The Doctrine Of Hell

[Antlerman]

Truthfully AM if the scriptures were proven to me to be nothing but mans writings I would no longer use them. But how does one go about proving something like this?

I'm going to give a fuller response later, but I briefly wanted to respond to this before I go out for the evening.

 

Why? Why would they no longer have value to you?

 

I'm really a bit struck by this, because even I as an atheist who believes they are the words of men find value in them. Do you not find value in the words of other human's in regards to spiritual wisdom? You see, when I hear this I feel sort of sad, because it limits what you could otherwise avail yourself of in the greater world of humanity outside the Christian faith, where the words are 'nothing but men's writings'. Men can have great insights of great value to people. In fact, removing that these words are somehow divinely sanctioned, somehow adds to their power. I can explain that later, but I just wanted to say what I felt at this moment. Do you really feel they would be valueless?

[dr_funkenstein]

Dr. Funk,

 

You sound like a lot of Christians I know. Stating that until I see things your way, I will continue to not be free. LOL

That may be so. That in itself means nothing except that the memplex known as christianity perverts the definitions of many things - not only what constitutes evidence but also the idea of freedom.

 

I went to dictionary.com and copied the first definition for belief:

 

be·lief /bɪˈlif/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[bi-leef] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun 1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.

2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.

3. confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.

4. a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.

 

None of this disagrees with the point I was making, namely that belief can be based on evidence, or it can be based on faith. The crux of my argument was based on the 1st definition given above - that belief is something believed. A conviction.

 

Note that dictionary.com gives the following defintion for the verb "believe":

To have confidence or faith in the truth of (a positive assertion, story, etc.); give credence to.

 

 

Battling over semantics seldom accomplishes anything as language is often different to different people. I was speaking to a Christian audience who usually equate belief to faith. I still think that belief is only needed until proof transforms it to knowledge.

The devil, as it were, is in the detail - and when your memeplex does its best to redefine the meaning of faith so as to equate it with evidence, then arguing over semantics becomes of paramount importance.

 

But, not to get bogged down on semantics, I was agreeing with Crazy-Tiger that both of us have a belief about what happened to us and neither knows for sure. I think you would agree with that regardless of what definitions we use for faith and belief.

 

It's intellectually dishonest to point to bible verses that essentially say "to hold faith in the claims of the bible is evidence in itself that the claims are true" and then say that it's pointless to get bogged down in semantics about the meanings of words.

 

The question is not about knowing for sure about what happened but rather looking at all the information that can be gathered, weighing it in a sober and rational manner and making an estimation about the most probable explanation that fits all the facts. There has been plenty of evidence already given you which shows that the phenomenon you experienced can be explained in an entirely naturalistic way without the need to resort to the supernatural.

 

To put it in a nutshell, the phenomenon you experienced is not proof of the existence of god. In order to perceive it as such you have to already hold belief that god exists, and so using it to reinforce your own belief in the existence of god is circular reasoning.

[Mythra]

But was not John and the boys also unedicated men? Did not those who were educated wonder were they had gained this knowledge?

 

I'm just going off memory here (and my memory is not that good) but

 

I don't think there is any mention of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John until Irenaeus, around 180 CE.

 

It seems that Justin Martyr said something about the "memoirs of the apostles" , but doesn't mention them by name - around 150 CE. And, as I recall, Justin cites certain passages that aren't present in any of the known gospels.

 

So, it took a really long time for anyone to figure out who wrote these gospel stories.

 

Kind of odd, don't you think?

[Antlerman]

Hi Antlerman according to scripture there is a vail over the OT so looking at it is like looking through glass darkly. I know most here think this type of statement is a cop out because they don’t believe in the OT or the NT so any scripture reference that a christian uses for support of a view is held in contempt.

You’re mixing the metaphors on this. The veil reference was I believe in Gospel John of the Veil in the temple being torn from top to bottom by an unseen hand at the moment of Jesus’ death. This was symbolism about Jesus death by mentioning the Veil in the tabernacle and the temple that separated the Holy of Holies from the rest of the temple where the Glory of God lived, and the high priest would go into to sprinkle blood on the altar for the sins of the people. The reference to it being torn open by unseen hands was symbolic of Jesus death opening the way to the Glory of God, for he was man’s High Priest, making the Veil now open for all to enter the Holy of Holies.

 

The glass darkly reference is from the Apostle Paul who in 1 Cor. 13 who said, ‘for now we see through a glass darkly, but then face to face,’ speaking of the limited understanding to us on earth now, but the revealed knowledge to come in heaven after death. Not really a reference to the OT. But to take what you’re trying to say and give a better reference, I’d say in Hebrews when it says ‘the Law was our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ’ offers some support for that perspective. I think they a few other references about having partial revelation in the OT, versus the full revelation of the NT, but that’s the only veil and glass darkly references as far as my brain scanning just dug up.

 

Try looking at it from my perspective, most here read how God told Joshua to kill all those people because they look at those scriptures and take them literally, but what if they are not to be taken literally or what if Joshua misunderstood what God was saying because he to took it literally?

Here’s the problem I have with this. If one were to accept that these were the tales of an ancient people creating stories of their past with tales of larger than life heroes and battles of epic importance to elevate the pride of a nation in the midst of captivity in the great Babylonian empire, then they are clearly not to be taken literally, but metaphorically. They speak of spirit and belief and pride, etc, etc.

