Ex-religion.net

[thunderbolt]

I believe that 90% of churches have got this one 100% wrong. I can tell you about what the bible says about hell if you are interested, but i will not even try and defend other church's opinion on hell doctrine.

And you get to decide that how? That is the main problem with Christianity; the fact that there are more than 30,000 brands of Jesus, each calling the other false, each claiming to be following the True Jesus, and dismissing the rest as "false" or deluded or getting it wrong, each accusing the rest of being heretics. You all can hardly agree on two things about Jesus, except that he was a historical figure – how ironic.

 

You have merely bought into an alternative doctrine of hell by cutting and pasting the verses together until the whole mess makes sense to you. So did I. Once I shed my fear of hell, I was able to question the rest of hell, and realized its all myth constructed around a nudge of history. I reject Christianity, NOT because I got hurt, but because it's an incoherent religion which doesn't add up.

 

So, no, we really don't care about your theology on hell, we have heard it all, we know what Christians belief from most angles, but it still make no difference to the truth of the story.

[Ouroboros]

I believe that these fundamental truths we do not understand yet is the laws of nature/science and the moral laws. As time allows us we have sometimes a clearer (but also sometimes a more warped) understanding of these truths. We call these truths law (I do not know why i.e. The law of gravity), but we do not understand why (or how) these laws/truths have been put into place.

Out of curiosity, what are the fundamental moral laws? Can you really establish a common, fully, truly, absolut fundamental law for moral actions in every possible situation that can occur?

 

Take killing someone for instance, when is it murder and when is it not? When is it approved and when is it condemned? If you really start thinking about it, there could be so many details in the context that it's impossible to write one sentence, or even a book, that can constitute the moral code just regarding "killing". That's why the judicial system is based on interpretation of the law. That's why you have a judge, court and a jury to condemn a suspected killer. Moral is not black and white.

 

So I'm interested, what fundamental moral code - just one example - can you give me that I can agree 100% to?

[chefranden]

I believe that these fundamental truths we do not understand yet is the laws of nature/science and the moral laws. As time allows us we have sometimes a clearer (but also sometimes a more warped) understanding of these truths. We call these truths law (I do not know why i.e. The law of gravity), but we do not understand why (or how) these laws/truths have been put into place.

 

Calling something a law does not make it a law in any absolute sense. Laws are about how humans relate, not about how the universe is. And that is why morals will continue to be relative. (Notice the correlation between relate and relative.) The Law of Gravity is not a law, it is a description of how one property of matter operates on a macro scale. No King ever commanded things to fall. No legislature ever passed a bill to that effect (If the US congress ever did, Bush would have made a signing statement exempting himself.)

 

It's odd, don't you think, that ChristianGod didn't include things like the law of gravity and the speed of light in a vacuum on Moses' tablets. Just think about how much easier it would be to claim absoluteness for God with that on the books as commands of God!

[Guest HansJansen]

Hi,

 

Thanks for all the replies.

 

Wanting to know

1. I think about moral law

2. Calling a law absolute

 

 

I did not say that we got the moral law 100%. We do see however throughout humanity certain things people will call immoral. To most people for example will call raping a baby, cutting it into pieces, and eating it for the next six months immoral. There is a fundamental truth that we cannot see or understand, but within the law of a country we have made a law - do not rape - based on a more fundamental truth(using an extreme example, there is much more debated/subtle examples, but I do not wish to go into them as this is outside the realm of the topic). The same is true for science. We observe certian things, then because we do not understand the fundamental truth behind it, we note what we observe and then call it a law, i.e. gravity. From this you would probably also rightfully conclude that i believe that we do not have the science laws 100%. I believe that these 'laws' ar man-made, but based on more fundamental truths.

 

Hope that clears the airon what i believe, now back to what you believe (If you believe differently than i do)

[Saviourmachine]

I did not say that we got the moral law 100%. We do see however throughout humanity certain things people will call immoral. To most people for example will call raping a baby, cutting it into pieces, and eating it for the next six months immoral. There is a fundamental truth that we cannot see or understand, but within the law of a country we have made a law - do not rape - based on a more fundamental truth(using an extreme example, there is much more debated/subtle examples, but I do not wish to go into them as this is outside the realm of the topic).

