So. If I were a God, and I had a heaven for the good kids and a hell for the bad ones, I would need to decide whether those kiddies went to heaven or to hell. It would seem to me that this deciding would be done on a case by case study of each person's qualities and such. I can imagine allowing someone who claimed that there was a different god than me into Heaven if he lived a good life, was kind and upheld virtues that I felt significant. In short, I don't think whether each particular person did exactly what I told them to do would be what gets them into heaven, but living a good life and being a positive force in society would get them in.
So. Couldn't an atheist like myself, upon my death, be judged to have been a pretty upstanding fellow, and so ushered into Heaven alongside the good religious guys?
Posted by Shawshank (Member # 8453) on :
What if the religious aren't good? What if it's not our "goodness" as to why a person would get into heaven.
Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
quote:Originally posted by Starsnuffer: So. Couldn't an atheist like myself, upon my death, be judged to have been a pretty upstanding fellow, and so ushered into Heaven alongside the good religious guys?
I see no reason why not. It's God's judgment that matters in the end, not mine. If He wanted you in Heaven, you'd be there.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
I hope so. It's hard for me to fit the idea of a "Good God" with a being who could condemn virtuous people for doing the best they could with the information they had available and their own reason.
I tend to hope that salvation is available to everyone.
("So. Still an atheist?"
"Uh..." (looks around) "No."
"Glad we got that settled. Come have a look around.")
I'm wouldn't be surprised if such a view didn't seem frivilous, if not downright blasphemous, to some.
Posted by anti_maven (Member # 9789) on :
That's an interesting question, and not one faced by theists. Afterall, if there is nothing after death you won't be disappointed, you just won't *be*.
But don't worry, if you're a Jatraquero, I'll save a horn of mead, a haunch of venison and a bench by the fire in Valhalla.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
Sorry, my fellow atheist, you can't have it both ways. If you don't accept deity X as your saviour, you can't join X in His/Her heaven. You’ll send yourself automatically to the respective Hell.
By many definitions, Hell is not a “place” per se, it’s actually a state of being as related to some deity. Namely, your wilful separation from the deity. If you’re rejecting one deity, that deity won’t incorporate you, against your wish, in His/Her Heaven. Most of the deities do respect your free will, or so they say.
So, your question does come with some prejudice, that is, that there is ONE Heaven and ONE Hell, and that maybe different deities try to lure you in one place or the other, but the Heaven is still the same. It’s not the case, as far as I had the pleasure to learn from my theist friends.
The conclusion is simple: whatever you do, theist or atheist, you’ll go to some “hell” as defined by each of the deities you don’t believe in.
As an atheist you should at least be happy that you don’t believe in none of those “hells”.
A.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
I think a lot of atheists have a better chance at a positive afterlife then a lot of religious people I have met.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
We don't really know anything, so it is possible. If we knew, faith wouldn't matter. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Sterling, your phrasing is somewhat whimsical, but, at the core, I tend to agree with your scenario.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
[over-generalized metaphor begins]
So as I grew up I was told stories about my missing dad, and given a book of things he was said to have done and said. Many of the stories are excellent, instructive, and beautiful. Many of the stories are odd, or dated with old prejudices and inaccurate facts, or even contradictory. My brother and I are raised by several different people in succession, all of whom have different interpretations of what the book means and what our missing dad wanted us to do. All of them agree that we have to adhere to their teachings of dad's book or he won't be happy with us when he comes back.
My brother follows the book devoutly in the hopes of future reward and out of fear of future rejection. I decide the heck with the book, since I don't know if my missing dad even wrote it and some of those teachers are whack jobs. So I take the lessons I learned, venture out into the world and try to do good anyway, assuming my possibly-mythical dad is gone for good.
If dad ever did come back, would he be more impressed by the son who followed his a specific interpretation of his teachings from fear, or the son who finds his own meaning from those teachings and from others and becomes a good person for the sake of doing good?
[end overly-general metaphor]
It's unfair, I know. I don't think all Christians are Christians out of fear or hope of reward.
But this question spoke directly to that issue, and a god who treats eternal reward as some sort of VIP room, exclusive to the members of a special club who all know the right code words to get in, is not a god I would willingly follow anyway.
Posted by dantesparadigm (Member # 8756) on :
Thanks, kmb.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I'm sure an atheist could go TO heaven, but would have to abandon that aspect of their belief system in order to enter.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
yea, I don't think that you could be an atheist and go to heaven. By that time I don't think you would be an atheist anymore.
Then again, I come from a religion where Heaven and Hell have problematic definitions. They might go to a Heaven, but that doesn't mean they would have Exaltation. If that last statement makes you scratch your head, maybe someone else will explain the concept.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Depends on the heaven too. We may have a polytheist heaven, in which case a monotheist may have to abandon that part of their belief system to enter. We may have a reincarnation system in which case it might not even matter what one believes. We may even have a heaven which exists totally independently from any god. There is even a small chance that we all don't get to enter heaven because it turns out we all didn't eat enough pasta or whatever is required for the Spagetti Flying Monster.
In short, it all depends Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Maybe this should be in it's own thread, but:
Why would God make atheists in the first place? I mean, according to Ecclesiastes, there is a time and a purpose for everything. What is the purpose for non-belief?
(I have my own answer, but I'll hold it in abeyance for now.)
Posted by Starsnuffer (Member # 8116) on :
Well I wouldn't still claim to be an atheist if after dieing god came over to me, or one of his secretaries/underlings, and told me that he thought I'd done such a super job in life that he's offering me to go to heaven. I would obviously say sure, god, thanks for accepting me, I guess it was pretty silly for me to not believe in you all this time, but I guess I turned out alright even without saying thanks all the time.
It just seems like the only fundamental difference between me and a religious person is that I don't believe in god,and they do. I behave in a similar way and I'm a good person.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: Maybe this should be in it's own thread, but:
Why would God make atheists in the first place? I mean, according to Ecclesiastes, there is a time and a purpose for everything. What is the purpose for non-belief?
(I have my own answer, but I'll hold it in abeyance for now.)
If God put belief in every person, it would pretty much toss that whole "free will" thing out the window. My belief is that every culture was given a religion to suit their needs. If someone can live a moral life without belief in God, well I'm pretty sure He has many other people he is worried about.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Stephen:
Don't assume we do have free will. At best we have partial control, and vastly less even of that of our less conscious but still equally relevent aspects.
Not to rain on the rest of your post, of course. Just one of those fun quibbles, you know?
Posted by Shawshank (Member # 8453) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:
Why would God make atheists in the first place? I mean, according to Ecclesiastes, there is a time and a purpose for everything. What is the purpose for non-belief?
Most people look at this passage in Ecclesiastes as to mean that God creates everything for a purpose. "There is a time to live and a time to die" and they take it to mean that God has a set time period when you are going to die.
It's really kind of a cynical piece of the Bible. It's talking about the futility of life without God- you'll live, you'll die, you'll experience a few different situations in life and that's it. And when you die that's it- everything is futile.
The writer is being somewhat sarcastic and cynical- it's saying that without God everything is futile.
God doesn't make "atheists" per se. He simply creates humans in imago dei (in the image of God- which I believe means that we are sentient and have free will) and with that free will we can believe what we want.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: Stephen:
Don't assume we do have free will. At best we have partial control, and vastly less even of that of our less conscious but still equally relevent aspects.
Not to rain on the rest of your post, of course. Just one of those fun quibbles, you know?
I think I would like to see you expand on that a little. There is way too much evil in this world for God to have any control in our actions.
Posted by Shawshank (Member # 8453) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan:
If someone can live a moral life without belief in God, well I'm pretty sure He has many other people he is worried about.
I don't think God judges our morality in the way that we do. If He is a perfectly holy God then any act of disobedience towards His will is immoral and by its very nature evil. Since God is incapable of sinning and cannot be tempted compared to us is infinitely better. It's not really based on a curve. 50% get into hell and the better half get into heaven.