 

But if they were actually commandments of God, than somehow should have been taken symbolically by that generation and all generations following, it seem extremely reckless of God to use commands for genocide to partially blind humans. God is authoritative. If God says ‘kill all the men, their women, their cattle, and children… except for the young girls who you can keep for yourselves and marry if it so pleases you’, people are not going to stop and question whether that should be taken spiritually. It seems and extremely reckless communication tool to man. (footnote: Imagine how much that young girl would love her new husband who just murdered her mom and dad and brother, and then kidnapped and raped her! That’s there in the OT, I’m sorry to say),

 

I used to be disturbed to read the Ten Commandments where it says ‘thou shalt not kill’, then right after that you have this in Joshua. It never made sense to me until this. That the commandment ‘thou shalt not kill’ is speaking of murdering those in your society. Those who are outside your tribe are not the same, and the rules of God don’t apply to them. This is a very typical way that ancient tribal religions saw those outside their tribes. They were for all intents and purposes, non-human. That seems to put things in a light that makes the contradiction disappear, sad to say.

 

Example: If I make my enemy my friend I have in effect killed my enemy.

 

What if this was what God meant for Joshua to do and because he took it literally he went about killing all those people.

 

Now I am not saying this is the answer to what took place back then, I am just giving an example of how things if taken literally could show God in a bad light if He was talking figuratively.

Again, it seems extremely reckless. Would you tell your child to take an axe and go chop up the bullies at school, then afterwards burn their houses and kill their mothers and fathers and pets, hoping that he might hear the true message of peace between the lines? Or would you simply admonish him on the virtues of being a peace maker?

 

Forgive me, but being older and wiser than my child, I’m not going to instruct him as an authority figure to take violent actions in his young impressionable life while he’s already upset with the bullies. It’s irresponsible and negligent.

 

My point being is many here read the scriptures and take them literally so they see God in a bad light but if they are suppose to be taken figuratively as in my example would God you still see God in a bad light?

If these were in fact not to be taken literally, but as tall tales of an oppressed people’s created history, then in fact there is valuable message in it. But again, layering God on it as trying to communicate some spiritual truth in the factual history of these events makes it anything but inspiring to the soul. The message is lost in the horror of the metaphor, and casts doubts on God’s wisdom in this matter. I can see only one way to find value in it, and it’s in seeing it as a part of ancient literature of a people’s ideas of their own history.

 

Sorry if my tone is a little harsher, but there’s too much violence that is justified by these stories being take as literal truths from God. If true, then God made a huge mistake creating them to begin with. I don't see any way out of it but to see that God had nothing whatsover to do with these stories. But there is in fact a very important lesson behind them for all mankind to consider. They stand as an example of how inhuman people can be when they view other's as "unsaved".

[Kratos]

AM,

 

I didn't write the original, but I think he meant vail instead of veil. As in:

 

2Co 3:13 And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished:

2Co 3:14 But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.

 

I don't agree with the possibility that they just misunderstood their instructions, but it was just put forth as a theory anyway and not a belief.

 

I do believe that the meaning of the OT is in symbolism and spiritual interpretation (pesher if you will), but this does not mean that they did not happen as recorded. The mistake is drawing understanding from the literal instead of the spiritual. I mentioned an example of this earlier from Rom. 9 where God is recorded as saying that Jacob have I loved and Esau have I hated. If you come away thinking that God literally hates some people born into this world without a cause and loves others without a cause, then predestination is true and God is both unfair and a respector of persons (which the scriptures says He is not). But if you believe the Bibles own interpretation of this (pesher for MWC), He is talking about the first born Adamic man of the flesh that He hates and the second born man of the spirit that He loves in all of us.

 

We make a mistake trying to judge what God does in terms of the natural and in terms of time. He indeed would appear cruel and uncaring if this life were it or even remotely important. James said it this way:

 

Jas 4:13 Go to now, ye that say, To day or to morrow we will go into such a city, and continue there a year, and buy and sell, and get gain:

Jas 4:14 Whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away.

Jas 4:15 For that ye ought to say, If the Lord will, we shall live, and do this, or that.

Jas 4:16 But now ye rejoice in your boastings: all such rejoicing is evil.

Jas 4:17 Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.

 

Neither side of this discussion is trying to convince the other of what is true, but I hope we are all just trying to understand one another. If I thought the 70 years that we live in the flesh and in time was anything but a vapor that appears and is gone, I would have some of your same concerns. But, I believe that we are all predestined to be conformed to God's image and to be eternal and immortal. This life is but a blink in the big picture and if God uses some people's and even some nation's vapor to bring us all into this place of eternity and immortality, I believe that the end justifies the means.

 

I know that you will say that this is easily said when I am not being slaughtered with my family by an Israeli army lead by Joshua, but I have lost family members and friends that were and are very dear to me. This knowledge that the difference between 70 years (average lifes span) and say the 14 years that my dear nephew lived before being killed and the billions of years that we have existed before and will exist in the future is nothing. This is how I can bear it and leave it up to God's providence without getting angry.

 

It is only those who still live in the carnal mind (minding the things of the flesh) that struggle with these things. Paul said that which is seen is temporal, but that which is unseen is eternal. So, look not on the seen things of this world, but at the unseen things of the spririt.

 

Go ahead and cast your stones. Call me an unfeeling jerk. The truth is that I do feel other's pain and have felt plenty of my own, but I know that this life is not it. It is only a vapor that quickly fades away regardless of whether we are conquering Isrealites or conquered Canaanites. Do the math. If we are all eternal, what percentage of billions of years is the difference between 14 and 70 years? Now, if you think that 70 years is all that we get, yes, dying at 14 and only getting 20% of a normal life would seem unfair and unfeeling when I believe in a God who could have stopped it and healed my nephew.

 

Kratos

[mwc]

Go ahead and cast your stones. Call me an unfeeling jerk. The truth is that I do feel other's pain and have felt plenty of my own, but I know that this life is not it.

You are an unfeeling jerk.