Our feelings of what is ethical right and what is ethical wrong is shaped by natural and social evolution. A character trait that lets you deceive your fellows the whole time is not very beneficial over time. This is the classical Prisoner's Dilemma. The solution of nature is to craft such feelings in our minds/hearts that we instinctively know what we can do and what we can't. This craftwork is not perfect, and criminals exist. The way evolution works now in shaping our feelings, our instinct is still by chosing your mate. However, now also other characteristics of surviving systems will feel the pressure of selection. If certain values causes a country to lag behind others, its values will change or it will become an outsider and the values will change over time from inside out. That only things that benefit a system will survive is almost a tautonym. More fundamental than this you can't go IMHO.

 

The same is true for science. We observe certian things, then because we do not understand the fundamental truth behind it, we note what we observe and then call it a law, i.e. gravity. From this you would probably also rightfully conclude that i believe that we do not have the science laws 100%. I believe that these 'laws' ar man-made, but based on more fundamental truths.

I agree that science is incomplete. Can you further explain your idea about "fundamental"? Can something be fundamental if we are never able to understand it? How then can we decide that it is fundamental? How can we label something that we don't understand? I agree with the sense: "There are things hidden for us." But I don't know if they are more valuable. Neither do I know if they fall under the nomination "truth".

[SkepticOfBible]

I believe that 90% of churches have got this one 100% wrong. I can tell you about what the bible says about hell if you are interested

 

Oh we do know what the bile says about hell .Hell is pretty much a punishment for unbelief for Christ as the Jewish Messiah.

 

Don't worry we are quite aware as to what the bible says, and here just to prove that here are the verses

Mark 16:16(Jesus speaking)

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

 

John 3:18

He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

 

John 3:36

He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

 

1 John 2:22-23

Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.

 

John 14:6

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

 

Heb 3:12

Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God.

 

And just in case you say "hell is seperation from god and not torment" I suggest you read these excellent article

 

CARM - Hell

The Reality of Hell

[Guest HansJansen]

About hell then:

 

Thanks for all the scriptures,..

 

You qouted the scriptures, but the scriptures did not say that hell is eternal burning!

 

What i did read is that you do not recieve life, but death.

 

I do read however that there will be no eternal life to those who do not accept jesus christ.

 

Rev 20:9 And they went up over the breadth of the earth and circled around the camp of the saints, and the beloved city. And fire came down from God out of Heaven and devoured them.

 

Rev 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the Lake of Fire. This is the second death.

 

The destruction is everlasting, not the act of destruction (not turning back).

To me it sounds pretty much that there will be an end.

 

Thanks for the two links.

 

Hans jansen.

[chefranden]

...I do read however that there will be no eternal life to those who do not accept jesus christ...

 

Why do you want eternal life?

 

Why do you think you would not be bored to tears after the first million years or so even if hot sex is included? I like Amazing Grace. It is a nice tune. However, after Ive been singing it 10,000 years to know that there are no less days to sing Gods praise is a might scary.

[Dhampir]

However, after Ive been singing it 10,000 years to know that there are no less days to sing Gods praise is a might scary.

That line got me started thinking there couldn't be a heaven. If I couldn't get through a 45 minute praise and worship session, how could I ever do it for 1 year, let alone 10,000?

[Ouroboros]

Does "years" and "days" even exist in heaven?

[Padreko]

Yes I believe in absolute truths. I believe that it is an absolute truth that there are absolute truths. I also believe in the absolute truth that A=A and that 1+1=2.

 

 

My crazy logic/philosophy double major friend said that 1+1 doesn't always equal 2. I can't remember exactly how he explained it but it has to do with number theory or something. Think you can elaborate?

[Ouroboros]

1 apple + 1 orange = 2 fruits.

[Guest HansJansen]

Why do you want eternal life?

 

Why do you think you would not be bored to tears after the first million years or so even if hot sex is included? I like Amazing Grace. It is a nice tune. However, after Ive been singing it 10,000 years to know that there are no less days to sing Gods praise is a might scary.

 

If it we were just commanded to sing and sing and sing and sing... that would be quite boring. The song amazing grace does have a nice tune. To sing is not a commandment but a response.

 

Let me give an exmaple. The amount I know about maths is quite limited (doing my third year varsity) compared to how much knowledge is out there. 1. How long will it take me to know about the current science just of maths. Looking at what he created will have a natural response in me to say "how great thou art". This qualifies as praise. Nothing will be hidden to us, it would be like looking into a clear mirror. But have you tried looking at the detail of both your eyes in the mirror at the same time? Or try to look at the back and the front of your hand at the same time. As we discover(look at) the different magnificent works, praise will be a natural response.

