Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Heaven and Hell


Guyver
 Share

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Which is why I made a distinction between "Hell" where people wait till the Last Judgement. And where those who are damned at Judgement go.

That’s fine.  No offense, but people who are Christian can spin it out anyway they wish to reconcile their doctrines.  I’m only saying this because I know since I used to do it myself.  I know for a fact, and I would be happy to offer you a challenge, should you wish to accept it, that for any doctrine you can provide scriptural support for, I can support the exact opposite doctrine.  Be that as it may…..I don’t really embrace the idea of judgement for one simple reason.  In my mind, should there be such a being as God who could and did make me…..then he already knew what I was going to be and he or she is sure as hell not going to judge me for being who they made me to be.  But, that’s just my opinion.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Guyver said:

That’s fine.  No offense, but people who are Christian can spin it out anyway they wish to reconcile their doctrines.  I’m only saying this because I know since I used to do it myself.  I know for a fact, and I would be happy to offer you a challenge, should you wish to accept it, that for any doctrine you can provide scriptural support for, I can support the exact opposite doctrine.  Be that as it may…..I don’t really embrace the idea of judgement for one simple reason.  In my mind, should there be such a being as God who could and did make me…..then he already knew what I was going to be and he or she is sure as hell not going to judge me for being who they made me to be.  But, that’s just my opinion.

I understand that. I've asked pastors before, if God has a perfect Plan, why are there so many denominations, and why so many ways to interpret the Bible.

To each his own I usually say.

Some people here will say, "This is a fact", but I usually am clear in saying I'm expressing an opinion. Because we can't really know.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

I dont reject Christianity Where did you get that  idea from

Hi Walker

You have not accepted it as your belief system then it is rejected or is there another option?

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

If i lived in a Muslim community I'd be a moderate Muslim.

You live in a Christian community and yet you are not one so what is your point about being a Muslim

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

I understand that. I've asked pastors before, if God has a perfect Plan, why are there so many denominations, and why so many ways to interpret the Bible.

To each his own I usually say.

Some people here will say, "This is a fact", but I usually am clear in saying I'm expressing an opinion. Because we can't really know.

 

Which is also not a fact. ;)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

Not my job to convert people.

I don't have a faith based relationship, so it is natural that  i don't have a particular faith to preach.

Any positive faith will work on the human mind and body   

I do point out the physical/practical differences in some beliefs and lifestyles.  I believe that is my responsibility and that goes back to the humanist philosophy  of sharing with, and helping, others.

Um!! The christian god (and most other gods) are also  alien (non human) and   each human has their own mental construct about their god.   

I have shared many times the basic role and purpose of the cosmic consciousness in the governance of the galaxy and its role with individual humans, and humanity in general.

  These are, of course, my personal understandings, based on almost 60 years of a physical  relationship and connection with it. 

Hi Walker

Not sure why you think others need a faith based system to believe in when you don't personally have one? What is the point?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, closed for business said:

Hi Walker

Not sure why you think others need a faith based system to believe in when you don't personally have one? What is the point?

 (Most) other people don't have a physical connection to/relationship with, a "god"

They must establish and rely on a faith based belief and construct 

That works well, and is very powerful, but it is different  to  living with the physical presence of such a being 

Imagine you  never knew your parents, but you build a faith/belief based construct of them,  (what the y were like) and what the y would want you to live like.

Perhaps you have other relatives telling you what your parents were like and how they would want you to live 

Perhaps your parents left behind letters or a diary  outlining their expectations 

That can be even more powerful than actually living with real parents  because internal  motivations are much more powerful and consistent than external ones 

In many ways it is easier to love and be obedient to an internal  construct  than  a real person 

eg such a construct can never let you down, or disappoint you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Will Due said:

Which is also not a fact. ;)

Strangely I kind of agree with that. Obviously not in the same context.

Many man made gods have been debunked. All that remains is a rehashed  Chinese whispers version of religion. There's no good reason to actually consider any god as real at all. If it's considered an each way bet, the odds on god existing would be as bad as one could possibly get. Factually, there is no good reason to believe in any god. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Will Due said:

 

Which is also not a fact. ;)

 

 

I guess thats true. There are things in religions, for instance in the Bible, that are not true. The mustard seed is not the smallest seed for example. But it is true of anything thats Spiritual related.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Factually, there is no good reason to believe in any god. 

