'You will burn in hell'

[029b10]

Correction.

There's a possibility god exists, sure. Just as there's a possibility that in another universe I'm Batman.

But the claim isn't well evidenced.

While you might be Batman in this Universe, however as the principle which establishes that two bodies of mass can not occupy the same space at the same time, it would stand to reason that one body of mass can't occupy two separate spaces at the same time either. While the position that the claim isn't well evidence, I would disagree, the fact you aren't currently Batman in another universe is proven beyond a reason doubt.

As far as the claim that Eternal God exists, from the know and observed Universe there is no known substance or process that consists of or demonstrates the existence of the Eternal nature. {However, I hold the term 'Eternal' as that which by it very nature has no beginning, nor end, it is a state of timelessness.} Since the Universe is deemed as having a beginning, it therefore can be eternal by the very fact it had a beginning. While the general rule is that anything that has a beginning would be finite, this principle is base upon the know universe where everything has finite nature, both in time and volume. The universe is big but we know it is a finite body of space since it expands, if it was infinite in volume then how could it expand. We also presume it is finite in time base upon it's having a beginning. While the universe might exists for hundred of billions of years, if it ends then regardless of the amount of time it exists then would still be considered having a finite nature because it ends. Science itself states that perpetual motion is impossible, based upon the principle of finite volume of the universe and the therefore the finite nature holds that all things which have a beginning will eventually end.

Which interestingly enough, science appears to substantiate the Christian concept that the Eternal God manifested in the flesh as not only being plausible but that it is consistent with one of the most basic and fundamental laws of physics. But then again, who would have thought that Hawking would have revised the accuracy of the definition of Black Holes that formally published and approved some 40 years ago.

Edited May 26, 2014 by 029b10

[Marcus Aurelius]

Honestly, I don't see the point in infinity. Eventually it gets boring.

That is actually a point well taken. There are some who wouldn't want an eternal existence even if they could have it.

I think this is why there is a balance in the religious systems of the world between personal and impersonal. Some religious systems emphasize personality and a higher self that continues on; whereas other religious systems are impersonal and suggest either an absorption into the divine reality or cessation altogether. What if the end of religion is simply that we attain to our own ultimate aims?

Edited May 26, 2014 by Marcus Aurelius

[Doug1029]

Traditions and laws will save no man when they stand before God. Only Jesus saves and He said man must be "born again".

I believe the original line said that no one could get into heaven unless they were "born of water." In other words, baptized. But Justin misquoted it (or was copying from a different source) and wrote that one must be "born again." All you fundies are backing up your arguments with a mistake (or at least, a source other than the modern gospels).

BTW: it was St. Augustine who argued the case for pre-destination. Augustine and Pelagius actually met and discussed the relative merits of each side. Both admitted that the other had some points, but in the end, it was Holy Mother Church that made the decision.

No man works his way to Heaven, thou there are silly men who believe that.

Like I said, good works or no good works, your fate has already been determined. You can't even throw yourself on the mercy of the Lord, because that would require him to change his mind. That would indicate he was wrong in his earlier thought, and as we all know, god is never wrong. Or is he?

Doug

[029b10]

Honestly, I don't see the point in infinity. Eventually it gets boring.

It seems it never ends

[HappyMonkey]

While you might be Batman in this Universe, however as the principle which establishes that two bodies of mass can not occupy the same space at the same time, it would stand to reason that one body of mass can't occupy two separate spaces at the same time either. While the position that the claim isn't well evidence, I would disagree, the fact you aren't currently Batman in another universe is proven beyond a reason doubt.

Nice word salad.

Since the Universe is deemed as having a beginning, it therefore can be eternal by the very fact it had a beginning.

No, we don't know that the universe had a beginning. The current understanding is that the universe as we see it now did have a beginning, however what the universe was prior to that is still an open question.

The universe is big but we know it is a finite body of space since it expands, if it was infinite in volume then how could it expand.

Again, no. Space in the universe is expanding, but the universe itself could be infinite. We again don't know how far the universe stretches.

Which interestingly enough, science appears to substantiate the Christian concept that the Eternal God manifested in the flesh as not only being plausible but that it is consistent with one of the most basic and fundamental laws of physics.

Just... no.

[029b10]

I believe the original line said that no one could get into heaven unless they were "born of water." In other words, baptized. But Justin misquoted it (or was copying from a different source) and wrote that one must be "born again." All you fundies are backing up your arguments with a mistake (or at least, a source other than the modern gospels).

What about the water of the womb?

[HappyMonkey]

That is actually a point well taken. There are some who wouldn't want an eternal existence even if they could have it.