 

If say I spend a hundrend thousand years to look at other sciences (not maths), then when i look again at maths i would have forgotten the awesomeness of what i have discovered a hundred thousand years ago, it would then again let me say 'you are awesome'.

 

This does not only pertain to science. First of all sex then would be totally different than what we see as sex now. And sex will not be the only 'good feeling', but i am sure it would be a very, very good experience.

 

I like chess for instance, and all the different possibilities that there exist with chess is beyond the calculation of any supercomputer today.

 

I also believe that if we not only look at the science behind everything, but also at the beauty thereof we will overwhelmed that something so complex also look as a whole so great. I am thinking of the working of cells that make up an organism for instance. But then we can also look at the molecules that make up the cells etc.

 

Singing the 'no less days to sing god's praise' is quite a deep and meaningfull phrase

 

However, after Ive been singing it 10,000 years to know that there are no less days to sing Gods praise is a might scary.

That line got me started thinking there couldn't be a heaven. If I couldn't get through a 45 minute praise and worship session, how could I ever do it for 1 year, let alone 10,000?

 

 

Does "years" and "days" even exist in heaven?

 

Interessting question. I heard a lot of people say that you cannot have infinity if time exist. That one day we will exist outside the realm of time. Unfortunately the same people will not then define what it means to be outside the realm of time. A thousand years is like a day, and a day like a thousand years.

 

"Psa 90:4 For a thousand years in Your sight are as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night."

 

"2Pe 3:8 But, beloved, let not this one thing be hidden from you, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."

 

I do not know if we would be also be able to view a thousand years like a day, or wether we would be able to view a day in the timespan of a thousand years, but it does give a bit of a perspective of how it must be to be outside the realm of time. Like to be able to slow down or speed up a video cassette.

 

As for wether there will be "years" and "days" in heaven i do not know, but that it would still exist is most probable. I find it hard to define infinity without the existance of time.

 

My crazy logic/philosophy double major friend said that 1+1 doesn't always equal 2. I can't remember exactly how he explained it but it has to do with number theory or something. Think you can elaborate?

 

I wish i could. Not only in philosophy, but also in maths there is still some things that just does not add up. Look at http://www.learnenglish.org.uk/crazyworld/...rea=3&subarea=3

 

Thanks for the posts and for some critical thinking!

 

Hans.

[Saviourmachine]

1+1 is not 2

This involves binary relations like I already described in a post in this thread. It contains the binary relation of equality (wikipedia). Its questionable if there is such a thing that is in all facets exactly the "same" as "another" thing. Above that "+" is just a convention for some operation. You can make it mean whatever you want. It also depends on what the numbers mean, 1 + 1 = 10 is used in a binary numeral system. If you have an adder (wikipedia) and you set both inputs high, one output will be low, one will be high. That's indisputable just like putting objects one by one in a vase and having as a result two objects in the vase. Although, the objects shouldn't be "drops", but countable... And hence! What a surprise! Some vicious conceptual circle appears.

 

Sex

Maybe singing is having sex in the heavens. Even though, I'd become tired of having some kind of eternal intercourse too...

 

Math is great

1. How long will it take me to know about the current science just of maths. Looking at what he created will have a natural response in me to say "how great thou art". This qualifies as praise.

Yep.

 

Science hunts beauty

I like chess for instance, and all the different possibilities that there exist with chess is beyond the calculation of any supercomputer today.

I did play chess too. It's however a good example. Deep Blue managed with opening books and a lot of analyzed material to beat Kasparov. This is a good example about - the (perhaps) rude methods of - science. It solves mysteries that people don't want to have solved at all. At least, not in this way! The computer is just a machine. Science does miss something, it has no heart. It doesn't subscripe to meaning, to feeling. And they fail to imagine a science going beyond this. Science is discipline, a way of looking just like you describes. I hope I will manage to take artificial intelligence to higher levels. Ah, I would like that so much. And besides that artificial life will give birth to virtual worlds, that will have all that kind of scary beauty people admires. And it is scary at times. Depends where you look. Natural selection works great. Babies with birth defects are swiftly discarded. But how cruel! How cruel for the parents! How cruel are the religious teachers that couple it with doctrines. With amazingly inhuman questions like: "Is the 'sin' of that small child a matter of inheritance?"