It's more based on the idea that we have a personal relationship with God and using that relationship we try and do God's will in our lives.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shawshank:
quote:Originally posted by Stephan:
If someone can live a moral life without belief in God, well I'm pretty sure He has many other people he is worried about.
I don't think God judges our morality in the way that we do. If He is a perfectly holy God then any act of disobedience towards His will is immoral and by its very nature evil. Since God is incapable of sinning and cannot be tempted compared to us is infinitely better. It's not really based on a curve. 50% get into hell and the better half get into heaven.
It's more based on the idea that we have a personal relationship with God and using that relationship we try and do God's will in our lives.
Just to clarify, is it part of your belief system that all sins carry the same amount of weight?
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
I think that this thread is a good place to use one of my facebook quotes.
"Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones." - Marcus Aurelius
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Speaking as a Christian, I believe that God would do everything in His power to get anyone, atheists included, into heaven. So, either atheists do go to heaven, or God's power is limited in some way that prevents Him from letting them get into heaven.
That could be a logical limitation, of the sort like "God can't create a rock that God can't lift". For instance, if heaven simply is the state of believing in God, then it is logically impossible for someone who doesn't believe in God to be in heaven.
I really don't know what heaven is, or what limitations God faces, so I can't answer those questions. But my belief is that God's intends for all people to go to heaven, as far as possible.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:For instance, if heaven simply is the state of believing in God, then it is logically impossible for someone who doesn't believe in God to be in heaven.
That's already been covered. All God has to do is make the atheist believe in God.
quote:I really don't know what heaven is, or what limitations God faces, so I can't answer those questions.
Nor can anyone truly answer any questions about God at all. That's a problem with the nebulous and ambiguous God of the Bible. If Thor appeared and used his hammer to created thunder, or if Zeus threw a couple of lightning bolts for my amusement, I would have a difficult time disbelieving in either of them.
But (if the bible is true) the God of the Bible has demonstrated that he has the ability to interact with humans directly, yet he refuses to do so for more than one or a few people at a time. The common argument for this is that it creates a need for faith, and that somehow faith is superior to knowledge.
Ok. But this implies that there is a reason why doubt is necessary, because otherwise faith would be meaningless. Atheism provides contrast. But still: Why? Why not simply appear to all of us in some minor way, once in our lives that we can't contest? Or (to steal a line from Jesus Christ Superstar) why doesn't God have access to mass communication, especially in the modern world?
Posted by the_Somalian (Member # 6688) on :
I think most atheists would just be rejoiced at getting an afterlife--regardless of what kind!
Posted by Sala (Member # 8980) on :
My two cents: Heaven is being in a place where you are happy with who you are and what you're doing. If you have been a good (righteous) person you will have happiness and joy. If you were a bad (evil) person, you would still have some measure of happiness, though perhaps not to the extent that others would have. Even an athiest would be in heaven, experiencing happiness and joy.
Hell is for those who reject God's grace with a full knowledge of what that grace entails. In other words, the only people who will be in hell will be those who totally understand who and what God is and has done for us, and then rejects that offering, rejects God. In this scenario, an athiest wouldn't be in hell.
Posted by Starsnuffer (Member # 8116) on :
Ok, but let's take what you just said Sala... Who the heck would take some kind of suffering or punishment in a hell of some kind when they could, after finding out about all the grace and goodness of god unambiguously, move into the cushy and lovely heaven? And I feel like being in hell, although among like-minded people, would not be pleasant and would in fact be quite horrible... eternal punishment and suffering? not so fun.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
"Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones." - Marcus Aurelius
Well, that made my point better and much more elegant than I did. I'll go with this.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*jealously looks at his metaphor in Chris' post and steals it back* Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
Chris, thank you. You just proved to me that my educational path is not a complete waste.
Posted by Sala (Member # 8980) on :
Starsnuffer, the person who would take that kind of suffering is the person who doesn't want that grace and goodness of God. He or she is so opposed to God, despite knowing about that "cushy and lovely heaven" that he or she would rather reject it than accept it. I don't think very many people will be in hell. Most everyone else will accept what God has to offer, whether it be a limited amount or a great amount.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
If, after death, some deity comes and gives us the choice between Heaven and Hell, then why all the fuss about faith during this lifetime?
A.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
For many of us, faith is about how we live, not about what happens after we die.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
Ok, but this is in the context of the “destination” of atheists after death. I’m quite certain that many atheists are more concerned about how they live their life, than about what happens after it. Then, why have faith? What does faith bring, that an atheist can’t have otherwise?
A.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
This thread brings up some question I've wondered about--can there be atheists in heaven? Assuming there is an afterlife and a heaven, can you remain there without believing in the god of heaven? Would you want to?
Posted by Shawshank (Member # 8453) on :
quote:
quote:Originally posted by Shawshank:
quote:Originally posted by Stephan:
If someone can live a moral life without belief in God, well I'm pretty sure He has many other people he is worried about.
I don't think God judges our morality in the way that we do. If He is a perfectly holy God then any act of disobedience towards His will is immoral and by its very nature evil. Since God is incapable of sinning and cannot be tempted compared to us is infinitely better. It's not really based on a curve. 50% get into hell and the better half get into heaven.
It's more based on the idea that we have a personal relationship with God and using that relationship we try and do God's will in our lives.
Just to clarify, is it part of your belief system that all sins carry the same amount of weight?
Yes
Posted by Shawshank (Member # 8453) on :
quote:Originally posted by: Advice for robots
This thread brings up some question I've wondered about--can there be atheists in heaven? Assuming there is an afterlife and a heaven, can you remain there without believing in the god of heaven? Would you want to?
If heaven is created by some sort of god then I don't think atheists would be logically explain away god.
Posted by Marek (Member # 5404) on :
The title of this thread still sounds to me like the first part of a joke, but i have yet to come up with a good punchline
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shawshank:
quote:Originally posted by: Advice for robots
This thread brings up some question I've wondered about--can there be atheists in heaven? Assuming there is an afterlife and a heaven, can you remain there without believing in the god of heaven? Would you want to?
If heaven is created by some sort of god then I don't think atheists would be logically explain away god.
I suppose that it depends on what the afterlife is like. Obviously, Atheists would have to do some serious reevaluation of their beliefs. However, unless god himself shows up (or some other such convincing event), then there could be other explanations for an afterlife than God. For example, it could be some different deity than the one described by Christianity. Or it could even be that there really is some physical "soul" that maintains our consciousness somehow. At any rate, while it would definitely be unexpected for an Atheist, an afterlife wouldn't in and of itself imply that God exists.
Posted by Shawshank (Member # 8453) on :
Hence my caveat "If heaven is created by some sort of god"
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:Originally posted by ricree101: Obviously, Atheists would have to do some serious reevaluation of their beliefs.
Or lack, thereof.
For an open minded skeptic, learning new things is possible.
A.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:"Uh..." (looks around) "No."
So, what happens if, even if given the evidence of your deceased senses, you say yes. Does heaven really require the existance of a god of somekind? It could be purely scientific.
*idea for story*
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by ricree101:
quote:Originally posted by Shawshank:
quote:Originally posted by: Advice for robots
This thread brings up some question I've wondered about--can there be atheists in heaven? Assuming there is an afterlife and a heaven, can you remain there without believing in the god of heaven? Would you want to?
If heaven is created by some sort of god then I don't think atheists would be logically explain away god.
I suppose that it depends on what the afterlife is like. Obviously, Atheists would have to do some serious reevaluation of their beliefs. However, unless god himself shows up (or some other such convincing event), then there could be other explanations for an afterlife than God. For example, it could be some different deity than the one described by Christianity. Or it could even be that there really is some physical "soul" that maintains our consciousness somehow. At any rate, while it would definitely be unexpected for an Atheist, an afterlife wouldn't in and of itself imply that God exists.
