carl wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:Would heaven be heaven if one of your loved ones wasn't there?

I believe it will still be heaven. Here are my reasons:

1) Fretting, feelings of loss, etc. are not going to be a part of heaven since I will be transformed.
1 Corinthians 15: We will not all die, but we will all be TRANSFORMED!

If you are being transformed, how are you still you?

I don't care about the unsupported claim in itself that "god makes it so". I want it explained how it is possible - and I want you to present evidence that would entail that this possibility could be rationally believed.

I don't believe you are capable of doing this, so I challenge you to change my mind on that.

This God character is an awful lot like the worst kind of "dom" in an unhealthy BDSM relationship.

He puts the believer (the sub) unconsentingly into a situation where you are made to suffer, but all the while there is the promise that as long as you do as you're told nice stuff will happen to you once the pain stops. No timeframe for this is given and while the sub is given a safety word (prayer) to make the pain end, it is usually ignored.

Why do you keep claiming that God told you this or that, God wrote this or that, and then quote Corinthians or Matthew or whoever? Corinthians was written by Paul (perhaps) who never met Jesus, Matthew was written by we have no idea who, but almost certainly never met him either.

Greyman wrote:Is this so? carl, would you consider donating to a worthy charity that wasn't overtly Christian?

I have in the past but only very little in comparison to Christian charities. Why?

I believe in meeting not only the physical needs but the spiritual needs, which are even greater. Here is my own example which I draw my decision from:

Luke 16: “There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. 20 At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores 21 and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores. 22 “The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side.

24 So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’ 25 “But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. 26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’

27 “He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father’s house, 28 for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’ 29 “Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’ 30 “‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’ 31 “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’ “

Answer:
1) The rich man was full of "good things" in this life. Even the Bible calls riches a "good thing". After all, wealth ultimately comes from God, like good clothes, food, various luxuries. Any wealthy Christian should feel blessed for the things God has provided. However, with all of God's blessings but without honoring the God who gave him everything, the rich man in the story above STILL ended badly. Being well-fed alone does not guarantee anything beyond being well-fed. Helping someone ONLY in the short term alone, IMHO, is a very short-sited goal.

Also, if I have the medication or treatment to help someone but withhold it or neglect to give it to them who need it, am I not partially guilty of that person's ultimate demise?

2) There is a "great chasm" between heaven and hell. At that point after death, no one can cross over in either direction, so this tells me I need to support those who share the Gospel presently before its too late. Even the rich man, having his wits intact through his suffering, asks Lazarus to preach to his brothers to share the gospel. In the same way, when I support a charity, I am asking them to preach now. The need is so urgent that there is no "later".

3) “Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’". Apparently, the rich man's family knew the scriptures but had rejected them. For many in foreign countries, they don't even know the scriptures at all so how much more so I want to support those organizations.

4) "They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’ “‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’ “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’" If rising from the dead cannot persuade someone - like Christ did - then nothing will. Regardless, this verse tells me the 5 brothers STILL have something very important in their knowledge base - the Scriptures. Nowhere does it say they shouldn't have the scriptures. Even in their rejection, it is important for them to have that scriptural knowledge. So I support those who give out the message, even if the message is rejected. Why? Who knows, maybe they may have a change of heart in the future, even on their death bed. But if the group I support has no such life-saving message, there is nothing to draw on when laying on ones' death bed.

Sendraks wrote:This God character is an awful lot like the worst kind of "dom" in an unhealthy BDSM relationship.

He puts the believer (the sub) unconsentingly into a situation where you are made to suffer, but all the while there is the promise that as long as you do as you're told nice stuff will happen to you once the pain stops. No timeframe for this is given and while the sub is given a safety word (prayer) to make the pain end, it is usually ignored.

Please clarify. Suffering in what situation?

You do realize most suffering in this world is caused by people, don't you? And if God doesn't exist, all the more so that most (not all) causes of suffering can be traced back to humans.

So what should we propose then? To get rid of those who cause suffering? Who'd be left?

Yeah like in the tsunami. Oh wait...

Rumraket wrote:If you are being transformed, how are you still you?

On a much smaller level, there are many people today, both believers and not, who are transformed to a degree, in various ways, but still retain their identity. They have the same memories, names, relatives, property, etc.. but may be freed from drug addiction, for example. They used to run around cheating people for their cash, and now they have a decent job and family.

Now if we can change ourselves to a limited degree on earth, how much more so the God who made us can change us in heaven, IMHO. Here is what I draw my conclusions from:

Matthew 17: After six days Jesus took with him Peter, James and John the brother of James, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. There he was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light. Just then there appeared before them Moses and Elijah, talking with Jesus.

Peter said to Jesus, “Lord, it is good for us to be here. If you wish, I will put up three shelters—one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah.”