 

You are now on the shit end of Pascal's wonderful wager. This is, to me, what is lost. As we all know, to believe supposedly costs nothing, but to not believe (and be wrong) costs everything. But, in fact, we're seeing what the true cost of believing really is.

 

Now, to be fair, I am not without "sin." There might be a better way to phrase all of this but no matter. When I believed that I had "eternity" then time had no meaning. Spending "quality time" with people was really not important because that could all happen "later." Time was a commodity that I had in abundance for things like idle chit-chat with my grandparents (which I already shared a story about my grandfather) and so many others. Why not do the things that I wouldn't be able to do "later" right now and put off those mundane things for the next go around? With infinite time I can get to know everyone in exquisite detail. No need to do that all now.

 

But wait. I don't get another chance. I don't have more time. The ship sailed and I missed out. Oops. In the "grand scheme" it won't matter I suppose but all things being equal I've got quite a few years left to sit and regret not getting to know a few people in this here life. The one that I happen to know for certain that I have (note the two words: for certain. Those two words are key to my argument. No hopes or guesswork. No "I know deep down there's another life" but since I am living right now this is a "gimmie" in every way). So I blew it. Everyone who thinks as I did and acts as I did blew it and continues to blow it. Having acted that way so long I still continue to blow it (even with the knowledge that I should do otherwise I find myself thinking that I have far more time than I likely do with many people...wishful thinking perhaps).

 

So, yes, you are an unfeeling jerk. As am I. You will continue to be one as well especially if you think you're going to get a magical do-over since you will never be motivated to change during the one life you know that you and everyone have for certain.

 

mwc

[Grandpa Harley]

Problem, M,

 

It's Krazee CLusterfuck hour on Ex-Cs.... presenting 'Logic' to Doctor Tarr or Professor Feather there is like explaining Quantum Mechanics to a chicken... it does you no good and the chicken none the wiser... My view is, if the chicken ain't a-laying, it's time to introduce it to your friend 'Mr Cleaver'....

[mwc]

Hmmm...that sounds too nice.

 

Too paraphrase from the South Park I watched the other day wouldn't it be more fun to tear out their eye and then get someone with AIDS to piss in the open socket so they die all nice and slow like?

 

Or "How about we kill them and then rape their bodies so we can use their blood as lubricant?" (just about pissed myself when the little bear said this).

 

I'm just sayin'...

 

mwc

[Grandpa Harley]

You are a creature of darkness and evil...

[mwc]

Only on my good days.

 

mwc

[Antlerman]

AM,

 

I didn't write the original, but I think he meant vail instead of veil. As in:

 

2Co 3:13 And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished:

2Co 3:14 But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.

 

I don't agree with the possibility that they just misunderstood their instructions, but it was just put forth as a theory anyway and not a belief.

 

I do believe that the meaning of the OT is in symbolism and spiritual interpretation (pesher if you will), but this does not mean that they did not happen as recorded. The mistake is drawing understanding from the literal instead of the spiritual.

Ahh, yes indeed there’s a couple pages of faded text up there in my cranial concordance. Now I recall those.

 

One of the things that stuck me some time ago was this whole thematic pesharim approach is that anyone can do that with anything from the past, if one skims only off the surface similarities and doesn’t really do deep research, or serious objectivity is not a true concern. In other words, they tie surface similarities with a constructed theory that can only stand up when taken with the sort of faith that drives away serious objections through any manner of faith defenses, such as calling it a ‘spiritual war against the truth’.

 

The NT writers’ creation of the Jesus character in the various Gospels uses this sort of approach, taking what they believed in at that time and looking back into the OT to make it fit. The progressive revelation, and the veil being taken away from their minds fits easily into the mentality of that in the mystery religions with the initiates being privy to an esoteric knowledge. People who examine that sort of hermeneutic objectively will find the gapping fallacies that it bases itself on.

 

One of the most glaring examples is the myth of the virgin birth as a prophecy found in Isaiah. I would contend that it was believed first because of similar mythic figures in the culture of Gospel Matthew writers’ world, then a similar sounding passage leaped out at them in Isaiah and the myth found support for itself in scripture. The problem as is well known, is that they were using the Septuagint which mistranslated ‘young woman’, as ‘virgin’. ( see: http://www.talkingtimeline.com/part02_Virgin_Birth.htm )

 

I’d seen same sort of fallacious approach of faith-reading of scripture happening all around me in the church. Finally for me, that metaphorical veil was lifted when I realized the NT writers themselves were doing that same thing. It’s all over the place in the NT. What remained behind was portrait of man’s faith. They were as human as the rest of us today, and it was not divinely written.

 

Now that doesn’t dismiss it as ‘worthless garbage’. That’s entirely too cynical. I see that if it’s ALL taken non-literally, from Genesis to Revelation, then you have the hearts of humans beings searching for answers to life and issues of their day being expressed in the language of symbols of mythology. That’s not a bad thing. We do it today with different myths. (I’m speaking of mythology in the linguistic sense, as in the semiotician Roland Barthes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_Barthes ).

 

Point is, I can’t divorce myself from my knowledge of this in order to make use of the faith as an esoteric knowledge of pesharim in the way it worked in the mystery religions. In a word, that illusion has been broken for me. I can see the strings holding it up.

 

We make a mistake trying to judge what God does in terms of the natural and in terms of time. He indeed would appear cruel and uncaring if this life were it or even remotely important. James said it this way:

 

Jas 4:13 Go to now, ye that say, To day or to morrow we will go into such a city, and continue there a year, and buy and sell, and get gain:

Jas 4:14 Whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away.

Jas 4:15 For that ye ought to say, If the Lord will, we shall live, and do this, or that.

Jas 4:16 But now ye rejoice in your boastings: all such rejoicing is evil.

Jas 4:17 Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.

