I decided to add the :p to indicate I was joking/teasing.
You tease, but I was serious. That’s, in part, why I didn’t want to answer your question about Hell at the time. Because I wasn’t sure you weren’t just making noise. You yourself say that you don’t, and won’t, take this place seriously.
It’s not an hard and fast rule.
Thank you for answering though.
Based on my reading, most (near) death experiences are positive, dare I say heavenly. Of the few that are negative or “hellish,” some of those even describe being pulled from “hell” and brought into “heaven” after death, implying post-death repentance is possible. I don’t know if any of those are true, as I’ve not experienced them, but they’re nice additions to the buffet of food for thought.
I’d be interested to know how many of these experiences, both good and bad, come from religious vs. non-relgious people, and especially those who weren’t religious until very late in life.
Also the murderers.
My reading of dozens of Near Death Experiences is that people go where they expect to go. Sometimes it’s unpleasant, but most of the time people believe that they’re decent.
You probably don’t recognize me because of the red arm.
Episode 9 Rewrite, The Starlight Project (Released!) and ANH Technicolor Project (Released!)
Oh good, I really was hoping to go to an ice cream shop.
I read a book recently called Influx, by Daniel Suarez. In the book an AI character is talking to the protagonist, and the AI says that they have discovered that a portion of the human mind doesn’t exist in this universe, but is in fact extra-dimensional. Not just a random aspect but seemingly a core part of the mind.
I know the book is science fiction, but it got me thinking that it’s entirely possible the things that we describe as metaphysical or supernatural may actually make sense in a physical sense, but just not one that is knowable to we ourselves from our perspective and limited senses on this plane. Like, there might actually be a spirit or soul that is eternal, that is also connected somehow to our bodies and our minds, and the existence of it and our connection to it is actually something scientifically measurable and behaves in a way the makes scientific sense, just not to us here.
In other words, Arthur C. Clarke’s third law is “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” And I might extend that to say sufficiently advanced science is indistinguishable from miracles.
Albeit, not that God, who is the Great Scientist, is required to behave scientifically.
chyron just put a big Ric pic in your sig and be done with it.
The idea that the soul is a scientifically measurable higher dimensional super thing is a comforting idea on first blush but becomes deeply troubling on further thought. Consider: if the soul is the only aspect of ‘you’ that survives death, and this soul is itself just a measurable thing which exists somewhere like the black box from an airplane, then there’s the possibility that it too could be destroyed, if only by a being of even greater and higher dimensions. It’s quite nightmarish to think that your essence could be in a vat somewhere being poked and prodded by godlike super-scientists.
As I’ve said before, the only way for the soul to be truly eternal and indestructible is for it to be defined as nothingness.
You probably don’t recognize me because of the red arm.
Episode 9 Rewrite, The Starlight Project (Released!) and ANH Technicolor Project (Released!)
It’s quite nightmarish to think that your essence could be in a vat somewhere being poked and prodded by godlike super-scientists.
Yes many dreams, good or bad, can come from the idea.
As I’ve said before, the only way for the soul to be truly eternal and indestructible is for it to be defined as nothingness.
Lack of destruction does not assert absolute indestructibility. Perhaps indestructible from a position on this plane.
JEDIT: Or perhaps it is indestructible because of where it is. Perhaps there’s a logical, physically quantifiable reason why Lucifer and his followers were not destroyed but rather exiled. The Bible says they at some point are thrown into the lake of fire (which is not necessarily Hell), but it does not say they are obliterated. Maybe there’s an actual knowable scientific explanation why. Just not by any science we can know from here.
chyron just put a big Ric pic in your sig and be done with it.
darthrush said:
I’ve got to say that it does sound a bit harsh to deny the opportunity of life to someone who might grow up in hard conditions. Is it better that they never lived or to give them a shot despite the chances of being miserable?One could use that sort of logic to conclude that using birth control is immoral. After all, what if your parents had used birth control? Then you wouldn’t have had a chance at life.
Good point.
I guess it really all comes back to the issue of when does a life truly begin. And to that, I do not know. Any time I define a point along the development of a human, I always feel unsure.
Right. This is why I prefer that laws on this follow scientific opinion rather than religious opinion.
And by science, doesn’t life begin at conception? That’s when the child starts growing anyway, which sounds pretty scientific to me.
“Life” begins long before conception. The unfertilized egg - heck even a red blood cell - is alive, but that doesn’t make it a person. Is it immoral to allow a blood cell to die? Is it immoral to get your hair cut because of the living hair cells that then are killed? The question isn’t whether it is “alive”, the question is at what point does a single fertilized cell become a human being.