Answer: How did Peter know who Moses and Elijah were? He never met them before. They were long dead. AFAIK, it seems a bit of heaven was revealed where people who didn't know each other on earth knew each other in the heavenly realm.

In which case, Moses and Elijah, although now residents of heaven, still had their identity intact.

Spearthrower wrote:Would heaven be heaven if one of your loved ones wasn't there?

But they will be there, transformed into even better people than the dickheads they were when you loved them. Nobody goes to Hell, (except for those that do).

carl wrote:

Rumraket wrote:If you are being transformed, how are you still you?

On a much smaller level, there are many people today, both believers and not, who are transformed to a degree, in various ways, but still retain their identity. They have the same memories, names, relatives, property, etc.. but may be freed from drug addiction, for example. They used to run around cheating people for their cash, and now they have a decent job and family.

Now if we can change ourselves to a limited degree on earth, how much more so the God who made us can change us in heaven, IMHO. Here is what I draw my conclusions from:

Matthew 17: After six days Jesus took with him Peter, James and John the brother of James, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. There he was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light. Just then there appeared before them Moses and Elijah, talking with Jesus.

Peter said to Jesus, “Lord, it is good for us to be here. If you wish, I will put up three shelters—one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah.”

Answer: How did Peter know who Moses and Elijah were? He never met them before. They were long dead. AFAIK, it seems a bit of heaven was revealed where people who didn't know each other on earth knew each other in the heavenly realm.

In which case, Moses and Elijah, although now residents of heaven, still had their identity intact.

Because the guy who wrote Matthew made it up?

It does sound an awful lot like the notions of distinct personalities, individuality, and free will are all going to be made effectively redundant in that desired place

Onyx8 wrote:Yeah like in the tsunami. Oh wait...

The Bible says this world, since its creation, has been wearing out. This is what we are experiencing today with earthquakes, mudslides and sinkholes - which were previously stable ground. This experience also supports various laws of physics which tell us that in this world, things do indeed wear out - they don't build themselves up.

So when I read an article where someone claims to look out a telescope and then proceeds to tell me he not only sees a planet, but sees that it is building itself up into a larger planet, and that the planet is 4 billion years in the making, I have to ask myself, "why is he telling me something when he is just looking, that's right, just looking out a scope? And why is he imagining a theory which violates the laws of physics?"

Sure, he can tell me a planet is out there, and a few other details, but its age and its development over billions of years?

And, if I allow myself to place my faith in his theory, am I not guilty of indulging his ego?

NO HUMAN BEING will ever be able to tell us, with CERTAINTY, the origins of our universe or other planets, through ANY technology. If they try to tell us so, they are not a braniac but a MEGALOMANIAC.

It should NEVER cease to amaze us how much stretching of the truth and the extravagant claims we see in the media today.

Megalomania:
1. A psychopathological condition characterized by delusional fantasies of wealth, power, or omnipotence.
2. An obsession with grandiose or extravagant things or actions.

Spearthrower wrote:It does sound an awful lot like the notions of distinct personalities, individuality, and free will are all going to be made effectively redundant in that desired place

Not to mention having the dangly bits lopped off. (Sewn shut?)

carl wrote:

Onyx8 wrote:Yeah like in the tsunami. Oh wait...

The Bible says this world, since its creation, has been wearing out. This is what we are experiencing today with earthquakes, mudslides and sinkholes - which were previously stable ground. This experience also supports various laws of physics which tell us that in this world, things do indeed wear out - they don't build themselves up.

So when I read an article where someone claims to look out a telescope and then proceeds to tell me he not only sees a planet, but sees that it is building itself up into a larger planet, and that the planet is 4 billion years in the making, I have to ask myself, "why is he telling me something when he is just looking, that's right, just looking out a scope? And why is he imagining a theory which violates the laws of physics?"

Sure, he can tell me a planet is out there, and a few other details, but its age and its development over billions of years?

And, if I allow myself to place my faith in his theory, am I not guilty of indulging his ego?

NO HUMAN BEING will ever be able to tell us, with CERTAINTY, the origins of our universe or other planets, through ANY technology. If they try to tell us so, they are not a braniac but a MEGALOMANIAC.

It should NEVER cease to amaze us how much stretching of the truth and the extravagant claims we see in the media today.

Megalomania:
1. A psychopathological condition characterized by delusional fantasies of wealth, power, or omnipotence.
2. An obsession with grandiose or extravagant things or actions.

What has that got to do with a tsunami killing people?

carl wrote:

Onyx8 wrote:Yeah like in the tsunami. Oh wait...

The Bible says this world, since its creation, has been wearing out. This is what we are experiencing today with earthquakes, mudslides and sinkholes - which were previously stable ground. This experience also supports various laws of physics which tell us that in this world, things do indeed wear out - they don't build themselves up.