 

Neither side of this discussion is trying to convince the other of what is true, but I hope we are all just trying to understand one another. If I thought the 70 years that we live in the flesh and in time was anything but a vapor that appears and is gone, I would have some of your same concerns. But, I believe that we are all predestined to be conformed to God's image and to be eternal and immortal. This life is but a blink in the big picture and if God uses some people's and even some nation's vapor to bring us all into this place of eternity and immortality, I believe that the end justifies the means.

I agree the hope of this discussion is to help each other understand each other better, and in so doing there is of course always going to be making one’s case for their views in order to do this. It’s always a hope too that each person can gain some new insight that may help their own views also by seeing things through a different perspective.

 

The thing I want to mention briefly here is that I don’t view the brevity of life pessimistically, ‘a vapor, then gone’. Is that glass half full, or half empty? I see this life as part of a wonderful thing called Life. My existence is not worth nothing because when I die I have no further awareness. Life was meaningful before I was born, though I had no awareness of it. Life will continue to have value after I’m dead and am once again non-existent. But the wonderful thing is that I am here now and am part of this wonderful thing.

 

As part of that, everything I do does matter. What I believe and pass on to those around me, lives and becomes part of what others experience. Even when that may fade and pass into nothing as the universe dies out and all life extinguished here. It was part of my experience, and others. And living for values that allow everyone to enjoy this only life is to live life more fully. You move beyond living for yourself, and live as part of life itself.

 

This is far from a pessimistic view of ‘blip… then I’m dead’. In that context, hoping for an afterlife sounds inherently selfish, and misses life altogether.

[crazy-tiger]

But was not John and the boys also unedicated men? Did not those who were educated wonder were they had gained this knowledge?

 

I'm just going off memory here (and my memory is not that good) but

 

I don't think there is any mention of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John until Irenaeus, around 180 CE.

 

It seems that Justin Martyr said something about the "memoirs of the apostles" , but doesn't mention them by name - around 150 CE. And, as I recall, Justin cites certain passages that aren't present in any of the known gospels.

 

So, it took a really long time for anyone to figure out who wrote these gospel stories.

 

Kind of odd, don't you think?

It's better than that... first off, they NEVER knew who wrote usual 4 gospels. All they did was slap some names on them to give them some ligitimacy. Second, and quite frankly something that should send the honest believer into a screaming fit, they knew that there were faked works floating around BUT DIDN'T KNOW WHICH ONES WERE FAKED!! Hell, they knew that there was such a MASSIVE problem with the fakes that they were no longer sure they had any legitimate works at all.

 

 

Kind of odd that God let it get that bad so quick, isn't it? It's so much like the kind of thing you'd expect with a made-up story that some people might just get the idea that it's all just a made-up story after all...

 

Personally, I think all this Gospel stuff was just the 4chan /b/ of it's day.

[Ouroboros]

But was not John and the boys also unedicated men? Did not those who were educated wonder were they had gained this knowledge?

The big mystery is why God decided to pick uneducated men to follow Jesus, and then had to educate them to write the Gospels 40 years later? Why not pick someone smart from start (hey, that rimes!)... so then God changed his mind, realized his mistake, and picked Paul to write 50% of the NT... that's weird. If God could change Paul, then why didn't he do it earlier and had him follow Jesus for 3 years and then write the Gospels the same year Jesus died? Why all this jumping hoops for 100 years when it was God that planned it? Bad planning?

[SWIM]

But was not John and the boys also unedicated men? Did not those who were educated wonder were they had gained this knowledge?

The big mystery is why God decided to pick uneducated men to follow Jesus, and then had to educate them to write the Gospels 40 years later? Why not pick someone smart from start (hey, that rimes!)... so then God changed his mind, realized his mistake, and picked Paul to write 50% of the NT... that's weird. If God could change Paul, then why didn't he do it earlier and had him follow Jesus for 3 years and then write the Gospels the same year Jesus died? Why all this jumping hoops for 100 years when it was God that planned it? Bad planning?

 

Yeah and why he himself took up the trade carpenter, wouldn't scribe be more logical?

[Ouroboros]

Yeah and why he himself took up the trade carpenter, wouldn't scribe be more logical?

Also a good point. It seems like God's own son Jesus only could draw some scribbles in the sand like a kid, but never could write a the Gospel himself... Don't they have school and education in Heaven? Oh, that's right. Christianity doesn't want people to read or write, it could lead to rational thoughts...

[dr_funkenstein]

I do believe that the meaning of the OT is in symbolism and spiritual interpretation (pesher if you will), but this does not mean that they did not happen as recorded. The mistake is drawing understanding from the literal instead of the spiritual. I mentioned an example of this earlier from Rom. 9 where God is recorded as saying that Jacob have I loved and Esau have I hated. If you come away thinking that God literally hates some people born into this world without a cause and loves others without a cause, then predestination is true and God is both unfair and a respector of persons (which the scriptures says He is not). But if you believe the Bibles own interpretation of this (pesher for MWC), He is talking about the first born Adamic man of the flesh that He hates and the second born man of the spirit that He loves in all of us.

I'm going to respond to your statements pointing out to you how you are the host of a memeplex that has subjugated your faculties of reason in order to prevent you from even realising that you are living under a form of mind control.

 

The memeplex has only one prime directive: to survive and to propagate itself, thus propagating the memes of which it is comprised.

 

If you, its host, were to discover upon reading the bible that there are glaring contradictions, and that the god concept changed and adapted over time from the OT to the NT, then it might make you start to question the existence of god; especially since god is supposed to be unchanging.