True.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DieChecker said:

I understand that. I've asked pastors before, if God has a perfect Plan, why are there so many denominations, and why so many ways to interpret the Bible.

To each his own I usually say.

Some people here will say, "This is a fact", but I usually am clear in saying I'm expressing an opinion. Because we can't really know.

You should believe what helps you.  Someone dear to me is a Christian.  She doesn’t deny that goat, sheep, bullock, and oxen sacrifice was a thing, but she believes it was surpassed by God sacrificing himself through Jesus so we could all be free from sin.  I get it, that’s what Christmas is all about.  It’s fine, believe what works.  I have no cause to point the finger because I myself have nothing superior to believe in, except for science and math.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Nup Its my pedantic  fixation   The wording said holy catholic church. Now while catholic can mean "including all" that is not actually the intent with that wording 

The Apostles Creed is anonymous, and generally accepted as older than the Nicene. Rome was hardly represented at Nicea, the eastern chirch was the dominant Christian power center in those days, and the "Pope" (pontifex maximus) was Constantine. The bishops of Rome had local authority and regional influence, but that was true of the other "big city" bishops, too.

There simply wasn't a "Roman Catholic Church" for the unknown third (?) century author(s) to intend. No bishop had authority over all other bishops.

8 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

I was simply told that I  couldn't go out with them berceuse they could only marry a catholic boy and the risk of dating a non catholic was not acceptable 

Too bad there was no Google back then. You could have corrected them that you could marry their daughters (well one of them, anyway, lol) provided you agreed to raise any children born of the union as Catholics.

I suspect your real problem was that you were such a stud that Mom and Pop feared their daughters might not wait for marriage ...it's no church's fault that you were such a hottie.

8 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

It preached fear of hell and damnation, and salvation only though the intercession of the church, which is non biblical.

The quality of being "biblical" means different things to different Christian denominations. I agree that as the SDA uses the term, the Catholics are unbiblical; but as Catholics use the term, they are biblical.

How rare that Christian groups would disagree about what the Bible says and means, eh?

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, eight bits said:

The Apostles Creed is anonymous, and generally accepted as older than the Nicene. Rome was hardly represented at Nicea, the eastern chirch was the dominant Christian power center in those days, and the "Pope" (pontifex maximus) was Constantine. The bishops of Rome had local authority and regional influence, but that was true of the other "big city" bishops, too.

There simply wasn't a "Roman Catholic Church" for the unknown third (?) century author(s) to intend. No bishop had authority over all other bishops.

Too bad there was no Google back then. You could have corrected them that you could marry their daughters (well one of them, anyway, lol) provided you agreed to raise any children born of the union as Catholics.

I suspect your real problem was that you were such a stud that Mom and Pop feared their daughters might not wait for marriage ...it's no church's fault that you were such a hottie.

The quality of being "biblical" means different things to different Christian denominations. I agree that as the SDA uses the term, the Catholics are unbiblical; but as Catholics use the term, they are biblical.

How rare that Christian groups would disagree about what the Bible says and means, eh?

The debate was that one could not be a christian unless one accepted the authority of the holy catholic  church 

You are correct in your historical points but it is irrelevant  to that debate

One can be a christian without commitment to ANY church .

You are correct also that i was a studly fellow :) Indeed young women took much more interest in me than i in them at the time.

I was into surfing, fishing,  hunting, motor bike riding  and other manly pursuits :)   and yes that was the point i was making, (this was just prior to the oral contraceptive and the sexual revolution which liberated young women, but the y wouldn't have minded if I had been catholic and got their daughter pregnant. That happened all the time  between catholic young people   The y just got married or (rarely)  had to leave town in response to social pressures, if the y refused to marry the girl.  

No i was told clearly and explicitly by several sets of parents, that their daughters would marry only a catholic (and thus should not waste their time going out with me)  Maybe the y saw me as a totally hopeless case being an atheist

You might be right about only having to promise to raise the kids as catholic but "mixed marriages" were very rare and discouraged   

The point was that i was an atheist  which meant i was even worse than a protestant :) 

Biblical simply means a person who follows the bible as a guide rather than the theology of a church.