Actually, this is wrong on every account.

Firstly, the Bible doesn't say that the world is wearing out. Secondly, we are no more experiencing earthquakes, mudslides and sinkholes than we were in the past - there are just an awful lot more people today which can thereby be affected by them, and thereby report on it. Finally, the laws of physics you can only be appealing to are the laws of thermodynamics and you have misapplied them - the Earth is not an isolated system.

carl wrote:So when I read an article where someone claims to look out a telescope and then proceeds to tell me he not only sees a planet, but sees that it is building itself up into a larger planet, and that the planet is 4 billion years in the making, I have to ask myself, "why is he telling me something when he is just looking, that's right, just looking out a scope? And why is he imagining a theory which violates the laws of physics?"

Well, firstly he's not imagining a theory which violates the laws of physics, he's imagining a theory which you misapprehend as violating the laws of physics.

Secondly, you still need to account for that observation, because holding a position contrary to observable evidence is a position that is assuredly wrong. In fact, you can make that observation yourself - that's a precise requirement of the scientific endeavour: reproducibility. If you or anyone else looks through that telescope and do not observe what he/she claimed, then you have achieved a falsification of it. Also, if it's a direct observation, it's not a theory - theories are explanatory models, not brute facts.

Finally, accretion. It's not a complex idea. There's dust and rocks in space. Gravity attracts them. The larger the mass, the more attraction. A body with the mass of a planet attracts that additional material.

carl wrote:Sure, he can tell me a planet is out there, and a few other details, but its age and its development over billions of years?

Well, it depends on the planet we're talking about. Generally, we can't provide details of its development over billions of years, but we can tell it's age for a number of reasons which would be very difficult for you to argue without committing to special pleading.

carl wrote:And, if I allow myself to place my faith in his theory, am I not guilty of indulging his ego?

You don't actually need to place any faith in a scientific contention: you're perfectly permitted to go and conduct your own observations and tests to see if the claim holds up. If it doesn't, and you show it to be false, you will gain accolades, because science is about removing bad ideas from the pool of potentiality.

carl wrote:NO HUMAN BEING will ever be able to tell us, with CERTAINTY, the origins of our universe or other planets, through ANY technology. If they try to tell us so, they are not a braniac but a MEGALOMANIAC.

Even with CAPSLOCK at random points through your sentence, this is doublespeak. You claim to be able to do just that with absolute certainty!

However, you do not understand how science operates, so your claim to have 'believed' in evolution before is actually exposed as not being a 'belief' held in knowledge, but at best in intellectual apathy.

It's not surprising, though. There's a negative correlation between science literacy and religiosity.

carl wrote:It should NEVER cease to amaze us how much stretching of the truth and the extravagant claims we see in the media today.

Media =/= science

carl wrote:Megalomania:
1. A psychopathological condition characterized by delusional fantasies of wealth, power, or omnipotence.
2. An obsession with grandiose or extravagant things or actions.

And don't you see how that term best represents the believer who is absolutely certain - so certain they would do anything, trade away even essential elements of their own humanity, for the obsessive delusional fantasy in which they imagine they gain everything?

Onyx8 wrote:
What has that got to do with a tsunami killing people?

Personally, I think Carl's main agenda here is to tell us what the Bible says.

He appears to think we don't know what the Bible says.

carl wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:Would heaven be heaven if one of your loved ones wasn't there?

I believe it will still be heaven. Here are my reasons:

1) Fretting, feelings of loss, etc. are not going to be a part of heaven since I will be transformed.
1 Corinthians 15: We will not all die, but we will all be TRANSFORMED!

That's not in 1st Corinthians 15

Revelation 21: There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.

How will God accomplish this? Dunno but my trust is in God's character to do what He said. There are a lot of things I don't know how He'll accomplish in the future...or has accomplished in the past - like making this world in the first place. Or how He took a stubborn, faithless, rebellious, Godless, evolution-believing, abiogenesis-believing man like myself and brought me to a place of faith today.

You realize that this is about the end of the world don't you and not about heaven?

2) This life on earth will seem like a dim memory:
Isaiah 65: For the past troubles will be forgotten and hidden from my eyes. See, I will create a new heavens and a new earth.
The former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind.

I believe God will remove painful memories from our past while still preserving our identities and those memories which bring joy.

Why is it that some Christians understand their own holy books so little? Isaiah 65 was most likely written during the Babylonian exile and was about a return to and restoration of Jerusalem.

3) Although the question you raise is certainly a possibility and likelihood for some in heaven, I will never ASSUME any loved one didn't get to heaven. Why?

1 Corinthians 7: For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

Once again not understanding your own holy book. 1st Corinthians is not about heaven it's about being celibate and what to do if you can't.