 

The Phrase of Humanity

Singing the 'no less days to sing god's praise' is quite a deep and meaningfull phrase

It's so human. "Singing" is pumping longs. It needs air. "Quite" springs from incompleteness and imperfectness on earth. "Days" from a spinning earth. "Praise" is something you give to dominant fellows of your specie. "Deep" is a cliff or the ocean. "Meaningful" is a thing that enables communication. Communication is something you do with your fellows. "Is" is a statement that shows that you have found some truth. Truth is what most often works. "Phrase" is a linguistic mechanism. Recursivity and grammar enables this specie to reason and convey complex messages. "No" springs from the fact that lies exist. It is a meaningful phrase, because it reveals so much about the person - or actually the specie - that utters it.

 

When God Erases Us

Interessting question. I heard a lot of people say that you cannot have infinity if time exist. That one day we will exist outside the realm of time. Unfortunately the same people will not then define what it means to be outside the realm of time. A thousand years is like a day, and a day like a thousand years.

What it means to be outside time is very easy to imagine. Suppose this world is a virtual world running on a computer. The programmer is in this case above the time defined by the system clock/processor or the application. She is able to stop the application to debug, to rerun the application, whatever. God can fast-forward her video-recorder when it becomes dull. Is that a cool idea? Another IMHO not so funny point: Believing in imaginary time makes this world less realistic. To be religious contains the danger to forget to live life at its fullest.

[LosingMyReligion]

The reason why it is ex-christian is, probably, because the majority of people here used to be Christian.

 

furthermore, the tenets of Christianity are so strict and binding that you begin to resent the entire religion.

 

So, yes, I do think it is worse than the Eastern Philosophies...But it is right up there with Judaism and Islam.

[Thurisaz]

Is christianity much more dangerous than other religous groups?

 

If you ask me, in a way, yes.

At least over here in Germany, people tend to brush off the totally braindead jebus morons with the thought "Well, christians are mostly harmless, so why bother too much?". There are definitely times where I'd prefer jebus fundies to be as rabid and violent as mohamed fundies - at least that way the danger is so painfully obvious that you gotta be a master in the art of self-delusion to brush off this...

 

Do you believe in certian absolute truths.

 

I'd say it's pretty much the same with absolute truth as it is with "proof". It's nice in the realm of maths and philosophy, but not of too much use in the real world. I'd be hard-pressed to come up with any really absolute truth aside from pure logic et al.

 

I have not heard of anyone saying that they believe christianity is true, but despite the fact have chosen against it due to moral objections.

 

My concern is not as much that you become a christian, but that people become tolerable towards one another despite their religous belief system. (Also if they do not have one!)

 

Ad 1:

Indeed, the legendary god-denying non-christian is pretty much a figment of fundie imagination (and a nice propaganda tool, I've to grant that to the morons). Just how braindead would one have to be to believe in but deny the "only one who can save you from an eternity of torture"?

 

Ad 2:

Well, inasmuch as christian visitors are tolerant of us, we generally are tolerant of them. Unfortunately that isn't the case very often, so it's not that much of a wonder that many of us tend to think first of a Lindisfarne reenactment when the typical christian guest drops in.

 

(I see you already received some flak. Maybe when I read on to the rest of the thread my opinion of you will become more negative, but so far you seem to be... okay. Maybe not really likable, but at least okay. We'll see)

 

Eternal burning in the lake of fire does not make sense. If there will be only joy in heaven, then how on earth(or in heaven) can you have joy when people that was close to burn and burn and burn.

 

I believe that 90% of churches have got this one 100% wrong.

 

I'm not really sure about point #2 (do you refer to churches worldwide or only in the US?), but as far as #1 goes, 100 % agreed.

[Amethyst]

 

Science hunts beauty

I like chess for instance, and all the different possibilities that there exist with chess is beyond the calculation of any supercomputer today.

I did play chess too. It's however a good example. Deep Blue managed with opening books and a lot of analyzed material to beat Kasparov. This is a good example about - the (perhaps) rude methods of - science. It solves mysteries that people don't want to have solved at all. At least, not in this way! The computer is just a machine. Science does miss something, it has no heart. It doesn't subscripe to meaning, to feeling. And they fail to imagine a science going beyond this. Science is discipline, a way of looking just like you describes. I hope I will manage to take artificial intelligence to higher levels. Ah, I would like that so much. And besides that artificial life will give birth to virtual worlds, that will have all that kind of scary beauty people admires. And it is scary at times. Depends where you look. Natural selection works great. Babies with birth defects are swiftly discarded. But how cruel! How cruel for the parents! How cruel are the religious teachers that couple it with doctrines. With amazingly inhuman questions like: "Is the 'sin' of that small child a matter of inheritance?"