Right, but in the spirit of this thread, say you wound up in heaven where there was definitely a god. Let's say it was a very nice place to be. Would you give up your atheism and believe in that god? What would it take for you to do so?
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
It's all about the proof of that deity that "definitely existed".
It's something like this: If a deity would slap me in the face, I'd take it into consideration.
I'm curious how many atheists wouldn't.
A.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I am reasonably certain that there will be atheists that, upon finding out that there is in fact a God, won't commit obedience to all of His requirements. Some will probably convince themselves that some of the rules are retarded, and that they know better.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
Wait, is total obedience a pre-requisite to going to Heaven (whatever the definition of Heaven you choose) I wonder how many theists qualify for that one…
Compare that with the opinion shown in this thread that “good atheists” could be accepted into some form of Heaven (some definition that I don’t subscribe to).
A.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Here is heaven the way I believe in it: Your belief in God coupled with obedience to his commandments does actually prepare you for a higher degree of heaven. Kind of like your diligent practice prepares you to play or perform at a higher level. Having lived a genuinely good life, having done good for one's fellow beings and for the world, although without believing in God or keeping all of his commandments, will certainly yield many great things but not everything that is possible. You don't enter the afterlife being any different or really knowing any more than you do in this life, but take along with you everything you've done and become in this life, including your beliefs and desires.
As far as total obedience--or being perfect--that's not something we can attain on our own in this life. That's where the grace of God comes into play. If we are striving for it and relying on God to help us, then we will be able to attain much more than we could on our own--both for our own good and for the good of others.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
"Some will probably convince themselves that some of the rules are retarded, and that they know better. "
If you need to convince yourself that something like genocide, or, even worse, eternal torment for finite crimes, or no crime at all except living as we're designed to, is retarded, then there's something gravely wrong with you, BB.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
suminonA: Jesus already said in effect, "many who proclaim my name will find themselves cast out of heaven come judgement day." I understand that statement to mean there will be people who follow the letter of the law but not the spirit that created it.
I think humility is more important, as God's ways are not man's ways, but they are better by far.
0Megabyte: You should know better then that. You are certainly in no position to judge what took place in Canaan thousands of years ago. I can easily conjure up several scenarios where genocide would be justified. I fully expect that when I understand the whole situation it won't be difficult to accept God's POV.
You already know that Mormons do not accept the doctrine of original sin, or that God sends people to hell for doing what they honestly have concluded is right, OR sends anyone to languish in hell infinitely.
You keep brining those points up in religious threads and it seriously hampers the discussion. Many Christians doubtlessly believe your interpretation of those doctrinal points, but not all, and it's pointless for you to bring them up when discussing God with me.
I hope that you can at least accept that there is much you do not understand about the universe and even the nature of morality, and how an all knowing God runs things.
Posted by Starsnuffer (Member # 8116) on :
"Right, but in the spirit of this thread, say you wound up in heaven where there was definitely a god. Let's say it was a very nice place to be. Would you give up your atheism and believe in that god? What would it take for you to do so?"
It would take me nothing, for I'm not against the idea of God (except that he seems a cruel, ambivalent, and apathetic deity), I merely ask for a reason to believe. A book I buy at borders with the word BIBLE written on it, is not a good enough reason for me, for the same reason that a book I buy at borders with the words The Odyssey written on it is not a good enough reason for me to believe in gods. Because there is nothing inherently holy about them. Were I to wake up after being shot in the head, and "[wind] up in heaven where there was definitely a god" I would say Wow. Thanks God.
It is not that out of principle I reject there being a God, and would therefore be offended to discover indisputably that there indeed is (at least) one. It is out of logic that I reject believing something for which I have not been given adequate evidence to believe.
It is not a moral issue. Given indisputable proof (preferably by god himself) I would believe in God. (And I'm not really clear why some of you think that it is out of contempt for the concept of a God that I and others like me do not believe. It seems to me that most atheists would respond similarly to how I have, in accepting indisputable evidence.)
P.S. Insert qualifiers as you wish to temper my opinion where it seems I should not be so steadfast, unless it's something like a "I THINK" statement.
P.P.S. Sorry to atheists who I have spoken for, and possibly misrepresented, feel free to remove yourself from my explanation.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
My understanding of it is that if you've done your best to live a good life, by whatever light you have, and if you get the saving ordinances posthumously or otherwise (and every effort will be made to do them for everyone), then you won't be automatically kept out of the celestial kingdom, the highest degree of heaven. However, your choices both now and in the life or lives to come will ultimately result in you placing yourself in the kingdom which suits you best. Not everyone wants eternal glory and to become gods themselves. Some just wanna hang out with strippers and beer volcanoes or whatever.
Some very few, and this is heartbreaking, will consign themselves to outer darkness despite all the love and efforts of those around them. They will be granted nonexistence which will be their only wish. That is the most tragic part of the plan of salvation, to me, because I love those souls specially.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I think humility is more important, as God's ways are not man's ways, but they are better by far.
I agree with the part about humility. It makes me sad to see how arrogant some people are. A note though: there is a difference, as to what sits at the origin of that arrogance: ignorance or knowledge. One bothers me much more than the other.
I can also respect your belief about the “value of the ways" of your favourite deity. Unfortunately, what’s harder to agree upon is our respective level of knowledge about those ways.
If there will be a “judgement day” I would gladly accept the judgement made by the deity, and I take full responsibility for all my actions, my lack of faith included. What bothers me is the way other humans judge me, as if they were in possession of the accurate knowledge about some deity’s intentions and decisions. Talk about humility.
A.
PS: this is a generalised rant, not intended for anyone in particular here.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
"0Megabyte: You should know better then that. You are certainly in no position to judge what took place in Canaan thousands of years ago. I can easily conjure up several scenarios where genocide would be justified. I fully expect that when I understand the whole situation it won't be difficult to accept God's POV.
You already know that Mormons do not accept the doctrine of original sin, or that God sends people to hell for doing what they honestly have concluded is right, OR sends anyone to languish in hell infinitely."
I wasn't talking about Canaan, but anyway that's not the point.
My words were more hostile than were warrented. However, the point I failed to make was this. Whether God is good or not depends on what God does, and for why.
I'm not one to accept someone as good just because that person or entity is strong.
The assumption that God is good is not necessarily true. Whatever gods there are, could be liars. And if they had sufficient power, it would be hard to tell, wouldn't it?
If this god had commited genocide, and had no good reason, I'd not merely assume the action was good, anymore than I'd assume a genocide caused by any human was good.
Your Mormon faith does differ from the things I usually deal with. I talk too much off this board with some real crazies, including some IRL friends of mine. Some people believe vile things. I think it embitters me too much, and I should definitely stop.
Regardless, no, I don't already know all of those details about your faith specifically, or your specific beliefs. Each of you believes something slightly different, after all.
The god you worship doesn't send one to hell for those kinds of things? You don't believe in original sin? Good for you. And yes, I should have made the point of my post more clear, rather than being merely vitriolic.
But I wouldn't assume any gods I would meet are good, automatically, even if they make me feel deep love or something.
It'd take a conversation first. Probably a rather long one.
(Of course, having an actual honest to goodness afterlife would change any equation dealing with how much life is worth. If the things about life I value as important do not dissapear, well... there's a different set of things to deal with, aren't there?)
"I hope that you can at least accept that there is much you do not understand about the universe and even the nature of morality, and how an all knowing God runs things. "
I was not aware that I made it sound like I knew everything about the universe.
My lack of knowledge is well known to me. But I also know what I know, if you know what I mean.
I can think of ten thousand scenarios. But I'm looking at the world as it is, and there are... difficulties, unless you're playing flat out make-believe.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I would have to say BB, that your reaction to 0Megabyte was a bit over the top. Now, my reaction to your reaction might be because of my unfamiliarity with any past discussion. I took the answer was a general rather than specific example. It was far from the first time anyone here, no matter how much they understand Mormonism (not the only religion on this board), has made similar statements.