Most religions have chosen to define that moment as the time of conception, but that is a wholly spiritual marker, since the only unique marker at that point is DNA - which is present in every cell of our body that we seem to be perfectly ok with when it dies (such as a blood cell or hair cell). In my opinion (and in the opinion of the courts), there are many other more reasonable points along the growth path that are less arbitrary, such as when the brain becomes active for the first time.
I think it’s much easier to identify a discrete human life. A human life goes through various stages of development, starting at conception. Whether that was the function of sperm+egg or parthenogenesis (could happen, I think), we can identify that discrete life’s start. We easily recognize that a person is separate from his parents, even though he is a grotesque amalgamation of their DNA. DNA is a very useful marker to identify a person. But obviously that doesn’t mean DNA is a person.
According to the logic here we would identify a human being as starting with Adam (whether a man or amoeba). It’s silly.
The question is not whether it is a human being, but whether the killing is justifiable.
The blue elephant in the room.
darthrush said:
I’ve got to say that it does sound a bit harsh to deny the opportunity of life to someone who might grow up in hard conditions. Is it better that they never lived or to give them a shot despite the chances of being miserable?One could use that sort of logic to conclude that using birth control is immoral. After all, what if your parents had used birth control? Then you wouldn’t have had a chance at life.
Good point.
I guess it really all comes back to the issue of when does a life truly begin. And to that, I do not know. Any time I define a point along the development of a human, I always feel unsure.
Right. This is why I prefer that laws on this follow scientific opinion rather than religious opinion.
And by science, doesn’t life begin at conception? That’s when the child starts growing anyway, which sounds pretty scientific to me. Note that I am not against abortion for religious purposes, but for moral reasons.
EDIT: Also note that I realize my opinions on morality are undoubtedly influenced by my religious beliefs.
I think the most appealing thing about the pro-life side really is that it provides a clear starting point that’s easy to identify. On a technical level, you’re right. All of our existences began when we were conceived, but our existence now doesn’t resemble our four-week-old fetus selves.
The Person in Question
Okay… coming back to the question Ash (and Frink) wanted me to answer about my opinion of Hell, and how it compares to the traditional view as fire and brimstone.
The truth is: I’m not sure exactly. I do have ideas, but not all of them solid. I do know (and by “know” I mean posit) that as Heaven is eternity in the presence of God, by contrast Hell is eternity apart from it. I am aware that there are personal accounts from people who had (near?) death experiences and came back with descriptions of what Hell is like.
For myself, I kind of figure that a description to us of Hell is similar to the description of the Holy city in Revelation in the sense of trying to describe the indescribable. In Revelation, John talks about the Holy city with descriptions like it having gates made of pearl and streets made of gold. It occurs to me that gold’s value comes from its scarcity, and that for it to be so abundant that the street is literally made from it then cheapens its value. Basically, he’s trying, in so many words, to say the city is indescribably, uncomprehendingly beautiful.
Similarly, in the case of Hell, the experience is indescribably terrible. Whether that comes from separation from God or literal physical torment, I’m not sure. But then, let me explore the meaning of the word “eternity.” God created time and space as it exists in our universe and on this dimensional plane. It occurs to me that time does not have to flow or exist in the same manner on different planes or different universes or whatever. And therefore, to say “eternity” may not mean “for all time”, but rather “is.” Like, if you take where you are at a single point in time, and in that point you are there, if you remove time from the universe you just exist there, in some concept of eternity that just means “is”.
So I don’t know, but I have concepts of what it might be like, none of it good. I don’t believe it means you cease to exist, because the Bible does not suggest that to be true. The Bible does use the word “destruction”, but that is not synonymous with annihilation.
Separation from God wouldn’t even be torment for most people. I mean, do you believe torture is moral in this world? If not, then why is it moral for God to torture people for the completely insignificant crime of not believing in him specifically.
The Person in Question
Separation from God wouldn’t even be torment for most people.
If I assume that Hell simply is separation from God, I’m still going to need further citation that what you say will be remotely true. You assume that because people don’t accept Him here that means He’s not here, and therefore being unaccepting of Him here is no different from being apart from Him there.
why is it moral for God to torture people for the completely insignificant crime of not believing in him specifically.
You color this question with a presupposed view by the way you word it, and I don’t think I can answer it in a way that will be sufficient for you.
chyron just put a big Ric pic in your sig and be done with it.
No, I’m asking why (or even if) you think torture is immoral.
The Person in Question
No, I’m asking why (or even if) you think torture is immoral.