 

As the host of this memeplex, you've already been convinced of the truth of its tenets - considering that they might be untrue is something you cannot even conceive of. This is because of its powerful combination of motivating factors (most prominently fear) that keep you believing. So to prevent yourself seeing the contradictions and weaknesses in the bible that might potentially cause you to doubt, you come up with convoluted and complicated ways of reconciling these contradictions, making it appear to you to be internally consistent. In effect, the memeplex has hijacked your very faculties of reason to serve its own purposes.

 

I already mentioned fear as one of the motivating factors that cause you to do this, but in this case there is another one that is possibly even more important. The christianity memeplex likes to use both the stick and the carrot, as it were, and here the carrot is an emotional payoff; an ego-boost as it were. Let me explain what I mean.

 

Christianity, like all mystery religions, has an element of gnosticism to it. That is to say that as you work your way up the hierarchy of the church, you are granted insight into the mysteries of the bible. This affords you a special place among your peers; an intellectual high ground that gives you a sense of being "special". These sorts of convoluted, complex rationalisations for the weaknesses of the bible are a sort of "feather in your cap", and when someone comes to you with their concerns, you are able to give them insight into the mystery, giving you an even greater emotional payoff.

 

We make a mistake trying to judge what God does in terms of the natural and in terms of time. He indeed would appear cruel and uncaring if this life were it or even remotely important. James said it this way:

... (quote about life being like a vapour)

Note that you acknowledge that your god would be cruel and uncaring if not for... what?

 

One of the most, if not the most foul adaptation that your memeplex has ever developed. That's what. The notion that this life - the life that we all know and love - the life that we live here and now on this earth - the only life that we have any good reason to believe we will ever experience - is worthless.

 

Everything we know about ourselves tells us that our consciousness - everything that makes me "me" - is a direct result of the neurochemical activity that occurs within our brains. Even an exercise as simple as observing a brain injury or stroke victim points you to the fact that personality and individuality is centered in the brain. Everything about us, our thoughts, memories, feelings, emotions... absolutely everything is biologically based. Therefore it makes perfect sense to assume that once the blood flow to the brain ceases, once no more oxygen is delivered and electrical activity stops and neurochemical reactions cease occurring, that the person that that brain supported is no more.

 

I know it's scary to consider that one day you will cease to exist - but I'll tell you what's even scarier. You are living your life as though you had an eternity awaiting you after you die.

 

Neither side of this discussion is trying to convince the other of what is true, but I hope we are all just trying to understand one another. If I thought the 70 years that we live in the flesh and in time was anything but a vapor that appears and is gone, I would have some of your same concerns. But, I believe that we are all predestined to be conformed to God's image and to be eternal and immortal. This life is but a blink in the big picture and if God uses some people's and even some nation's vapor to bring us all into this place of eternity and immortality, I believe that the end justifies the means.

 

And why do you believe such things? Because of a memeplex that has gotten its hooks into you and motivated you through emotional carrots and sticks into doing what it wants you to do and believing what it wants you to believe.

 

I know that you will say that this is easily said when I am not being slaughtered with my family by an Israeli army lead by Joshua, but I have lost family members and friends that were and are very dear to me. This knowledge that the difference between 70 years (average lifes span) and say the 14 years that my dear nephew lived before being killed and the billions of years that we have existed before and will exist in the future is nothing. This is how I can bear it and leave it up to God's providence without getting angry.

 

Yet more evidence that your motivating factors are emotionally based. Just because it helps soothe painful emotions to believe that something is true does not make it true, and in fact it will cause even more pain and suffering than simply dealing with the initial grief of having lost your family members.

 

It is only those who still live in the carnal mind (minding the things of the flesh) that struggle with these things. Paul said that which is seen is temporal, but that which is unseen is eternal. So, look not on the seen things of this world, but at the unseen things of the spririt.

 

More evidence of the "special knowledge", "privileged position" motivating factor of your memeplex.

 

Go ahead and cast your stones. Call me an unfeeling jerk. The truth is that I do feel other's pain and have felt plenty of my own, but I know that this life is not it. It is only a vapor that quickly fades away regardless of whether we are conquering Isrealites or conquered Canaanites. Do the math. If we are all eternal, what percentage of billions of years is the difference between 14 and 70 years? Now, if you think that 70 years is all that we get, yes, dying at 14 and only getting 20% of a normal life would seem unfair and unfeeling when I believe in a God who could have stopped it and healed my nephew.

 

You know what, Kratos? People die young sometimes, and it's unfair.

 

That's it. No need for gods or overly convoluted explanations requiring the belief that we go on after death.

 

It's time you dealt with your grief in a healthy way. Your nephew died, it was a tragedy, and it made no sense. And that's ok! Not everything has to make sense! Don't throw the rest of your life away trying to make sense of this.

[Antlerman]

But was not John and the boys also unedicated men? Did not those who were educated wonder were they had gained this knowledge?

I just caught this. Just because I like to stretch my memory, the verse about those who were educated wondering at the educated Galileans I believe is from Acts chapter 2, where upon hearing the disciples speaking in miraculous tongues exclaimed "are not these men Galileans [equivalent of saying hayseed, hick, or hillbilly], yet we hear them speaking in the tongues wherein we were born!" I think that's in verse 4, if memory hasn't abandoned me entirely.

 

As far as John, certainly the author of Gospel John was educated. But it's highly unlikely the disciple John is the author of that book. From early Christian Writings website

Robert Kysar writes the following on the authorship of the Gospel of John (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, v. 3, pp. 919-920):

 

The supposition that the author was one and the same with the beloved disciple is often advanced as a means of insuring that the evangelist did witness Jesus' ministry. Two other passages are advanced as evidence of the same - 19:35 and 21:24. But both falter under close scrutiny. 19:35 does not claim that the author was the one who witnessed the scene but only that the scene is related on the sound basis of eyewitness. 21:24 is part of the appendix of the gospel and should not be assumed to have come from the same hand as that responsible for the body of the gospel. Neither of these passages, therefore, persuades many Johannine scholars that the author claims eyewitness status.