Perhaps the harsh tone is because Mormons do believe in one kind of eternal Hell that 0Megabyte's attitude touches, and an atheist is least likely to go there. Sons of Perdition are those who having witnessed God still reject Him and will be sent to Outer Darkness. What that means hasn't been explained, but it is a horror far beyond comprehension that only those assigned to it will ever know. Still, I think God is a reasonable enough Person that His ways can be understood by all when the time comes, and only a true evil person will reject the answers.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
suminonA: I agree the knowledge bothers me less then ignorance. But at the same time if we compare a prideful brainiac against a humble ignoramus, pride is exceedingly difficult to cast off, whereas knowledge is a relatively easy thing to gain.
Occasional: If my reaction was over the top I am sure 0Megabyte will let me know, he is a big boy, and I am not impossible to talk to. We've talked about religion quite a few times, though not as many times as say KOM or Tom.
----- 0Megabyte:
quote:I wasn't talking about Canaan, but anyway that's not the point.
You mentioned genocide, I thought that event was what you were talking about. Or did I miss the genocide you were going for?
quote:Whether God is good or not depends on what God does, and for why.
I'm not one to accept someone as good just because that person or entity is strong.
Absolutely yes! But you can also look at the long term effects of what God commands and in part judge their virtues. You can analyze the effect of obeying as it pertains to you.
At the very least we can agree that if there is a God, and he is all powerful, He CERTAINLY must be in possession of some HUGE truths, otherwise how would he have obtained His power? Obtaining that knowledge then could make us happy.
quote:I was not aware that I made it sound like I knew everything about the universe.
I didn't actually believe you did, but I've met more then a few atheists who say in effect, "Nope NOPE! I've already seen enough, there is no way God can justify His behavior to me, I've already denounced Him even if He does exist!"
It's a very asinine attitude to adopt, I don't think YOU feel that way, but I'm sad when anyone drifts in that direction.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Heh. Some people's gods I might say that quoted passage of.
Any god that requires human sacrifices, for example.
But I'd have to talk to any actual god I met before deciding, honestly. I keep the option open that any gods might be evil. After all, this world can suck sometimes. But, it'd be just one of those weird situations.
*a dead me looks around at the pearly gates. God is hanging out, sitting on his throne or whatever.*
Me: Um... huh. I was under the impression that I was dead. That's... odd. Where am I? And who are you?
God: Oh, I'm God. I'd say nice to meet you, but I already know you and every hair on your head, so... hello.
Me: Oh. Well then. Unless my brain is hallucinating as it dies from the lack of oxygen, um, that kills a few of my theories, doesn't it?
God: Yeah, but you're into that science thing, right? Generally changing beliefs to fit new evidence doesn't bug your type too very much.
Me: Well, it'd be rather silly to deny what I see in front of my face. I wonder how long hallucinations would last. I feel rather more lucid than I would imagine in such a thing.
God: Well, some hallucinations get quite vivid. Your human brain's design, while quite useful for survival, screws up pretty spectacularly when things go wrong.
Me: True, true. Anyway, if you ARE God, I have a few, um... million questions. Hmm. Weird. My memory seems vastly better already, and when it came to things I was interested in, my memory could be almost encyclopedic anyway.
God: Questions, eh? Well, it's not like we're in a hurry. Since I'm everywhere, at every time, and have all power, you won' tneed to worry about interruptions unless you wish to.
Me: *laughs* Ahh. Well, let's begin then...
===
Well, it'd be a little akward, but that's one possible meeting with God. Especially if, in showing Himself to me, he takes on a sort of air that I'd find somewhat comfortable.
But yes. I can't say for certain any gods would be good or evil, because I doubt any of the ones specifically presented to me exist. This fits the same for Yahweh as Quetzecotl.
Some people believe some pretty vile things, though, and even if they have nothing to do with any gods, and I believe they don't, it's still something that gets under my skin easily.
I have a strong feeling that how one envisions God, what one focuses on and believes in, may be at least in part a reflection of their own personalities. Yes, dogma is specific to religion, but I'm thinking more of how people feel God is supposed to act.
My mother, for example, feels that God helps those who help themselves. (I don't think she sees the possibly subversive and sarcastic way that Ben Franklin may have meant this) That says something about her personality. She's the sort who is independant, and feels like relying on one's self is better. If you don't do it, nobody else will, not even God. Though she wouldn't phrase it that way, since my phrasing there could be taken as less positive in its portrayal of God than my mother would prefer.
Anyway, that's the sort of thing I mean. It'd be nice to have evidence of some god. That would without a doubt be a very interesting, and perhaps enlightening experience. But this world doesn't show me any, so I'm not going to presume. Otherwise, I'd be most likely following something as false as Baal, unless I was incredibly lucky.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
I haven't read this whole thread, but I'd like to respond to the initial question at the risk of repeating things others have said.
Assuming there's a god:
First of all, a large part of it has to do with whether or not there would be some sort of discussion/meeting with god and/or his spokespeople, or if atheists by default just get shunted off to hell.
Assuming the former, I think a bigger part of it would be how well god could convince me that how he operates is correct. If we're talking about the Christian god, that will take some doing as I disagree with a great deal of what he's supposed to be responsible for.
Maybe that sounds arrogant. But I only have my own mind and morality to judge things by. And I would not be okay with living in a heaven that belonged to a god who thought killing everyone but 8 people (for example) was a good way to run things. That's just me.
Of course, if it was a deistic god, who just sort of started things and let everything unfold as it would, I don't think I'd feel too bad in hanging around in his heaven if he wanted me.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
megabyte, I imagine the conversation something like this:
"Oh, that's who You are! Well, of course! Now it makes sense. I have loved You my whole life.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
How about a theist who gets to heaven, but everybody there tells him that although there is an afterlife, there is no God?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: How about a theist who gets to heaven, but everybody there tells him that although there is an afterlife, there is no God?
He'd may or may not have a problem switching allegiances to the resident area authorities.
Somebody would still be in charge right? Unless there is no afterlife after that afterlife and there is no transition protocol. That being the case I'm not sure how society would function.
I suppose people could still do terrible things to each other in such a scenario, is there still physical pain? Mental pain?
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
"Oh! Really? Then who's in charge of this joint?"
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I just want to clarify that outer darkness in Mormon belief isn't a horrific place of torture or whatever. It's only horrible in the sense that so much of great worth and potential is lost there. It's horrible to the rest of us, who know the joy and beauty and glory that could be theirs, if only they could see and accept it. For us it's a place of great sorrow, but for them it's just blessed surcease. For those to whom existence is agony, it's release from pain, release from existence, it's just nothingness. Nobody gets tortured for eternity. That's what outer darkness means. Those for whom existence is torture are allowed to not exist.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
Some people believe that we are saved through faith alone. The explanation I've heard is that none of us are really good or perfect. We all sin, so the only way to reach heaven is through Christ.
Some people believe that faith alone cannot save you, that it must go along with good works. This seems to leave at least some room for an atheist who does good works to go into heaven.
Personally, I'm concerned with the mention of "faith" in both of the typical scenarios I've heard. I'm not an atheist or even an agnostic, but my religious beliefs fall outside of Christianity. I have "faith" that there is a god who created the Earth and yet I don't completely buy the part where he sent his son to Earth a couple of thousand years ago to die for us.
So....Do I have to have the whole story right? Or just part of it? Which part? Or is faith in *something* enough?
Guess we'll see. It all makes me nervous but a few years ago I came to the conclusion that I can't force myself to believe in something simply because society has made me afraid of what would happen if I don't. I think that's kind of hypocritical.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
quote:I just want to clarify that outer darkness in Mormon belief isn't a horrific place of torture or whatever.