You’re not asking, you’re making a point. The question itself is both loaded and rhetorical. If I say yes, you say God is immoral for torturing people. If I say no, you say I’m both nuts and wrong, AND that God is still torturing people. Also, context is important and by the context around your question, I still can’t answer it. I can’t add my context to my answer because you don’t really want it. In effect, any answer is irrelevant.
chyron just put a big Ric pic in your sig and be done with it.
So, because I have an opinion of my own, you won’t share yours?
The Person in Question
It should be obvious that I basically just want to know how you rationalize this to yourself. I’m not under any delusion that I will change your mind.
The Person in Question
So, because I have an opinion of my own, you won’t share yours?
That’s not what I said. I said you will color my answer with assumptions you’re already making to prove your point. And you don’t seem to be asking with the intent of me saying in what way those assumptions are inaccuate.
Suffice it to say God is not torturing people.
chyron just put a big Ric pic in your sig and be done with it.
So, because I have an opinion of my own, you won’t share yours?
That’s not what I said. I said you will color my answer with assumptions you’re already making to prove your point. And you don’t seem to be asking with the intent of me saying in what way those assumptions are inaccuate.
“I don’t understand.” - Anakin Skywalker
Suffice it to say God is not torturing people.
So the Bible is lying?
The Person in Question
I’m with Chyron on this one.
If Hell simply is separation from God (which is what Jesus basically said, and pope Francis too a few weeks ago), God does not torture anyone. He cannot torture people who are not near Him… they just suffer from being far from God, maybe because they decided to. Being far from God is their torture.
(I don’t say that I believe in this theory, but that does not prevent me from staying logical and knowing what is written in the Gospels)
So, because I have an opinion of my own, you won’t share yours?
That’s not what I said. I said you will color my answer with assumptions you’re already making to prove your point. And you don’t seem to be asking with the intent of me saying in what way those assumptions are inaccuate.
“I don’t understand.” - Anakin Skywalker
Suffice it to say God is not torturing people.
So the Bible is lying?
Where does the Bible say that God is torturing people ?
I’m not even going to get into this with you, mfm. You don’t really want to know my opinion. You want me to paint myself into a corner since you think my position is uninformed even by the sources of information I value most, and makes no sense from a rational standpoint.
chyron just put a big Ric pic in your sig and be done with it.
double post
So, because I have an opinion of my own, you won’t share yours?
That’s not what I said. I said you will color my answer with assumptions you’re already making to prove your point. And you don’t seem to be asking with the intent of me saying in what way those assumptions are inaccuate.
“I don’t understand.” - Anakin Skywalker
Suffice it to say God is not torturing people.
So the Bible is lying?
Where does the Bible say that God is torturing people ?
Many places. Jesus says it all the time. It’s in Revelation. God apparently tortured Christ himself on the cross if you believe that whole thing about Christ taking God’s punishment for us.
The Person in Question
I’m not even going to get into this with you, mfm. You don’t really want to know my opinion. You want me to paint myself into a corner since you think my position is uninformed even by the sources of information I value most, and makes no sense from a rational standpoint.
I do want to know your opinion, but I’m obviously never going to hear it so I’ll move on.
The Person in Question
So, because I have an opinion of my own, you won’t share yours?
That’s not what I said. I said you will color my answer with assumptions you’re already making to prove your point. And you don’t seem to be asking with the intent of me saying in what way those assumptions are inaccuate.
“I don’t understand.” - Anakin Skywalker
Suffice it to say God is not torturing people.
So the Bible is lying?
Where does the Bible say that God is torturing people ?
Many places. Jesus says it all the time. It’s in Revelation.
Citation needed.
God apparently tortured Christ himself on the cross if you believe that whole thing about Christ taking God’s punishment for us.
Well, we obviously don’t have the same Bible. AFAIK, Christ IS God (you know, the whole Trinity stuff). So claiming that God tortured Jesus is just a lack of knowledge of dogma, unless you assume that God is masochistic and inflicts pain on Himself. 😃
And again, I’m not saying that I believe it. I’m just saying that we must not make the sacred texts say anything.
I’m not even going to get into this with you, mfm. You don’t really want to know my opinion. You want me to paint myself into a corner since you think my position is uninformed even by the sources of information I value most, and makes no sense from a rational standpoint.
I do want to know your opinion, but I’m obviously never going to hear it so I’ll move on.
I said: God is not torturing people.
So, you’re actually interested in my explaining how people are tormented without my also blaming God? You’re interested in my explaining holiness, sin, justice, and sacrifice? You want me to explain free will, and the relationship a loving father has with his children?
…that’s a very long multi-faceted explanation.
chyron just put a big Ric pic in your sig and be done with it.