 

As for mysteries, I would say that science isn't going to solve everything. There are some mysteries that may never be solved, simply because humans can't observe everything, even with technology.

 

I wouldn't say that science doesn't have a heart. Science is based on human observation. If you take out the human side of the equation and replace it with a robot, then yes, that would be true. I think as long as you have humans, there is going to be at least a little bias, even if it's .000001 percent. But science, unlike religion, can be questioned. Its rules can change if they are verified by other scientists.

 

I think that AI will eventually get to the point where it will co-exist with us. That is, if we don't do anything stupid before then, like launch a thermo-nuclear war. I wish there was a way to see into the future, just to see what it would be like. Not my own specific future, but the future in general. Just because I'm curious and want to know.

[chefranden]

... Is christianity much more dangerous than other religous groups?...

 

I missed this before.

 

 

Evangelical religions are more dangerous then non-evangelical religions. Buddhists have fought wars, but I don't know of any where in their purpose was to make more Buddhists.

 

But on the whole Christianity is not more dangerous. That is not the problem.

 

The problem is that it is not less dangerous. If it is the true religion, it ought to mellow people out allowing them to turn the other cheek as it were. If God is what Christians think God is, he doesn't need and puny humans fighting for him. There is no need for followers of the TrueGod™ to defend him, for how will TrueGod's enemies be able to do anything that actually threatens him. It would be like shooting a kid for trying to attack a M-1 tank with a plastic sword, only worse. There is no need to war with Muslims, for if they are not "of God" they will pass away -- right?

[chefranden]

Why do you want eternal life?

 

Why do you think you would not be bored to tears after the first million years or so even if hot sex is included? I like Amazing Grace. It is a nice tune. However, after Ive been singing it 10,000 years to know that there are no less days to sing Gods praise is a might scary.

 

If it we were just commanded to sing and sing and sing and sing... that would be quite boring. The song amazing grace does have a nice tune. To sing is not a commandment but a response.

 

Let me give an exmaple. The amount I know about maths is quite limited (doing my third year varsity) compared to how much knowledge is out there. 1. How long will it take me to know about the current science just of maths. Looking at what he created will have a natural response in me to say "how great thou art". This qualifies as praise. Nothing will be hidden to us, it would be like looking into a clear mirror. But have you tried looking at the detail of both your eyes in the mirror at the same time? Or try to look at the back and the front of your hand at the same time. As we discover(look at) the different magnificent works, praise will be a natural response.

 

If say I spend a hundrend thousand years to look at other sciences (not maths), then when i look again at maths i would have forgotten the awesomeness of what i have discovered a hundred thousand years ago, it would then again let me say 'you are awesome'.

 

This does not only pertain to science. First of all sex then would be totally different than what we see as sex now. And sex will not be the only 'good feeling', but i am sure it would be a very, very good experience.

 

I like chess for instance, and all the different possibilities that there exist with chess is beyond the calculation of any supercomputer today.

 

I also believe that if we not only look at the science behind everything, but also at the beauty thereof we will overwhelmed that something so complex also look as a whole so great. I am thinking of the working of cells that make up an organism for instance. But then we can also look at the molecules that make up the cells etc.

 

Singing the 'no less days to sing god's praise' is quite a deep and meaningfull phrase

 

I guess then that in heaven you don't get to talk to God? Else why study all that stuff after you get there?

 

Me on Earth: "Hey, God, what is dark matter?"

God: ......

Me on Earth: "Alright I'll do it myself!"

 

Me in Heaven: "Hey, God, what is dark matter?"

God: ......

Me in Heaven: "Alright I'll do it myself!"

 

Looks like there isn't any difference between heaven and earth except time.

 

What if you don't like science? You like science so heaven is science? What if I like being a soldier? Will heaven be war? They say there is no end to wars, you know.

 

I don't see how forgetting data will help, for you are supposing that the process of science will never get old. And anyway you should have written your findings down.

[Antlerman]

If say I spend a hundrend thousand years to look at other sciences (not maths), then when i look again at maths i would have forgotten the awesomeness of what i have discovered a hundred thousand years ago, it would then again let me say 'you are awesome'.

A thought along these lines that could facilitate a state of eternal bliss and awe, would be that though there was full and utter awareness, memories would be like that of a goldfish who swims past the same castle in the water and every 30 seconds, amazed by this fascinating new wonder it has discovered.

 

This does not only pertain to science. First of all sex then would be totally different than what we see as sex now. And sex will not be the only 'good feeling', but i am sure it would be a very, very good experience.