I think this is why there is a balance in the religious systems of the world between personal and impersonal. Some religious systems emphasize personality and a higher self that continues on; whereas other religious systems are impersonal and suggest either an absorption into the divine reality or cessation altogether. What if the end of religion is simply that we attain to our own ultimate aims?

I've yet to encounter a description of heaven I really enjoy, especially not for infinity. Reincarnation doesn't hold much value for me either.

Being absorbed into some gestalt doesn't attract me either.

Personally, I think having the promise of an extra life has a bad habit of leading people to forsake this existence for another. Not so much a problem on a personal level, but on a global level problems crop up.

Religion can be a useful tool for any viewpoint, and justification for any action. Not that it's alone in this, of course.

[Frank Merton]

If separation from God ultimately means the cessation of existence; how is that so horrible? It is the same end as atheism. Do you fear the end of your own belief, then?

Why is non-being such a terrible fate? It's simply a return to the state you were in before you were born.

...I suppose the only reason why a person would fear death or think that this end is so terrible would be because they want the personality to survive beyond bodily death and they want existence to continue somehow; which of course would take us out of the naturalist worldview altogether....

Atheists usually (although I'm not among them in this) think that death is the end and try to persuade us they are perfectly happy with that. I think they are just being stoic; they have concluded this is the way it must be so they accept it, but, as Ustinov used to say, they would be happy to be pleasantly surprised.

That however has little to do with the point I was making about whether the Christian scheme, when taken in its most moderate form, is just. Here we have a God able to extend life indefinitely, and he doesn't do so, for what seem arbitrary and utterly unjust reasons -- that people don't believe his nonsensical human sacrifice. Further, they commit sins and are punished in eternity for the sins of a short lifetime. This is not justice

[Imaginarynumber1]

Ah, the ol' fire and brimstone. Threats of hell are so boring when you don't believe.

[029b10]

No, we don't know that the universe had a beginning. The current understanding is that the universe as we see it now did have a beginning, however what the universe was prior to that is still an open question.

The answer my friend is blowing in the wind, if is reflected in its nature. If it did not have a beginning then it would have a timeless nature, therefore by the finite nature of all that is within, it is a reasonable axiom that to conclude that it had a beginning.

Again, no. Space in the universe is expanding, but the universe itself could be infinite. We again don't know how far the universe stretches.

That is illogical, if an object is infinite, then it can not expand anymore because it is infinite. How many drops of water can you add to an infinite body of water? None because it is infinite in volume, if you could add a drop of water to it then it would have not be infinite in volume

Just... no.

In the Bible, God is Eternal whose form is a Spirit, like 'Energy' which is the same from the everlasting until the everlasting, it changes not.

In such, Newton concluded that Energy can not be created nor destroyed, which is to say it had no beginning or ending. However, if your are going to claim that 'energy' is eternal, or rather is timeless since you claim it can not be created nor destroyed then it could not change forms neither except it became anew. Newton's law of conservation is Christian theology 101, that is the equivalent of saying that Eternal God manifested in the flesh. The scriptures themselves testify that the energy and mass shall be consumed in a fervent fire in the end,

2 Peter 3:10-12

10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,

12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?

It is written that Jesus himself said, Matt 24:35-36

35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.

[HappyMonkey]

Atheists usually (although I'm not among them in this) think that death is the end and try to persuade us they are perfectly happy with that. I think they are just being stoic; they have concluded this is the way it must be so they accept it, but, as Ustinov used to say, they would be happy to be pleasantly surprised.

Thanks for reading my mind Frank, I'd have never known that's actually what I thought.

[Frank Merton]

I've yet to encounter a description of heaven I really enjoy, especially not for infinity. Reincarnation doesn't hold much value for me either.

Being absorbed into some gestalt doesn't attract me either.

Personally, I think having the promise of an extra life has a bad habit of leading people to forsake this existence for another. Not so much a problem on a personal level, but on a global level problems crop up.

Religion can be a useful tool for any viewpoint, and justification for any action. Not that it's alone in this, of course.

Whatever the world is is what the world is. We did not choose to be born and we have little if any control over what happens when we die. Personally I think we are reborn a different person. We are quite dead, rebirth is not reincarnation -- our being is gone. Why the universe behaves this way one can theorize on, but it strikes me as most likely, second most likely being simple extinction. My problem with that is that it would mean sentience is not preserved, and I tend to think it is.

[Frank Merton]

Sorry but infinite objects can be enlarged and reduced. It's a matter of definition. Take the infinite body of water mentioned above. I am standing on the shore (since it is infinite it necessarily has no shore on the other side but goes on without end). I stand there and take a bucket and either pour some water into it or take some out.