And I want to clarify, Tatiana, that theologically no one knows what Outer Darkness is other than those who will go. My own personal take is that it IS a horrific place of torture or whatever. Now, what kind of torture I wouldn't have a clue, although more than likely psychological. Mormons seem to downgrade hell more than the Scriptures (Bible or modern revelation) justify.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Some people believe that faith alone cannot save you, that it must go along with good works. This seems to leave at least some room for an atheist who does good works to go into heaven.
You can't divorce the two concepts from each other like that. While true that many believe that a confession of belief in God is enough to invoke his saving grace, and once one is saved they are always saved, the other end of the spectrum simply calls into question what real faith is.
For me for example, I believe God's grace is all that is required to be saved, and to obtain that grace all that is required is faith in God. My works in of themselves have no power to save me or anyone else.
However, if I have true faith in Christ, I will do the works he has instructed me to do. How can I say I have genuine faith in Christ when people cannot see Him through me?
I look at faith as a condition, like say having a fever. You can't say the raised temperature is what a fever is, or that mucus build up is a fever. If you have a bona fide fever however those symptoms will attend you while under the condition of the fever.
So then if somebody has caught the faith in Christ condition, one of their symptoms will DEFINITELY be good works.
People without good works are like those who hold a thermometer up to a light bulb and submit that as the raised temperature everyone with a fever has.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: My own personal take is that it IS a horrific place of torture or whatever. Now, what kind of torture I wouldn't have a clue
This just struck me as hilarious. I'm curious if there's a happy, sunshine and candy type of torture I don't know about. Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Some people believe that faith alone cannot save you, that it must go along with good works. This seems to leave at least some room for an atheist who does good works to go into heaven.
You can't divorce the two concepts from each other like that. While true that many believe that a confession of belief in God is enough to invoke his saving grace, and once one is saved they are always saved, the other end of the spectrum simply calls into question what real faith is.
For me for example, I believe God's grace is all that is required to be saved, and to obtain that grace all that is required is faith in God. My works in of themselves have no power to save me or anyone else.
However, if I have true faith in Christ, I will do the works he has instructed me to do. How can I say I have genuine faith in Christ when people cannot see Him through me?
I look at faith as a condition, like say having a fever. You can't say the raised temperature is what a fever is, or that mucus build up is a fever. If you have a bona fide fever however those symptoms will attend you while under the condition of the fever.
So then if somebody has caught the faith in Christ condition, one of their symptoms will DEFINITELY be good works.
People without good works are like those who hold a thermometer up to a light bulb and submit that as the raised temperature everyone with a fever has.
I know. This is one of the biggest differences between Catholics and Protestants and if you read my post carefully, I made no attempt to choose between one or the other. I was simply outlining that both points of view exist before asking my main question.
My real question was further down. As faith is a big part of beliefs, what is faith? Faith in what? Does it have to be Jesus? If so, what do I have to believe about him? How "right" do I have to be?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: My own personal take is that it IS a horrific place of torture or whatever. Now, what kind of torture I wouldn't have a clue
This just struck me as hilarious. I'm curious if there's a happy, sunshine and candy type of torture I don't know about.
Well sure, some people's idea of hell is to hang out with little kids in an amusement park.
quote:Mormons seem to downgrade hell more than the Scriptures (Bible or modern revelation) justify.
Such as? I've never read anything in the Book of Mormon that didn't imply that fire and brimstone is a metaphor, and I pretty sure there are parts where it expressly says it is a metaphor. Mostly, I think it will be a lot like No Exit only with more than three people.
P.S. I just checked on mormon.org and the official church position is pretty vague. You can follow the next couple of links from there to read about judgment, resurrection, and heavenly rewards.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I look at faith as a condition, like say having a fever. You can't say the raised temperature is what a fever is, or that mucus build up is a fever. If you have a bona fide fever however those symptoms will attend you while under the condition of the fever.
So then if somebody has caught the faith in Christ condition, one of their symptoms will DEFINITELY be good works.
Ok, but what about all the other “symptoms”, that is, the “not good works”? Do they matter? Is there a “balance” to be hold? How many “not good works” disqualify one from being “saved”?
I’ve heard/read recently something, not sure if here or elsewhere, but it went like this:
"The actions of <insert favourite deity here> are by DEFINITION good."
I suppose you’re not trying to say that, but even if you only imply that the deeds “inspired” by some deity are by definition good, you are getting close to a point that I have to comment on. Rant in progress:
There is a “little” (read BIG) problem (a moral one) to define as “good works” the ones done by people having faith in the meaning of Christ as you see it. It is way too little a step from there to justifying Crusades and Jihads … Think for a moment and tell me if I’m wrong. Do you really believe that ALL “evil works” were done by “evil people” with and evil intent and just using hypocritically the “good faith” as an excuse? I submit that most of them were “reasoned” and “justified in good faith” (at least) for themselves, and they were genuinely feeling sorrow for the “witches” that they had to burn at the stake when the Holy Inquisition had to purge evil and heresy from the civilised world. You cannot define “morality” and “goodness” as you see fit from your favourite set of scriptures. Morality is a matter of consensus. It is a human (social) matter. Your interpretation can’t be an absolute one, without more proof than a circular argument: My deity is the only true one, my deity said such, and that is good because the only true deity said so.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: People without good works are like those who hold a thermometer up to a light bulb and submit that as the raised temperature everyone with a fever has.
What about those with “good works” that don’t have a “fever” ? Are those “good works” or not? And what is necessary for the “going to heaven”, the “good works” part or the “fever” part?
A.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: My own personal take is that it IS a horrific place of torture or whatever. Now, what kind of torture I wouldn't have a clue
This just struck me as hilarious. I'm curious if there's a happy, sunshine and candy type of torture I don't know about.
Just ask Cardinal Ximinez.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Ok, but what about all the other “symptoms”, that is, the “not good works”? Do they matter? Is there a “balance” to be hold? How many “not good works” disqualify one from being “saved”?
Pretty sure this is God's prerogative, him being the judge and all.
quote:What about those with “good works” that don’t have a “fever” ? Are those “good works” or not? And what is necessary for the “going to heaven”, the “good works” part or the “fever” part?
Depends on their motives for doing good works. If I give to the poor because culturally it's the right thing to do and I don't want to be embarrassed by not doing so that particular act is not indicative of a good nature.
Take the Guaraní of South America. They would often kill any child a woman had beyond the first, because the jungle could not support their society if children were born uncontrolled. The killing of little children certainly is not a good work, in the sense that it as a rule makes people better, but as they were prompted out of a sense of necessity I hardly see God judging them to be evil.
People should constantly be seeking knowledge and wisdom, but each and everyone obtains varying amounts of both. It hardly matters exactly how much we obtain, it matters far more of what disposition we are when we are given the full story by God.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
I would argue that a perfect deity in no way makes His followers also able to determine perfect morality. Folks thinking they knew as well as God was the first sin, right? He didn't seem to approve then, and I doubt He did in any other instance.
I disagree with your interpretation of morality, though. I decided when I waitressed that a fourth of my customers were mean and another fourth were vultures looking to profit from others' mistakes. I'll take the book over consensus with most of humanity.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Ok, but what about all the other “symptoms”, that is, the “not good works”? Do they matter? Is there a “balance” to be hold? How many “not good works” disqualify one from being “saved”?
Pretty sure this is God's prerogative, him being the judge and all.
Does that mean that human judgement, on moral issues especially, is inherently flawed (and therefore should be abolished)? If so, where is the deity to tell us his/hers judgement? Is it awaiting us after death? Is it here now? Did the message come in the past? If it came in the past, do you really trust all the chain of people who took that message and change/interpret it in their best of ways, to keep it mean the same thing today? If it’s here now, where is it? If it awaits us after death, what is its relevance in this lifetime?
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: People should constantly be seeking knowledge and wisdom, but each and everyone obtains varying amounts of both. It hardly matters exactly how much we obtain, it matters far more of what disposition we are when we are given the full story by God.