 

Read much more here: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/john.html Very interesting stuff.

[Kratos]

Am and MWC and Dr. Funk,

 

First off, AM, I hate to act like the Bible answer man, but I sensed that you like to dust off the things you once knew even if you no longer believe them the same. I think the verse that was mentioned on these uneducated men was:

 

Act 4:13 Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus.

 

Anyway, I do hear all of you about making every moment count. I am way too guilty of working too much and watching my kids grow on the run. I do not think that my view of eternity is at fault. It is more being a workaholic and having screwed up priorities.

 

Again, in the interest of understanding, let me share a little more of my memeplex. LOL

 

Paul said that to be carnally minded is death and that the carnal mind is at enmity with God and always will be. Now, what is the carnal mind and what does it mean to be carnally minded? It means to see things only in terms of the flesh or the natural world. For example, if a person proclaims that they will not believe it unless they can see it or unless there is physical evidence of it, they are carnally minded. You can see why God (or those evil men who fabricated the Bible) would say that this kind of thinking will drive you away from and make you an enemy of God. Many of you are living examples of this. You once believed in the non-corporal world of the spirit, but when you started to focus on scientific proof, you walked away from God (or you would say came to your sanity). Christians are encouraged by the Bible not to focus on this part of our existence. This does not mean that the natural life does not matter, it just means that it is the shortest part of our existence in terms of time. So, here is another part of my dimentia:

 

2Co 4:16 For which cause we faint not; but though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day.

2Co 4:17 For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory;

2Co 4:18 While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.

 

This teaches that the unseen world of the spirit is really the eternal one that we should focus on while the seen world of the natural is the temporary one that must be taken lightly. I appreciate the fact that such thinking is scary to the carnally minded. It makes you think of suicide bombers and the like. But, unlike Islam extremists, we value all life while looking ahead to the spiritual world of immortality and eternity. This is especially true of those who believe in the salvation of all. We will see all again and for eternity so better be kind. We don't get to put most of humanity away in a ficticious holding cell for eternity so it is just natural to treat all as brothers and sisters of the One Father of All.

 

Kratos

[dr_funkenstein]

Kratos.

 

The sort of bible verse you just pointed to is exactly the sort of verse that made me realize that I had been brainwashed.

 

You see this idea throughout the bible - that somehow it's not enough to simply use the mental faculties that we possess as human beings to weigh up the evidence before us and come to a conclusion. No, the assertion made by the bible is that you need a special kind of wisdom in order to understand the deep, profound mysteries that the bible and the holy spirit will reveal to you.

 

Let's say you wanted to start a cult. You wanted to gather followers to you, and you wanted to teach them all kinds of weird and wonderful ideas. Ideas which - if people examined them soberly and untangled them from the threats and fear and intimidation contained within them - people might realize were completely ludicrous. How would you prevent people from examining these ideas in this way?

 

You would do exactly what Christianity has done. Exactly what Christianity has done. You would convince your followers that unless they gained special, privileged knowledge - that is a spiritual mind - then things that once appeared as contradictions and foolishness would make sense to them. And so, those followers who wished to appear the most wise and the most advanced would soon enough proclaim that they had acquired this spiritual mind, and would begin telling others how easy it really is if you only just believe and trust in god, all your questions would simply melt away!

 

Kratos - you are a victim of this ruse. You fell for it as we all did.

 

We all wanted to be special. We all wanted so much to believe that there is another world - a world where we get to live forever and fulfill our destiny. A world where there is no more suffering and we are reunited with our loved ones who've died.

 

It's a nice thought, but Kratos - it's a fantasy. It's a world of make-believe that someone (who was just us much a victim as you are) once told you about. They gave you the big carrot in the sky, and the big stick under the ground, and it all seemed so right somehow.

 

You've heard (and probably used) Pascal's Wager, which in a nutshell says "What have you got to lose? If I'm right and you refuse to listen to the message of Christianity, then you've got everything to lose by spending an eternity in hell. But if I'm wrong, well you've just prayed a useless prayer and when you die that's it."

 

The problem is - it's not just one simple prayer, is it? It's a lifetime of devotion and struggle. A lifetime of dedication to a cause. A lifetime of giving away 10% of your income to an institution that is devoted to getting more people, just like they got you. And if you're wrong, then all you've lost is your whole lifetime.

 

Don't sacrifice your life to a non-existent deity. Live it! It's the only one you have...

[mwc]

Anyway, I do hear all of you about making every moment count. I am way too guilty of working too much and watching my kids grow on the run. I do not think that my view of eternity is at fault. It is more being a workaholic and having screwed up priorities.

As I said in my post it ultimately won't matter. If you're right then shorting everyone in the here and now can be made up for in "the next life" (except you won't be able to do things there that are only available here like go to this version of Disneyland but maybe there will be something as good, or better, there...still...there's something about the original). And if I'm right then you'll be worm food and things will be just like they were for you all those eons before you were born. Nothingness. You won't know and you won't care that you didn't spend time with anyone. It really becomes a mute point. The "guilt" only lasts if you happen to think about these things during this, the one known life you happen to have. You choose to keep focused on a nebulous "next" life instead of the one that is known and in progress.

 

For example, if a person proclaims that they will not believe it unless they can see it or unless there is physical evidence of it, they are carnally minded. You can see why God (or those evil men who fabricated the Bible) would say that this kind of thinking will drive you away from and make you an enemy of God. Many of you are living examples of this. You once believed in the non-corporal world of the spirit, but when you started to focus on scientific proof, you walked away from God (or you would say came to your sanity).