Why would there be sex at all? That's a biological function for the purpose of reproduction. Our species socializes that behavior but in the end, it's driven by reproductive urges. Nothing that would be in heaven. No disrespect intended, but I'm seeing a pattern here of a created heaven. To me this offers insight into the motives of those who created the mythology of heaven and an afterlife. It's humans imagining their own continuance. Again, a very human thing to do - survive.

 

I also believe that if we not only look at the science behind everything, but also at the beauty thereof we will overwhelmed that something so complex also look as a whole so great. I am thinking of the working of cells that make up an organism for instance. But then we can also look at the molecules that make up the cells etc.

I agree and I do that here in this life. Nature is full of awe inspiring wonder. Looking at life through these eyes with a mind that can consider it in pictures of connectiveness inspires the human heart. I don't need a heaven for that. This is much cooler right now.

 

Interessting question. I heard a lot of people say that you cannot have infinity if time exist. That one day we will exist outside the realm of time. Unfortunately the same people will not then define what it means to be outside the realm of time. A thousand years is like a day, and a day like a thousand years.

The suspension of time is an experience that occurs to humans under certain circumstances. Read about the affects of sleep paralysis, etc. I personally have experienced being "outside of time", a remarkable experience. I believe that these human experiences have found their way, naturally, into mythological concepts of life beyond death and the gods. Human's experiences, imaginations, and wonderings have given us these concepts of an afterlife and the gods. What a marvelous work is the imaginings of man to inspire ourselves to create such a universe! I mean that sincerely.

[Guest HansJansen]

If say I spend a hundrend thousand years to look at other sciences (not maths), then when i look again at maths i would have forgotten the awesomeness of what i have discovered a hundred thousand years ago, it would then again let me say 'you are awesome'.

A thought along these lines that could facilitate a state of eternal bliss and awe, would be that though there was full and utter awareness, memories would be like that of a goldfish who swims past the same castle in the water and every 30 seconds, amazed by this fascinating new wonder it has discovered.

 

This does not only pertain to science. First of all sex then would be totally different than what we see as sex now. And sex will not be the only 'good feeling', but i am sure it would be a very, very good experience.

Why would there be sex at all? That's a biological function for the purpose of reproduction. Our species socializes that behavior but in the end, it's driven by reproductive urges. Nothing that would be in heaven. No disrespect intended, but I'm seeing a pattern here of a created heaven. To me this offers insight into the motives of those who created the mythology of heaven and an afterlife. It's humans imagining their own continuance. Again, a very human thing to do - survive.

 

 

Hey cool idea. Being a goldfish and all! Will remember that one for a preach one day! It will go something like this:

"We will be like goldfish not with a 30 second memory, but probably with a 30 thousand year memory! Kind of like a super goldfish!" - possible future quote by hans jansen.

 

As for sex. Yes sex for biological reproduction there will be no need for. Remember though that christians do not see sex as biological reproduction, but as people becoming one. A lot of people battle to see real beauty in sex because of a negative connectation (someone always get hurt). Men and woman for instance have different desires when it comes to sex. Call this hormones or whatever you will, there is still a noticeable difference. When one gender acts selfishly towards the other sex it is inevitable that there will be conflict, even if it is just internal. Sex is one thing that can heals or destroy a person. I do not define sex as penetration, but as the act of giving physical affection. This physical affection is an outward expression of your internal state towards a person. Thus even though physically you would be different than you are now, there would be then, more than now an outward expression towards god. This may seem like a very strange idea, but it is for most people hard to imagine sex without the negative connectation.

 

When i refer to churches i refer to churches worldwide. In case anyone have not noticed yet, i am definitely anti roman catholic . A lot of churches, most of them in fact, still have a lot of remnant teachings of the rcc.

 

I never said that we wont have communication with god. When we will ask god a question, we will recieve the answer. As for knowing everything at the same time, i have never seen any evidence from scripture to back up that claim.

 

Another interresting topic is war. If you like to be a soldier, does that mean you have to fight? I have attended a debate recently on the topic of a standing army for the united nations. The proposing team suggested that an army is not only there to make war, but also to serve people (build houses distribute food etc.). Do you propose that if you love killing people (in a war) will there be killing (in a war) in heaven? Heaven forbid! lol!

 

Artificial intelligence is a cool topic. However there are always limitaions to artificial intelligence. Unfortunately there are limitations. There is people that believe however that these limitations are man-made. This is a link to the a world renown ai researcher that might help if you also believe this. http://web.media.mit.edu/~minsky/ More about this man here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvin_Minsky

 

I however think that there are limitations to

1. computer processing

Already hitting close to the limit to which our technology can progress. When a new technology that can replace the existing transistor becomes widely available, then it might be more probable.