- - - emphasis added - - -
When is that? I’m still waiting …
quote:Originally posted by AvidReader: I would argue that a perfect deity in no way makes His followers also able to determine perfect morality.
That depends entirely on your definition of “perfect deity”. Remember that there are people (e.g. myself) that don’t share that definition at all. And also, I ask you: is there any human in possession of that “perfect morality”? I suspect your answer to be “no”, and I’ll agree with you. But that’s the same thing as pretending to know the Absolute Truth about anything, and when acknowledging that no human has possession of it, to “give it” to your favourite deity. What is then its relevance to this real world we live in? We have to use our knowledge to make the best of this life as long as we are aware of it.
quote:Originally posted by AvidReader: Folks thinking they knew as well as God was the first sin, right? He didn't seem to approve then, and I doubt He did in any other instance.
If you choose to believe that, that it should be like so, for you. But if you ask me, that’s not right, on several levels:
1) How do you know that the “knowledge (apple) tree” story is accurate, if not as factual, at least as a metaphor? The mere fact that it appears in some ancient text is not enough for me, while there are other ancient (as in sacred) texts that are incompatible with it.
2) If the story is inaccurate, than whatever conclusions one draws from it are faulty. If the story is accurate at least at the metaphor level, then think about what it means: The deity created “free” individuals, and gave them curiosity and the ability to understand, and then made it a rule not to learn by themselves the “good and wrong”. I say that’s not right. Human nature is based on curiosity and the ability to comprehend the Universe, even if it was created by some deity. Either way, why should it be a sin to use that human nature?
I was trying to put into words for some time why the favourite deity of my parents and the theology that comes with, helped me make my choice, in rejecting it as a whole: I chose not to worship a deity who needs ignorant people to do the worshiping. Call it pride, call it sin, but I want to know and to understand and I don’t like the answer: “Believe without question”. I don’t want to be associated with people that see “blind faith” as a virtue. Therefore I have to feel like a “stranger” even inside my own family. I feel this kind of social pressure quite a lot. I don’t like it and people (even close ones) don’t like it when I challenge the status quo. I simply ask questions, and reject the answers based on ignorance: “it is the deity’s mystery, you can’t question that”. And I let them make their own choices about what they want to believe.
3) On the third level, arguing that a very interpretable story be the “that’s why” of considering ignorance a virtue, undermines your own power of understanding. If you’ve made a choice not to “push the questions”, then you limit yourself. Let that be your choice. But that gives you, or anybody else, no right to argue that others shouldn’t ask the questions themselves. I want to understand more, and if that’s a sin, let the deity punish me and let me be responsible for my own choices.
quote:Originally posted by AvidReader: I disagree with your interpretation of morality, though. I decided when I waitressed that a fourth of my customers were mean and another fourth were vultures looking to profit from others' mistakes.I'll take the book over consensus with most of humanity.
- - - emphasis added - - -
Are you talking about a book in particular, as in the Book? I have to ask because I don’t see your point.
If, by any chance, you’re talking about any kind of scriptures, you should also realize that what those scriptures mean is ALSO a matter of social consensus, in the sense that society had/has to accept the meaning interpreted and given by those who self-proclaimed to be the messengers of some specific deity. So instead of accepting the actualized social consensus based on today’s reality, you stick to some ancient and probably artificial consensus that has little barring on the present society. Again, your choice, but let me make mine.
To sum up, let me ask this: If a human being comes out and says: “I gave it a lot of thought, and I arrived by myself to a set of moral rules that everyone has to obey”, what would your reaction be? What if that same person comes and says instead: “I was inspired by this deity and thus I give you the set of moral rules that everyone has to obey”?
If you yourself didn’t hear of feel the “inspiration”, why should you take this second version any more seriously?
I made a choice not to take anyone’s individual rule on morality as “the perfect” one. I learn what people believe around me, and if I don’t like the consensus I challenge it. If I can’t prove my criticism to be valuable, I either have to obey the consensus rule, or go and live in some other society that follows another consensus that I can resonate with.
A.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I'll just say this in advance, if I do not respond to every section of a long post it's not because I have nothing to say in response, I just won't necessarily have the time today to get to all of it.
quote:Does that mean that human judgement, on moral issues especially, is inherently flawed (and therefore should be abolished)?
No it does not mean that, and so the rest of the paragraph does not need my response. Human judgment while flawed is still something we should learn to do righteously. But as was said in another thread, people do not have the full knowledge necessary to judge the actions of another human being. I think we of course can look at ourselves and judge but even we cannot recall all that we should in order to judge our own nature. All it says in the scriptures is that we will die, obtain a perfect memory of all we have done in the past, (including things before we were born) and that we will judge ourselves in our minds before God makes his judgment.
quote:- - - emphasis added - - -
When is that? I’m still waiting …
Well then you are off to a good start, patience is a virtue after all. But in seriousness, you and I will likely have to wait until death before we know the FULL story of our existences. You can get bits and pieces of it by living true to the principles you have concluded are right. Far be it from me to again play God and say whether you are ready or not for more.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: But in seriousness, you and I will likely have to wait until death before we know the FULL story of our existences.
Wow. How convenient.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: But in seriousness, you and I will likely have to wait until death before we know the FULL story of our existences.
Wow. How convenient.
Do you have anything else to add to that statement or are you content to just shout from the peanut gallery?
What is convenient about that anyway? People live their lives as best they can and with the truth they have, and after the game of life is over you find out your score.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: But in seriousness, you and I will likely have to wait until death before we know the FULL story of our existences.
Wow. How convenient.
Do you have anything else to add to that statement or are you content to just shout from the peanut gallery?
What is convenient about that anyway? People live their lives as best they can and with the truth they have, and after the game of life is over you find out your score.
I prefer the peanut gallery, thank you.
It is convenient because I can use "well, we won't find out until we're dead" to justify belief in anything.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Javert, that doesn't make it any less likely. Since we are talking about the afterlife, it kind of makes sense that we don't know about it until after life.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
It doesn't make it more likely. In fact, if you're saying "we can't know until we die", then the act of believing in whatever it is becomes completely irrational.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: But in seriousness, you and I will likely have to wait until death before we know the FULL story of our existences.
Wow. How convenient.
Do you have anything else to add to that statement or are you content to just shout from the peanut gallery?
What is convenient about that anyway? People live their lives as best they can and with the truth they have, and after the game of life is over you find out your score.
I prefer the peanut gallery, thank you.
It is convenient because I can use "well, we won't find out until we're dead" to justify belief in anything.
You most certainly cannot. We make decisions in life all the time that we are unsure what the outcomes will be but yet we make them. Investments, marriage, children, jobs, they all have HUGE outcomes that we try our best to forcast but more often then not turn out differently then we thought they would, for better or worse.
All we can tell ourselves is, "I weighed all the evidence and I made a decision, only time will tell if I made a good choice."
Truth is hardly different, of course certain choices are better then others. A person who lies to themselves to the point that they now believe a lie is certainly not going to get a free pass into heaven because he, "believed a lie was the truth."
Conversely a person who is raised to believe a lie and has difficulty forsaking that lie in the face of truth can still be cut some slack by the good judge.
I as a rule do not attempt to figure out who is going where in the next life. I might be shocked by who I see in both places, and that's a waste of effort. It's far better to just worry about me and mine and try my best to be a good person as well as uplift those around me. If there is no afterlife I won't be around to regret anything, in the meantime it feels really good to live that way, of that truth I am confident.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
My problem, BB, is that in your original comment it read as a version of Pascal's wager. At least that's how it read to me.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
Look, A, if you're mad that God didn't make us to be a bunch of little perfect godlings, then I don't know what to tell you. I think knowing our limits is kind of the whole point of this existance. It wasn't curiousity that got Adam and Eve in trouble, it was defying God and wanting to be His equal that did. (In my interpretation of course. It's a free Internet, everyone's entitled to their own take - including disbelief of the whole thing.)