A general principle is whomever is important to us, a loved one for example, is even more important to God - so important that He includes the unbelieving individual in His plan for that family. And if the unbelieving family member is more important to God then to me, that family member is in good hands and I can rest in that knowledge.

Wow! You got all that out of a verse that says it's good enough for one parent to be a believer? I'm impressed.

Also, it is very common for believers today to report having seen the Lord while they lay at their deathbed in a coma, etc. and to return and report how merciful the Lord was to them and saved them in that last hour.

In India the same thing happens but the Lord is more likely to be Krishna, Vishnu, or Ganesh.

We just don't know what happens to someone on those last moments of life where some may be saved. Therefore, I discourage anyone to say to themselves, 'I'd rather go to hell and be with my loved ones down there'. Who knows where they went?

Yep, who knows? But your magical playground seems highly unlikely.

How do you to tell there is a big face palm ahead?
When you see these words.

carl wrote:
The Bible says,..

Oldskeptic wrote:

carl wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:Would heaven be heaven if one of your loved ones wasn't there?

I believe it will still be heaven. Here are my reasons:

1) Fretting, feelings of loss, etc. are not going to be a part of heaven since I will be transformed.
1 Corinthians 15: We will not all die, but we will all be TRANSFORMED!

That's not in 1st Corinthians 15

Ahh the joy of differing translations of a divinely authored book.... and that's just in English!

Oldskeptic wrote:

Revelation 21: There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.

How will God accomplish this? Dunno but my trust is in God's character to do what He said. There are a lot of things I don't know how He'll accomplish in the future...or has accomplished in the past - like making this world in the first place. Or how He took a stubborn, faithless, rebellious, Godless, evolution-believing, abiogenesis-believing man like myself and brought me to a place of faith today.

You realize that this is about the end of the world don't you and not about heaven?

Nevermind, Carl still trusts it, even if it means something other than what he thought it meant and trusted it completely then!

Oldskeptic wrote:

2) This life on earth will seem like a dim memory:
Isaiah 65: For the past troubles will be forgotten and hidden from my eyes. See, I will create a new heavens and a new earth.
The former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind.

I believe God will remove painful memories from our past while still preserving our identities and those memories which bring joy.

Why is it that some Christians understand their own holy books so little? Isaiah 65 was most likely written during the Babylonian exile and was about a return to and restoration of Jerusalem.

Psshhh details, details!

Oldskeptic wrote:

3) Although the question you raise is certainly a possibility and likelihood for some in heaven, I will never ASSUME any loved one didn't get to heaven. Why?

1 Corinthians 7: For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

Once again not understanding your own holy book. 1st Corinthians is not about heaven it's about being celibate and what to do if you can't.

It was already sketchy enough. Sanctify = go to heaven? Carl seems to be from a very unusual sect of Christianity. Wherein lies the requirement for salvation through Jesus' name if you can just get a free family pass?

Oldskeptic wrote:

A general principle is whomever is important to us, a loved one for example, is even more important to God - so important that He includes the unbelieving individual in His plan for that family. And if the unbelieving family member is more important to God then to me, that family member is in good hands and I can rest in that knowledge.

Wow! You got all that out of a verse that says it's good enough for one parent to be a believer? I'm impressed.

Apparently, on account of my mum being a believer, I will also be going to Heaven. I bet God's going to regret that oversight!

Oh Carl, I am so going to pester you! In a totally loving way free of all my previous limitations on pestering people, naturally!

Oldskeptic wrote:

We just don't know what happens to someone on those last moments of life where some may be saved. Therefore, I discourage anyone to say to themselves, 'I'd rather go to hell and be with my loved ones down there'. Who knows where they went?

Yep, who knows? But your magical playground seems highly unlikely.

Hey! Don't knock it OS... I just got given free tickets, I only want to hear things which make me believe it's gonna be great!

Do you think they have candy floss and goldfishes in plastic bags there?

carl wrote:The Bible says this world, since its creation, has been wearing out. This is what we are experiencing today with earthquakes, mudslides and sinkholes - which were previously stable ground.

And the geological ignorance horse has left the stables...

carl wrote:So when I read an article where someone claims to look out a telescope and then proceeds to tell me he not only sees a planet, but sees that it is building itself up into a larger planet, and that the planet is 4 billion years in the making, I have to ask myself,

You don't have to ask yourself anything.
You choose to, for assumed rhetorical effect.
Unfortunately the effect on anyone with a basic science education undamaged by religious bollocks doesn't get beyond pity and laughter.

carl wrote:"why is he telling me something when he is just looking, that's right, just looking out a scope? And why is he imagining a theory which violates the laws of physics?"

Why is someone who seemingly understands bugger-all about the relevant physics going out of their way to broadcast that?

carl wrote:And, if I allow myself to place my faith in his theory, am I not guilty of indulging his ego?

It seems highly unlikely that you would have any indulgence to spare for that.