2. the algorithms

To design algorithms that design diverse algorithms not originally anticipated in the design by the original algorithm writer is a feat that no known human has accomplished yet. The person that came the closest according to popular belief is Marvin Minsky. Do think he have some very nice ideas, but i think he is stretching the results and their implications a bit too far.

 

And now lastly for an interresting and at the moment a hotly debated subject. The issue of the heart of science. It is true that science has got bias in it. I do not believe however that the bias is small. Say you are a christian. You believe that god created the earth six thousand years ago. When you see things that does not seem to add up to this believe, you will dig deeper until things add up. This is also true if your initial stance is that all religion is false. If you see things that seem to point to an impossibility to describe away by pure chance, you will take the stance that we just do not understand it yet. You will then also dig deeper until you can find a rational explanation that make sense to you.

 

Either way science will have bias in it. There is evidence of scientists becoming christian due to their discoveries, and scientists that turn away from their beliefs due to science. This to me show that there is valid arguments either way, even if there is bias involved. On this issue i try to look at the merit of the different arguments and make up my mind. Unfortunately you would not be able to get an unbiased opinion from me. I try to look at this issue in particular without having a bias, but that is extremely hard to do. This is however not an argument on wether evolution is true or not, but rather an example of how believes (either way) have influenced science.

 

Enough of what i believe. What do you believe?

 

Hans.

[Antlerman]

And now lastly for an interresting and at the moment a hotly debated subject. The issue of the heart of science. It is true that science has got bias in it. I do not believe however that the bias is small. Say you are a christian. You believe that god created the earth six thousand years ago. When you see things that does not seem to add up to this believe, you will dig deeper until things add up. This is also true if your initial stance is that all religion is false. If you see things that seem to point to an impossibility to describe away by pure chance, you will take the stance that we just do not understand it yet. You will then also dig deeper until you can find a rational explanation that make sense to you.

 

Either way science will have bias in it. There is evidence of scientists becoming christian due to their discoveries, and scientists that turn away from their beliefs due to science. This to me show that there is valid arguments either way, even if there is bias involved. On this issue i try to look at the merit of the different arguments and make up my mind. Unfortunately you would not be able to get an unbiased opinion from me. I try to look at this issue in particular without having a bias, but that is extremely hard to do. This is however not an argument on wether evolution is true or not, but rather an example of how believes (either way) have influenced science.

 

Enough of what i believe. What do you believe?

 

Hans.

You are an interesting person. I enjoy your thoughts. On the topic of bias in science in the quote above: You are partially correct, but appear to be making many conclusions based on some misconceptions. People have biases, not science. Modern science and the scientific method in particular are designed in such a way as to prevent personal biases from influencing the results of a study.

 

First, you have to test the hypothesis, not just run with it and make all sorts of unsupported assumptions. It's not building a model on your thoughts. It doesn't work like that. The fact that it can be falsified reduces its possibility of being dismissed as someone’s opinion. Religious beliefs cannot be tested objectively and therefore are religious in nature, not scientific.

 

Moreover, you have peer review. If someone claims they have a working theory and others with their own rainbow spectrum of personal biases all examine your data, testing parameters, run their own tests, etc and all corroborate your conclusions, then the system has reduced or eliminated bias from influencing the findings and you have increased its reliablity.

 

There is much more to it and you can look at it more here: http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/.../AppendixE.html

 

The scientific method is the best system we have for determine unbiased, objective theories about the natural world. The accusations of the religious community are fear based and with little merit. Personally, I see them as projecting their own method of truth finding on to the science community, largely because the natural world more that often disagrees with their preconceived ideas that are faith based, rather than objective derived through experimentation. They are trying to diminish, discredit, or dismiss it by falsely reducing it to be faith-based system like there own and attacking it as essetially a competing religious system. That of course if false, and speaks poorly of them in my opinion.

 

The important thing to mention here about science is that is only concerned with and only examines the natural world. God is a conceptual construct only. There is nothing that science can test. Science does not dealing in "meaning", that is how you are supposed to internalize what it means to you emotionally/spiritually. That is the role of philosophy. The arguments from the religious if anything should be against various philosophies - not science. Science is not a philosophy. It deals in the reliablity of knoweldge of the natural world.