Frankly, I don't understand why you're even bothering to debate my beliefs in the first place. If you refuse to evaluate them within the context of their own internal logic, then of course they're stupid. But I'm not claiming to know the Truth. I'm just claiming to be on to something that works for me that I don't mind telling others about if they want to hear it.
Yes, we all evaluate scripture, even the same bit of scripture, differently. We're all different people with our own issues and personalities. I don't think one size fits all with a belief system. I also think God doesn't care much if you're getting the main points right. Love Him and try to love others becuase you love Him. That's it. That's all I think anyone has to do to spend eternity with Him.
If that doesn't work for you, then that's cool, too. I don't think I'll see you there (though it's not my call and I could be wrong), but I don't think you'd like it, either. We're just going to be hanging out worshipping Him, and that would be Hell for anyone who didn't like God to start with.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by AvidReader: If that doesn't work for you, then that's cool, too. I don't think I'll see you there (though it's not my call and I could be wrong), but I don't think you'd like it, either. We're just going to be hanging out worshipping Him, and that would be Hell for anyone who didn't like God to start with.
To throw in my own two cents, which may or may not be worth $0.02, I don't think that sounds like hell. Just kinda boring.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert: My problem, BB, is that in your original comment it read as a version of Pascal's wager. At least that's how it read to me.
I'm not sure how it did. Pascals wager is very different then what I believe in. Mormons would laugh at Pascal if he proposed his wager at church.
But I'm glad you realize I don't believe in serving God out of fear of hell.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
AvidReader, let me start by apologising. It wasn’t my intention to come off so hard on you.
Some explanation is following, but it’s not to fabricate an excuse, it’s just for the sake of honesty:
As you might have noticed, I have the habit to “dissect” the posts and to do that I give a quote and then follow with my comment/reply. I tend do that with all the posts, regardless of their original author. That leads me to not paying too much attention to the screen name of the author, I only include it, by default, because I see it as a courtesy to acknowledge it. (I also tend to omit it when many dissected pieces come from the same author in a long list). That is to say that I answer more to the content, and the “tone” of the post, than to the screen name per se.
I realized though that I have dissected some other post of yours recently (in another thread), and that possibly the same “tone” of mine was to be found, as if I was arguing against you specifically. I have nothing against you, nor your beliefs just because they are yours. I would have given the same answer for any other author of the same points.
I really hope that we could continue to discuss on the points on this thread (I still have lots of comments) but If my tone bothers you or if my comments offend you in any way, please say so and I’ll pay more attention to not “dissect” your posts in the future. (If what I have to say (the content) bothers you, I rather not say it (to you) at all, than to change what I say just so you like it. If you think that I can improve my “tone”, I’m open to suggestions. )
My personal impression is that we have vastly different positions on things like religion, and I’d like to be able to learn more from you, by interacting in these threads. Nevertheless, if my way of arguing makes it impossible for you to enjoy the discussion, I’ll stay out of your way.
A.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
Now that I know that's just your standard tone, I'll be ok. I think it's easy in a discussion like this to assume the other person is being dismissive. Dissection I can respect.
I still stand by my other statement, though. All Christian beliefs are stupid if there's no God. I'm not sure you really can break them down logically.
Personally, I'm not a people person. I don't like most folks and find them lacking in basic decency let alone morals. I don't get that good feeling from helping others or a sense of superiority from letting things slide. I usually spend hours debating with myself if I'm upholding Christ's teachings or just lack backbone. I eventually come to the conclusion that I did the right thing, but it doesn't feel good to me.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:Originally posted by AvidReader: Look, A, if you're mad that God didn't make us to be a bunch of little perfect godlings, then I don't know what to tell you.
I won’t go so far. I’m upset when people say that their favourite deity “didn’t make as a bunch of little perfect godlings”, and that we deserve the punishment for it, as interpreted by the representatives of said deity on Earth. I’m not saying you believe that, I was making a point against that particular belief.
quote:I think knowing our limits is kind of the whole point of this existance.
I think the point of our existence is not only learning our limits, but also doing what we can to surpass those limits. If we acknowledge our limits only to feel better that we aren’t anything more, I say that knowledge is more harmful than ignorance and it shouldn’t be the chosen point of one’s existence.
quote:It wasn't curiousity that got Adam and Eve in trouble, it was defying God and wanting to be His equal that did. (In my interpretation of course. It's a free Internet, everyone's entitled to their own take - including disbelief of the whole thing.)
Here we’re getting to the interesting part. Only through communication can we learn about our respective views on this. I thank you for sharing yours here.
I’d like to know why is that “defying” such a sin? Is it by definition or is there some reason behind it? If it’s just by definition, I let it go. If there is some reason, I’ll argue with my reason against it.
quote:Frankly, I don't understand why you're even bothering to debate my beliefs in the first place. If you refuse to evaluate them within the context of their own internal logic, then of course they're stupid.
I don’t refuse to evaluate them within the context of their internal logic. I’m saying that I don’t understand the internal logic, and I ask for your view on it. I won’t call “stupid” something obtained starting another premises than mines, I only ask for “internal consistency” of the results.
quote:But I'm not claiming to know the Truth. I'm just claiming to be on to something that works for me that I don't mind telling others about if they want to hear it.
I have nothing against that. And I appreciate the fact that you don’t mind answering questions.
quote:Yes, we all evaluate scripture, even the same bit of scripture, differently. We're all different people with our own issues and personalities. I don't think one size fits all with a belief system. I also think God doesn't care much if you're getting the main points right. Love Him and try to love others becuase you love Him. That's it. That's all I think anyone has to do to spend eternity with Him.
Ok, but the question in this thread is: “is that Love” a prerequisite for that, and/or for being a “good person”? You seem to answer “yes” for the first part. What about the second?
quote:If that doesn't work for you, then that's cool, too. I don't think I'll see you there (though it's not my call and I could be wrong), but I don't think you'd like it, either. We're just going to be hanging out worshipping Him, and that would be Hell for anyone who didn't like God to start with.
I think I wouldn’t like it to worship some entity eternally. I would respect the eventual “greatness” and the “power,” but if that entity punishes me for my sincerity (and my built-in imperfection), and then requires my worshipping, then I’ll won’t “hang out” with it willingly.
quote: Now that I know that's just your standard tone, I'll be ok. I think it's easy in a discussion like this to assume the other person is being dismissive. Dissection I can respect.
Glad to hear that. The invitation to help me improve my communication skills stands indefinitely.
quote:I still stand by my other statement, though. All Christian beliefs are stupid if there's no God. I'm not sure you really can break them down logically.
See, I don’t think that all Christian beliefs are stupid if there’s no God. I respect most of the moral values that come with Christianity. I think it contains a morality (if not all, most of it) that has a value which is independent from the Absolute Truth of the knowledge about the existence of any given deity. As I said before, I don’t judge the premises, I only argue against the inconsistency of the results. The way I see them, of course.
quote:Personally, I'm not a people person. I don't like most folks and find them lacking in basic decency let alone morals. I don't get that good feeling from helping others or a sense of superiority from letting things slide. I usually spend hours debating with myself if I'm upholding Christ's teachings or just lack backbone. I eventually come to the conclusion that I did the right thing, but it doesn't feel good to me.
This is your internal “business” and I won’t comment on it. I won’t even suggest to you that maybe without the prejudices of theism it would be easier to find “internal peace”. That piece of knowledge is non-transmissible.
A.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote: I think the point of our existence is not only learning our limits, but also doing what we can to surpass those limits.
Excellent point, sir. My first statement was mostly just anger, so I'll skip that one. It really adds nothing to the discussion.