Indeed a biblically based christian doesn't really need a church or specific  theology.

The bible can supply their  personal theology  Adventists and other protestant churches might not get their interpretation of the bible right all the time, but hey study it, debate it , discuss it, and try to follow it, rather than accept   the authority of men (church) eg my wife reads the bible for half an hour every day and studies it for another half an hour or so, to improve her knowledge and understanding  of it  She has half a dozen different versions of the bible and compares them.  She does not simply accept the authority or theology of any religion including Adventism. If she found something in the bible which contradicted Adventism, she would follow the bible not the church 

For several centuries the catholic church banned the possession of bibles by non clergy  so that people couldn't read it. and were compelled to hear only the churches version  (another reason why i as a reader and teacher disapprove of their historical behaviours) Understanding and knowledge should never be controlled in that way    

The y were told that they could only be forgiven their sins by the church and that the pope had the authority of god on earth.

All of those things run counter to what the bible actually says, as the reformists discovered when the y began studying the bible 

It is not so much the disagreement, but the way the catholic church rewrote the bible and reinterpreted it, or simply ignored it, accepting rather the authority of the church and the pope  over the words of the bible and of Christ 

Heck i have no personal commitment to any church.

i just dont LIKE the  form or function of the historical catholic church. 

I can't say much about the modern version,  although i think it is reforming; and of course my opinion   has nothing to do with individual people, but the hierarchy and authority of the church  and it's use of fear to control people. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good Ol'Marcion tried his best... 

Quote
Marcion is sometimes described as a Gnostic philosopher. In some essential respects, Marcion proposed ideas which aligned well with Gnostic thought. Like the ...
 
Born: AD 85; Sinope, Roman Empire
 
Died: AD 160; Anatolia, Roman Empire
 
Tradition or movement: Gnosticism
 

~

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

The debate was that one could not be a christian unless one accepted the authority of the holy catholic  church 

No, actually you had that idea pretty much to yourself.

Nobody else said such a thing, and you obviously don't believe it ... we're painfully short of debaters for this one.

8 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

You are correct also that i was a studly fellow

I just knew it; don't ask me how.

9 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

You might be right about only having to promise to raise the kids as catholic but "mixed marriages" were very rare and discouraged   

I would have so much more sympathy for your plight had I not grown up next door to two absolutely gorgeous Jewish girls - TWINS!

And me a goy boy. Don't get me started.

12 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Heck i have no personal commitment to any church.

That statement would be so much more credible if it didn't come right after four paragraphs of SDA apologetics.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

One can be a christian without commitment to ANY church .

Hi Walker

In order to be a Christian they must be baptized and be accepted into the fold so yes to be a Christian one does have to make a commitment. One is free to accept the teachings of the bible without making a commitment but they are not Christians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Part of being a Christian is participation in the body of Christ. Which can possibly mean going to a church community (body of Christ on Earth), or by taking the eucharistic (participating in consuming the body of Christ).

People commonly quote Hebrews 10:25.

Quote

25 not giving up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but encouraging one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching.

Its been argued it would be hard to be Baptized into the body of Christ and then not participate in it. 

In my opinion if you are still active in any number of ways in Christian society, that would count. Just sharing your faith online, and donating to worthy charities could be enough. Just IMHO though.

Edited by DieChecker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Jesus`s prayer

Our Father who art in heaven,
hallowed be thy name. 
Thy kingdom come.
Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread, 
and forgive us our trespasses,
as we forgive those who trespass against us,
and lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil.
[For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever and ever.]
Amen.

 

Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.

so there must be a heaven somewhere?

Edited by docyabut2
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Its been argued it would be hard to be Baptized into the body of Christ and then not participate in it. 

Unless like myself you were baptized as an infant solely to please the grandparents and family.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Unless like myself you were baptized as an infant solely to please the grandparents and family.

Thats a trick so you don't get a choice to participate, you're forced to participate, or be damned.

Those same people that wanted you baptized, very likely will require you follow more and more of the theology.