 

If I look in the natural world and see only marvelous, wonderful natural processes with no external Mind pulling the strings of life, what does this mean? It can mean isolation, fear, terror to others, yet to others it can mean extreme beauty and liberation of the heart to be whatever it wants without the limits of some man made system of gods confining the soul. Science does not speak of the meaning of what it has found, only the reliability of what it has found.

[Guest HansJansen]

 

The important thing to mention here about science is that is only concerned with and only examines the natural world. God is a conceptual construct only. There is nothing that science can test. Science does not dealing in "meaning", that is how you are supposed to internalize what it means to you emotionally/spiritually. That is the role of philosophy. The arguments from the religious if anything should be against various philosophies - not science. Science is not a philosophy. It deals in the reliablity of knoweldge of the natural world.

 

If I look in the natural world and see only marvelous, wonderful natural processes with no external Mind pulling the strings of life, what does this mean? It can mean isolation, fear, terror to others, yet to others it can mean extreme beauty and liberation of the heart to be whatever it wants without the limits of some man made system of gods confining the soul. Science does not speak of the meaning of what it has found, only the reliability of what it has found.

 

 

Thanks antlerman.

 

I do understand the current world (accepted) view of science. If we describe science as only to pertain to the natural world, already a naturalistic bias have been placed on science as a whole. Thus when we see things that best describe a non-naturalistic explanation, we will assume with the current definition of science that there has to be a naturilistic explanation we do not see yet, or else it falls outside the realm of science. Already we have excluded any possibility that god might be real in the definition of science. This is of course my viewpoint since i am not a naturalist myself. If however you are a naturalist, you believe that there is nothing else than the natural world. When science can make inorganic matter into organic matter (cells that can reproduce), then already there would be a more valid claim that a known process can start life. At the moment it is guesswork, without being able to test the hypothesis. This is where i see bias comes into play. Neither a naturalist nor a creationist can test the hypothesis of the origin of life. Both camps can describe a theory that to the best of their knowledge fit the facts, but it does not imply by the outset that their theories are correct (or incorrect). I try to look at both camps from their perspective and then make up my own mind.

 

Would like to look at the link you have posted, but it seems like it is not working

Can you please post it again.

 

P.s. thurisaz.

 

Eternal burning in the lake of fire does not make sense. If there will be only joy in heaven, then how on earth(or in heaven) can you have joy when people that was close to burn and burn and burn.

 

I believe that 90% of churches have got this one 100% wrong.

 

I'm not really sure about point #2 (do you refer to churches worldwide or only in the US?), but as far as #1 goes, 100 % agreed.

 

I concede. My experience was and is with churches in south-africa. After your qoute i did some research and realized that there are many churches worldwide that does not hold on to the doctrine of hell (burning into eternity). Thanks for that, it really encouraged me!

 

Thanks all, hope to hear from you soon.

 

Hans.

[SkepticOfBible]

About hell then:

 

Thanks for all the scriptures,..

 

You qouted the scriptures, but the scriptures did not say that hell is eternal burning!

 

 

Jeebuz krayst

 

So you want scriptures which mentions about burning and torture

 

I wish you had read those articles

 

Here are your scriptures which talk about torture and burning

 

Matt. 13:41-42, "The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness, 42and will cast them into the furnace of fire; in that place there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

 

Rev. 14:9-11, "And another angel, a third one, followed them, saying with a loud voice, "If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives a mark on his forehead or upon his hand, 10he also will drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is mixed in full strength in the cup of His anger; and he will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb(Jesus). 11"And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; and they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name."”

 

Matt. 5:22, "whoever shall say, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell."

 

Matt. 25:41, "Then He will also say to those on His left, 'Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels.

 

Jude 7, "Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example, in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire."

 

I think it is quite clear that hell is place of torment and burning,

[Hellbound Alleee]

I think it's pretty valid to weed out the poor individuals who might make the absolutist statement "there are no absolute truths."

 

But the fact that someone might not be a total absolutist doesn't mean that the supernatural=natural. It doesn't mean that maybe Christianity is real. I am willing to stick out my big ones and say no, there is no possibility that christianity is real, and therefore it cannot be good. There are many other religions that are bad too, but when you're an ex christian, chances are you've studied christian scripture and not so much the Vedas. That doesn't mean I won't stick my big ones out and say it is not possible that Brahma emerged from the belly lotus of Vishnu and created the world, any more than it is remotely possible that god scooped up some mud and made a guy who was lonely and had his own nipples and belly button for some strange reason, and made carnivorous animals in a world where there was no predation.