Am I an example of this? I'm not an example of this. Sorry.

 

All the "focus on scientific proof" came after me and the big guy parted ways.

 

But let's go back to what you start with in this whole bit ("if a person proclaims that they will not believe it..."). Since it seems to be bible study time what does the bible say about that?

Mark 16

11 And they, when it came to their ears that he was living, and had been seen by her, had no belief in it. 12 And after these things he was seen in another form by two of them, while they were walking on their way into the country. 13 And they went away and gave news of it to the rest; and they had no belief in what was said.

The disciples were told by the women that he was alive and the DID NOT BELIEVE. Jesus then magically appears to two disciples who report this to the others and upon hearing this news they DID NOT BELIEVE.

 

So what does it take to finally convince them?

14 And later he was seen by the eleven themselves while they were taking food; and he said sharp words to them because they had no faith and their hearts were hard, and because they had no belief in those who had seen him after he had come back from the dead.

That's right. HE APPEARS IN PERSON. Oh, he gives them a little chastising for not believing the words of others, but if that is so bad they would have gotten quite the demotion. Instead these are the mighty 11. The best damn apostles (not including Paul) ever. So not believing the word of others and holding out for that bit of personal magic might get you a lecture but it doesn't seem to be such a bad thing. Jesus does say you need to be baptized just past this (people still don't quite believe that he means that everyone needs this) but he gives his true followers magic powers which is cool even though no one to date has gotten them.

 

But it gets stupider. When "Luke" dresses up the story for his audience it follows the same basic story as G.Mark but then goes like this:

Luke 24

 

36 And while they were saying these things, he himself was among them, and said to them, Peace be with you! 37 But they were full of fear, being of the opinion that they were seeing a spirit. 38 And he said to them, Why are you troubled, and why are your hearts full of doubt? 39 See; my hands and my feet: it is I myself; put your hands on me and make certain; for a spirit has not flesh and bones as you see that I have. 40 And when he had said this, he let them see his hands and his feet. 41 And because, for joy and wonder, they were still in doubt, he said to them, Have you any food here? 42 And they gave him a bit of cooked fish. 43 And before their eyes he took a meal. 44 And he said to them, These are the words which I said to you when I was still with you, how it was necessary for all the things which are in the writings of Moses and the prophets and in the Psalms about me, to be put into effect. 45 Then he made the holy Writings clear to their minds. 46 And he said to them, So it is in the Writings that the Christ would undergo death, and come back to life again on the third day; 47 And that teaching about a change of heart and forgiveness of sins is to be given to Jerusalem first and to all nations in his name. 48 You are witnesses of these things. 49 And now I will send to you what my father has undertaken to give you, but do not go from the town, till the power from heaven comes to you.

 

50 And he took them out till they were near Bethany, and lifting up his hands, he gave them a blessing. 51 And while he was doing so, he went from them and was taken up into heaven. 52 And they gave him worship and went back to Jerusalem with great joy. 53 And they were in the Temple at all times, giving praise to God.

So since he magically appears the disciples think they're seeing a ghost instead of a dead body that has been made undead that can now magically appear (they know there's a difference between ghosts and magic zombies...they're nobodies fools). The good news is that if you're maimed when you die then you're maimed when you're magically undeaded. Can't beat that. Take that amputees. God hates you in the afterlife too. Seeing his "holes" still isn't enough in this version so now he performs another "trick" ("for joy and wonder" just like a good magician). He eats some fish (better than brains I guess). After he does his tricks he decides that maybe now is a good time to make the writings clear to them (perhaps doing this up front would have expedited things but he may not have been thinking clearly himself considering the undeadening and all). So he gives a short sermon. After which he takes them outside so he can fly away. It seems at this point they get on board with him and become really zealous Jews.

 

Bible study is fun and I can go all night. But I think that I more than prove my point that jesus doesn't seem to poo-poo the whole "see it to believe it" course of belief. It seems to be required for his most loyal followers, his inner circle and closest friends. In short, it seems to be the requirement rather than the exception.

 

This teaches that the unseen world of the spirit is really the eternal one that we should focus on while the seen world of the natural is the temporary one that must be taken lightly. I appreciate the fact that such thinking is scary to the carnally minded. It makes you think of suicide bombers and the like. But, unlike Islam extremists, we value all life while looking ahead to the spiritual world of immortality and eternity. This is especially true of those who believe in the salvation of all. We will see all again and for eternity so better be kind. We don't get to put most of humanity away in a ficticious holding cell for eternity so it is just natural to treat all as brothers and sisters of the One Father of All.

And Paul knew the "unseen world" exists and is eternal, how? Even the jesus of the gospel stories (in a version or two) let someone poke his little "holes" as a test. What does Paul have to offer? Nothing? Exactly. Paul asserts things that, if I'm not confusing my terms, the Stoics also asserted. This makes Paul more of a philosophic thief than a prophet.

 

It's nice you want everyone to get along in the New World Order of the next life. It takes me back to a simpler time "I'd like to buy the world a Coke..." (sorry, I can't sing) but this has nothing to do with me being "scared" and simply to do with why should I accept Paul's assertion? I should probably accept the Stoic position. It's roughly the same and predates Paul. I won't go to any "heaven" (of course no xians will either...ever...according to Revelation) but maybe I'll get lucky and get into a nice part of Hades (I think the Stoics bought into that...it's been awhile).

 

mwc

[Kratos]

Doc Funk,

 

I really do appreciate your candor and your attempt to reveal the truth as you know it. But, I do believe and I love my life as it is just as you love yours as it is. I do not see my Christianity as keeping me from living my life, but as a great enhancement to my life. I guess if I was miserable and tormented by my faith, I would be more open to listen. But, my relationship with God is very fulfilling to me.