In my opinion Jesus was clear a person should chose to be baptized, so baptizing babies, or (LDS) the dead, is not a useful practice.

Edited by DieChecker
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, eight bits said:

No, actually you had that idea pretty much to yourself.

Nobody else said such a thing, and you obviously don't believe it ... we're painfully short of debaters for this one.

I just knew it; don't ask me how.

I would have so much more sympathy for your plight had I not grown up next door to two absolutely gorgeous Jewish girls - TWINS!

And me a goy boy. Don't get me started.

That statement would be so much more credible if it didn't come right after four paragraphs of SDA apologetics.

I have no commitment to any church or religion . Being logical and intelligent i accept that some beliefs and practices are much more healthy physically and psychologically than  others.

Plus i like to keep my wife happy and not generate any arguments with her, so where it makes no difference i  follow some similar lifestyle practices to her.

However she keeps the Sabbath while i do not She i s a creationist while I am an evolutionist . She believes the bible is literally true while  i do not etc. 

Funnily enough, she introduced me to vegetarianism but now eats and enjoys more meat than I do.

Finally, as discussed before,  i understand  the use of "apologetic" but I believe it is used pejoratively 

Ie There is no apology involved where one person presents facts  which are correct 

eg 

The bible tells people to rest and worship on the seventh day of the week (Saturday) and originally, all christians did so

The bible also says tha t no man has the power to alter one word of the bible

However the church and empire for reasons of their own DID change  this central concept of Christianity 

And i must admit until i began studying many types of Christianity, i never knew this myself.  Like almost everyone i was trapped in the existing historical paradigm without critical reflection, even after being raised as an atheist humanist  

Now that's fine( and allowable within  theological  boundaries) and  its not disputed historically  that they did so, claiming the pope had the power to interpret god's laws and even alter them  DESPITE the bible saying no man did. 

So, while a person may believe as the y wish, one cant apologise for historical facts, however inconvenient 

And what i write about the benefits of Adventist faith and lifestyle are also clinically proven to be true. They apply to some extent to all positive faiths, both christian and other  but are most pronounced among Adventists who believe and live by the guidelines of their faith. 

.Again it is not being apologetic  to tell people that a certain lifestyle or belief improves physical and psychological health

The use of apologetic is thus value laden, and biased,  and is usually deliberately used in that context 

It assumes there is something to apologise FOR. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, docyabut2 said:

 

Jesus`s prayer

Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.

so there must be a heaven somewhere?

Well it's just a made up prayer....anybody can say anything in the construction of such.....no proof required.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Those same people that wanted you baptized, very likely will require you follow more and more of the theology.

Actually it's not like my parents' families were that intense about religion, it was just more of an 'everybody's doing it' kind of thing.  It didn't last long, my sister was born a few years after me and she wasn't baptized.  I don't mind, I just look at as having some more bases covered just in case.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, closed for business said:

Hi Walker

In order to be a Christian they must be baptized and be accepted into the fold so yes to be a Christian one does have to make a commitment. One is free to accept the teachings of the bible without making a commitment but they are not Christians.

No They don't have to be .

A person simply has to (sincerely)  tell god/Jesus that the y believe in him, and then try to live by his example 

Your pov is one held (and spread about)  by churches who wish to gain converts or strengthen their hold over people.

Biblically,  EVERY human being was saved from original sin by Christ's sacrifice  and you only have to follow a set of guidelines to be saved from your individual sins.

You don't need priests or church.  God has the authority, and you only have to accept that.

  According to the bible, you don't need a priest, pastor, or church authority, to intercede for you to god.

Thats  YOUR right and responsibility 

There are significant social and health benefits to belonging to a community of like minded people (a church) but it is not needed to be a christian 

Baptism is a symbolic  act of commitment, but itis not needed to be a christian, or to be saved  

Christ wast baptised until he was an adult and he was a  (jewish) christian from  birth

Of course this is opinion but its based on study of Christianity throughout history and in almost all it's forms 

Its also the general view of many protestant faiths  

if any one tells you that you must join their faith/church to be a christian, or be saved  then, while some may be sincere in that  belief, others are just out to get another member. 

 

 

Edited by Mr Walker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • The topic was locked
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.