Were I to set up a correspondence of the water molecules with something like the integers, the two would match, both before and after I added or removed water. Therefore it is true you cannot make an infinite body of water "bigger" measured that way, but if I take some of the water and drink it, we can now say that the set of the water molecules consists of one infinite and two finite sets (the ocean, the water still in the bucket and the water I drank). The "total" of the water in the ocean still correlates with the integers, but so too does this new set.

So by one definition the amount stays the same (contents of the first set correlates with contents of the new set) but by another definition the sets are not the same (one set has a single element, the other has three elements).

[HappyMonkey]

Whatever the world is is what the world is. We did not choose to be born and we have little if any control over what happens when we die. Personally I think we are reborn a different person. We are quite dead, rebirth is not reincarnation -- our being is gone. Why the universe behaves this way one can theorize on, but it strikes me as most likely, second most likely being simple extinction. My problem with that is that it would mean sentience is not preserved, and I tend to think it is.

Oh I agree, but in order for me to accept these claims there needs to be reason to accept them as real beyond "that sounds nice." Especially when the descriptions don't appeal to me in the first place.

I've always found the description of heaven as being a gold paved place with mansions for the faithful to be distasteful myself.

[HappyMonkey]

The answer my friend is blowing in the wind, if is reflected in its nature. If it did not have a beginning then it would have a timeless nature, therefore by the finite nature of all that is within, it is a reasonable axiom that to conclude that it had a beginning.

Except it doesn't. It just means it changes. A water droplet becomes a snowflake, becomes a water droplet.

That is illogical, if an object is infinite, then it can not expand anymore because it is infinite. How many drops of water can you add to an infinite body of water? None because it is infinite in volume, if you could add a drop of water to it then it would have not be infinite in volume

The universe itself can be infinite, while what's inside it can be expanding into that infinite.

This will probably explain it better: http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/People/Is_the_Universe_finite_or_infinite_An_interview_with_Joseph_Silk

In the Bible, God is Eternal whose form is a Spirit, like 'Energy' which is the same from the everlasting until the everlasting, it changes not.

In such, Newton concluded that Energy can not be created nor destroyed, which is to say it had no beginning or ending. However, if your are going to claim that 'energy' is eternal, or rather is timeless since you claim it can not be created nor destroyed then it could not change forms neither except it became anew. Newton's law of conservation is Christian theology 101, that is the equivalent of saying that Eternal God manifested in the flesh. The scriptures themselves testify that the energy and mass shall be consumed in a fervent fire in the end,

So e=mc2, therefor virgin birth? That's a few steps there.

[029b10]

Atheists usually (although I'm not among them in this) think that death is the end and try to persuade us they are perfectly happy with that. I think they are just being stoic; they have concluded this is the way it must be so they accept it, but, as Ustinov used to say, they would be happy to be pleasantly surprised.

The spirit does have a mortal nature, by science and scripture. Man's life in the flesh on earth is stated in Genesis as being 120 years, given as the first death. Check the historical records, while a number of claims, only 1 record out of hundred of millions that is represented as being verified to document that anyone has lived over 120 years, is that just coincidence? But to answer your question about what the Bible says that people living longer than 120 years. The separation of the flesh from the spirit isn't indicative that the spirit expires, in fact that is the Gospel of the resurrection. It represents that the massless nature of the spirit, and if not mistaken science has validated the observance of massless particles in nature such as the photons, so it might not be as fictional as many believe.

Thus the gospel of the resurrection of the spirit and the 1000 years in the Kingdom of Heaven, then the second death. Does the scriptures that indicate that people lived over 120 years indicate that they lived over a 1000 years? So it might not be the scriptures but rather our perception of the scriptures that was skewded. Then according to the Gospel, judgment which Jesus said that some shall not taste death until the Kingdom of God. Hence it is written in Matthew 4:4, man shall not live by bread alone but by every Word that proceedeth from the mouth of God.

But in conclusion, it is a decision that each person has to make on the own, and in such I am just giving my opinion.

That however has little to do with the point I was making about whether the Christian scheme, when taken in its most moderate form, is just. Here we have a God able to extend life indefinitely, and he doesn't do so, for what seem arbitrary and utterly unjust reasons -- that people don't believe his nonsensical human sacrifice. Further, they commit sins and are punished in eternity for the sins of a short lifetime. This is not justice

Nothing prevents a person from doing that which is good and right in the sight of the LORD, others don't care about your, mine or anyone else's rights and liberty so what is unfair giving life to them that sow into life and letting them perish that sow into death and destruction.