I'm not sure what it is about knowing your place that's important, but I see a theme of it in the Bible. Your actual place is generally not where society says it is. It takes most folks a lot of effort to find this self-knowledge and do something about it, but the ones who do end up happy and fulfilled. The ones who don't end up in varying degrees of trouble.
I'm not sure I'm the right person to ask what a good person is. I think God is the background good that we can draw from of our own volition. It's like He's the power going through the wiring and we choose to plug in, or He's the well and we decide when and how much water to take out. He just gives us the ability to do good (unlike a dog or gorilla) and lets us decide what to do with that.
I'm pretty vague on my thoughts on Heaven and even more so on Hell. If the soul is eternal, where would it go if it's not going to be with God who's supposed to be everywhere? Honestly, before you asked I don't think I'd ever really thought about it.
I don't think basic values count as particularly Christian. Mankind agrees to certain basics like murder and stealing are bad. Getting folks into church to hear that isn't a bad thing, but I don't think that's what it means to be Christian, either. It's about setting aside what you want to do what God says is best for those around you. I'm advocating acting on impulse and hunches that don't even make any sense trusting in a higher power to work it all out. It's ridiculous.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional:
quote:I just want to clarify that outer darkness in Mormon belief isn't a horrific place of torture or whatever.
And I want to clarify, Tatiana, that theologically no one knows what Outer Darkness is other than those who will go. My own personal take is that it IS a horrific place of torture or whatever. Now, what kind of torture I wouldn't have a clue, although more than likely psychological. Mormons seem to downgrade hell more than the Scriptures (Bible or modern revelation) justify.
One thing I love about Mormonism is the emphasis on ongoing and personal revelation that tends to make doctrine less well-defined than it is in many other religions. Now that you call me on it, I realize that I'm speaking of my view of the teachings, and other people may have other views. The central emphasis on justice which is key to Mormon teachings allows me to believe that God won't torture anyone eternally. Just as God doesn't allow unbaptized infants to be punished for something they can't help, and God doesn't punish us for sins someone else committed (original sin), and God doesn't allow people who never heard of Mormonism during their lifetimes, or who didn't have a good opportunity to accept the gospel during their lifetimes to perish eternally, it seems clear to me that he doesn't punish anyone eternally for finite limited sins or errors.
I've been taught that we will all choose the degree of exaltation that we desire, when the time comes, and that those who obtain outer darkness will also do so because that's their desire.
I don't think any of that is consistent with eternal torture, but it's true that we don't have doctrinal teachings telling us exactly what outer darkness IS like. The reason I see it as a place of blessed surcease is at least partly due to my own experiences and personal revelation, and therefore it doesn't necessarily apply to anyone besides me. You're right. However, I see no justification for believing that a loving and just God would torture anyone endlessly, either.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
Off topic:
quote:Originally posted by AvidReader: […], sir.[…]
That’s how you see me ? I’m flattered, I bow to your gentile manner. /off topic
quote:Originally posted by AvidReader: I'm not sure what it is about knowing your place that's important, but I see a theme of it in the Bible. Your actual place is generally not where society says it is. It takes most folks a lot of effort to find this self-knowledge and do something about it, but the ones who do end up happy and fulfilled. The ones who don't end up in varying degrees of trouble.
It’s hard for me to see how you associate the “tree of knowledge” story with this theme. I’m sorry if I insist on this, but this story is especially useful for “shouting people up” when they sincerely want to understand things that “theology” marks as “mystery”. It justifies limiting knowledge, which is in conflict with human nature.
quote:I think God is the background good that we can draw from of our own volition. It's like He's the power going through the wiring and we choose to plug in, or He's the well and we decide when and how much water to take out. He just gives us the ability to do good (unlike a dog or gorilla) and lets us decide what to do with that.
You may choose to believe that. Unfortunately for me, this is a description of a deity that is utterly useless, it doesn’t help me in the least understanding it, knowing it, or being better or more moral. It’s just like saying “everything you don’t understand, God understands”. Thanks, nice, but useless.
quote:I'm pretty vague on my thoughts on Heaven and even more so on Hell. If the soul is eternal, where would it go if it's not going to be with God who's supposed to be everywhere? Honestly, before you asked I don't think I'd ever really thought about it.
I’d only point out that this is the original question in this thread and I’m not its author here.
quote:I don't think basic values count as particularly Christian. Mankind agrees to certain basics like murder and stealing are bad.
My point exactly, but as long as Christian agree with it, it is a part of their beliefs that are not stupid, regardless on the “truth” of their theology.
quote:Getting folks into church to hear that isn't a bad thing, but I don't think that's what it means to be Christian, either. It's about setting aside what you want to do what God says is best for those around you.
That’s why I’m surely not a Christian. Mainly because I don’t believe that anybody has accurate knowledge about what YFD (Your Favourite Deity) says is best.
A.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:I bow to your gentile manner.
*amused*
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:I bow to your gentile manner.
*amused*
Cultural background is the main source of varying interpretation of "information".
A.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
Ok, Tree of Knowledge. God puts folks in the garden and says everything here is yours to take care of except that one tree. If you touch that one, you'll die. The serpent slides up and says no you won't, you'll be like God. They wanted the wisdom, so they ate the fruit.
I see that as them delibeately disobeying God because they wanted what He had and were willing to risk the consequences. But God knew that's what they were going to do and had already planned how to save them. (I'm of the opinion that God exists outside of time where all points are now so no one is seperated from Him. Even folks who lived before Jesus get the same ability to have a relationship with God because their sins are still paid for.)
I think it's like a parent letting a kid do something they know they won't like. This is more trouble than it's worth, but it won't really hurt you so go ahead. You're still in trouble for disobeying me, but we'll deal with it and move on.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
Ok, that has an “internal logic” that I won’t argue (it is self-consistent). I could even accept it as a way to “teach” your kids things that they won’t understand at a purely theoretic/abstract level, and have to do the practice.
I can agree with your interpretation, and I thank you for taking the time to explain it to me.
Now, back to what I don’t agree/like: Why was the “don’t do” (the forbidden fruit) exactly the one of knowledge/wisdom? Why is knowledge incompatible with “eternal life”? How can anyone justify that knowing more leads to sin/death? And I say that this story is “wrong” exactly because it justifies it, and even more, as being the “way the true deity decided”. Who on Earth can know that decision accurately?
Do you see why I don’t like it?
A.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
Except that by telling them not to eat from the tree, God implies that they already have the ability to choose between right and wrong. He doesn't train them not to touch it like you'd spray the cat with water to keep her off the table. He explains it to them and leaves them a decision.
I think the tree symbolizes the knowledge that they didn't know they had. What's the quote from Indy 3? He chose poorly.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
You know, the more I think about it, the more I think Adam and Eve's real sin was abdicating responsibility. They must have already possesed the knowledge of good and evil. They never used it and desired it when it was offered to them. Then they sat there blaming anyone but themselves for what they'd done. Adam blamed Eve, Eve blamed the snake. They had the ability to do better, they just weren't willing to put in the effort. I think that's the fundamental human sin in a nutshell.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
AvidReader, how glad I am that we had this dialogue! I really learned new things and you helped a lot. You have my gratitude.
Only one more comment, but remember that seen the way you describe it, I find logic and value in your views. If only more theists would see it like what I understand that you do.
quote:Originally posted by AvidReader: You know, the more I think about it, the more I think Adam and Eve's real sin was abdicating responsibility. They must have already possesed the knowledge of good and evil.
This is the point where our interpretations are radically different. I always understood the story about the Tree of Knowledge as the justification of the punishment of the deity for Adam and Eve (plus all their descendents) for wanting self-responsibility. It is also a paradox to punish someone for doing something to get the ability to discern good from evil, because that means that they couldn’t have known better when not obeying in the first place.
To sum up, I accept your interpretation, and leave my “criticism” for all that use it (the story) “the wrong way”. I explained here in detail what and why I see it as “wrong”, so I will rest this line of questioning.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)