 

MWC,

 

We went down the road of believing without seeing before and I mentioned that God will eventually show Himself to all as He did for me ( as I understand it). He is not a respector of persons. I see Jesus as a type of what God is doing in man. He already has created and maintains a beautiful spiritual realm we call Heaven, but He wanted to add as beautiful of a physical world by bringing together in one both the spirit of God and the flesh of man.

 

His Spirit comes to dwell in these tabernacles of clay so we can be both physical and spiritual. We are all predestined to be both Son of Man and Son of God. It is just that we only know the one realm of the natural so we must add to our knowledge of the natural an understanding of the spiritual. The Bible shows that after His resurrection, Jesus was both physical and spiritual. He told others to touch Him and He ate food with them. Then, He walked through a wall or disappeared. I believe we will be able to flow freely between these two realms of existence and God will be all in all.

 

This is probably a lame example, but it is late. I used to do a lot of scuba diving. I enjoyed the fish and the coral and the good things to eat that we gathered from the sea. But, to me, the greatest thing was learning how to flow within a totally foreign environment among creatures that were of a different order of creation. I used to love to just glide along and explore like I was weightless or flying. Then, I would get back on the boat where gravity made the gear heavy and confining and cumbersome. This is the closest I can describe the realm of the spirit as I see it. Another kingdom with other rules and other glorious creatures of God's creation.

 

As my friend Sojourner would say, I can no more not believe than you can believe. But, each in their own order.

 

Kratos

[Fweethawt]

Anyway, I do hear all of you about making every moment count. I am way too guilty of working too much and watching my kids grow on the run. I do not think that my view of eternity is at fault. It is more being a workaholic and having screwed up priorities.

I do not see my Christianity as keeping me from living my life, but as a great enhancement to my life. I guess if I was miserable and tormented by my faith, I would be more open to listen. But, my relationship with God is very fulfilling to me.

 

Read closely the highlighted and colored parts of your posts above. If you can see what I see, then perhaps you can save yourself some misery and torment that your faith has yet to bring you.

 

Yes, by reading your words here, I can see your future. Can't you?

[mwc]

Sorry Fwee...can't hear you. Got that damn "Cats in the Cradle" song playing over and over in my head!

 

mwc

[mwc]

We went down the road of believing without seeing before and I mentioned that God will eventually show Himself to all as He did for me ( as I understand it).

If the world had a nickel (so to speak)...

 

He is not a respector of persons.

You're making it sound ever so inviting. Can't wait for eternity with the entity that doesn't really respect me.

 

I see Jesus as a type of what God is doing in man.

I see jesus as a type of bullfrog. What does it matter unless I can back it up?

 

He already has created and maintains a beautiful spiritual realm we call Heaven, but He wanted to add as beautiful of a physical world by bringing together in one both the spirit of God and the flesh of man.

What's the difference between the "spiritual" and "physical" to the supernatural being? If "god" is "spirit"-only to begin with why even bother with the "physical?" Why the cross-over? He already had a "beautiful" realm. Man and the physical didn't exist since the "spiritual" is eternal. No need to bring anything together. There's nothing to unite.

 

His Spirit comes to dwell in these tabernacles of clay so we can be both physical and spiritual. We are all predestined to be both Son of Man and Son of God.

Maybe we are. Maybe we're predestined to become actual clay pots. If you can re-interpret the OT writings for your own purposes then why can't I re-interpret the NT writings for mine? The true secret "god" embedded in Pauls' writings is that we're literal pots. Sounds stupid when someone screws with your sacred cow, doesn't it? I'm not made of clay and neither are you or anyone else.

 

It is just that we only know the one realm of the natural so we must add to our knowledge of the natural an understanding of the spiritual. The Bible shows that after His resurrection, Jesus was both physical and spiritual. He told others to touch Him and He ate food with them. Then, He walked through a wall or disappeared. I believe we will be able to flow freely between these two realms of existence and God will be all in all.

But we have the "spirit" within us that should be able to magically give us the cross-over knowledge of the supernatural. It doesn't. It's quite silent on the matter. The "soul" is supernatural and doesn't do much good in the old supernatural feedback department either. However, all the other senses (for most people), work just dandy. Well within what you might call "acceptable tolerances." If we're all somehow "blind" to the "supernatural" then I find it quite odd that "god" could magically cure physical ailments but not "spiritual" ones. Even arguing that he can heal the "spiritually" blind is a lie since, unlike the physically blind that easily pass the most basic tests of "Do you see what I see?," those that have been healed "spiritually" tend to disagree on what it is they're looking at in the "spirit" realm. So they're all looking at different things or they see nothing and I'm looking at a big pile of bullshit. Guess which one I'm leaning toward?

 

Another kingdom with other rules and other glorious creatures of God's creation.

And like my example above, if I quizzed divers long enough I would learn you were having the same experiences and seeing the same things. People have been quizzing the "spiritual" for far longer than I've been alive only to discover they're seeing a whole lot of what they want to see and nothing else. I can guaranty that if I signed on to what you're selling I'd start seeing your "visions" too. We'd be swimming in the same little ocean. It's called "group think" and it's a nifty thing. But I still wouldn't be seeing a "spirit realm" but simply my version of your version of things. I could never actually "test" these ideas in any meaningful way because they wouldn't extend beyond my own mind. If I stopped listening to you and yours then my ideas could change which could lead to a fracture between us at which point we might accuse one another of losing our way. Sound familiar?

 

mwc

[Fweethawt]

Sorry Fwee...can't hear you. Got that damn "Cats in the Cradle" song playing over and over in my head!

 

mwc

Bingo, Brutha! BINGO!