While there is no simplistic answer, there is not a lesson from the Cross, but many lessons that can taken away from the Cross, but Hence it is written in Matthew 4:4, man shall not live by bread alone but by every Word that proceedeth from the mouth of God. I never heard God say that killing an innocent man [male/female] was the purpose of the Gospel.

John 3:16-18

16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

Proverbs 21:3 To do justice and judgment is more acceptable to the LORD than sacrifice. But not everyone is of the faith.

Edited May 26, 2014 by 029b10

[029b10]

Sorry but infinite objects can be enlarged and reduced. It's a matter of definition.

Can a lie be the truth?

[029b10]

Except it doesn't. It just means it changes. A water droplet becomes a snowflake, becomes a water droplet.

So did water originate before or after the big bang?

[Frank Merton]

Oh I agree, but in order for me to accept these claims there needs to be reason to accept them as real beyond "that sounds nice." Especially when the descriptions don't appeal to me in the first place.

I've always found the description of heaven as being a gold paved place with mansions for the faithful to be distasteful myself.

I don't think either of us hold the opinions we hold out of wishful thinking; this is not the case with most, although I doubt actual fear of personal death is often the motivator. More often it is desire that loved ones continue in some way.

I can think of ways heaven could be made very interesting. I can also imagine being in a state where being entertained is no long important. The reason I doubt any of these is the absurdity of the accompanying stories.

[HappyMonkey]

So did water originate before or after the big bang?

It was an example. Your word salad aside, I thought it was a pretty clear one. It seems now that the universe goes through different states, a high energy state and a low energy state and it may cycle between them.

Or it might not, again we simply don't know.

[coolguy]

If I go to hell so let it be.all the cool people are in hell.

[Davros of Skaro]

Determinism is not at the root of my belief. You seem to have a knack for telling others what they believe.

As to sin being a man made concept, I don't see that as a problematic statement from my position; considering that sin originates in man. I would say this is part of man's reason; self-awareness.

But while Christianity is usually the main religion you attack; it is interesting to note that this same concept is also present in other religions as well. You can call it by different names; but most of the major world religions in some form or other state that there is something fundamentally wrong with human nature. You can scoff at that all you like; but for some, this could be taken as evidence that there is truth to that claim.

I don't call it cherry picking; I call it interpretation. This is the way I and noted others have interpreted the Bible; and it is a view that I can defend. I don't see my position as being less likely than any other.

But I am intrigued that someone who is so disgusted by Christianity wouldn't at least appreciate a more inclusive approach like mine. Would you rather I argue an approach like Dante from the Middle Ages?

Determinism has nothing to do with my statement at all.Jesus was a sacrifice for Sin atonement, and to deny that is to deny Jesus.

I know you do not deny Jesus.

Sin with unseen agent enforcers goes way back, which does not make it true, and has been a usefull tool.

It's "Cherry Picking" to me, and a way to keep bygone superstition on life support in an age people are waking up to the stench.

Your "inclusive approach" is just spin doctoring a mind clamp that prevents people from understanding the world.Just because you ignore what your Book represents by making sound hip, and full of deep thought, just makes it even more disgusting.

When people are engaged in the evidence of how things are in this world, the more genuine a healthy society becomes.There is no need for the filth of Religion, Pornography, heavy drugs, gambling, and sucking up nonrenewable resources like there is no tomorrow.

[JJ50]

Im pretty sure no one on this site wants that. Its all in your head.

I can see your still emotionally attached to religion so if I had to guess I would say your new to being an atheist or agnostic or however you identify.

I could never accept the whole hell concept myself, the first thing that turned me towards atheist and then later in life spiritual leaning agnostic.

Im pretty sure no one on this site wants that. Its all in your head.

I can see your still emotionally attached to religion so if I had to guess I would say your new to being an atheist or agnostic or however you identify.

I could never accept the whole hell concept myself, the first thing that turned me towards atheist and then later in life spiritual leaning agnostic.

You didn't read or understand my post! I said on another forum!

I am now 64 and have been an agnostic since I was 19!

[Davros of Skaro]

So did water originate before or after the big bang?

Hydrogen gas clouds condensed, and then cooked into other elements in the nuclear fusion of Stars.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/how-did-water-come-to-earth-72037248/

[Frank Merton]

Water requires hydrogen and oxygen. The hydrogen was born shortly after the big bang (or with it). The oxygen was made in stars a good deal later. When these stars explode or otherwise expel gases the oxygen is with the gas and soon oxygen and hydrogen react and you have lots of water in interstellar space.

The links Davros provided should help you understand it.