, but not regarding hell. of which is the point of the forum.

 

[createdtoworship]

I will easily "refute" most everything you stated:

"God's ways are higher than our way"

Obviously not higher than mine,i wouldnt ever have the moral capacity to have "anyone" suffer for an eternity,this would make even the hardened sociopath easily embarassed for this level of sheer vile savegry.

" besides only painful eternal punishment has the power to deter from sin."

Yet the highest amount of "sinners" are from the christian faith themsleves....besides if you need the threats of punishment to do moral acts then you arent doing it for morally sound reasons but rather to escape punishment.

"Annihilation is too easy (like suicide)"

As opposed to suffering in pain forever which is what sadists enjoy,you qualify with your "glee" over imagining this scenario.

"It's the easy way out of eternal damnation. Too easy for the Bible."

Which makes the bible and yourself equally malicous and morally unsound.

Be careful how you speak of God of the Bible, we all must face Him someday.

 

[createdtoworship]

Im speaking to you sir,not this barbaric fictional character...and i will play the game....if this god did exist and was in this manner...i'd rather be in hell than be an eternal slave to a very immoral dictator who demands my services in a kneeling manner while billions burn....you may lack any human decency and worship this disgusting figure but i couldn't reach these low standards.

well you don't know love, until you know God. Because salvation is free. You can't get out of that without hardening your heart to love.