What's heaven like?

[Ben Kenobi]

Which means you can't really say he won't save the atheists, too.

I said unrepentant atheists. If Richard Dawkins were on his deathbed, and he said please forgive me God, then he will be in there along with everyone else.

He might be pretty surprised at the end of it, but if he sincerely asked for forgiveness, he'd be there.

[FrostyBoy]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


And that's part of the point. The people who are in heaven are those who want to be there. No one is going to force you into heaven.

Personally, I like the fact that I will be with my friends and they won't pass away. I'll have my ears as they should be and for the first time I'll be able to hear music for real.

Maybe that sounds silly to you, but I'd never get tired of listening to the choir.

Y'know, science, stem cells, could achieve the same thing, and it wouldn't be that miraculous really.

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
And that's part of the point. The people who are in heaven are those who want to be there. No one is going to force you into heaven.

Which is fine.

But by that same token, heaven for some will be hell for others. So it seems to me it's more picking your poison for your afterlife; many atheists are okay with the notion that existence ends with death.

Maybe that sounds silly to you, but I'd never get tired of listening to the choir.

Don't get me wrong, I love choral music. I'm just trying to point out that debating the notion of heaven, regardless of its theology, is really a kind of pseudo-intellectual wankery.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Mrs Snuggles

How much of what is considered "right" is merely a social, human construct?

How much of it isn't?

I would point out that it is obvious that there is right and wrong. If you don't see anything wrong with raped and tortured little kids, than you are broken beyond anything I can deal with.

I am not saying to follow what the everyone says is right, with no thought/etc. I will say though, that through prayer and meditation, that God will guide you in what is right.

In fact, I will go so far to say that every human structure doesn't completely understand what right is. All is corrupted. That doesn't mean that the notion of right and wrong is broken. Nor does that mean that we can not determine anything about what is right and wrong. It does mean that things are complicated, more so than can be layed out completely in any book (yes, even the Bible, although I think that a deep reading of that probably comes closest.)

JM
(Deep reading does not mean reading the OT and starting stoning everyone.)

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
He loves you, that is why He respects your decisions. At least, that is how the thinking goes, I admit that I could be wrong.

JM
(I don't agree wih universal redemption, but I understand why some think so.)

Except for that whole "eternity" bit. If one posits an afterlife, what if someone does change his or her mind during that time and accepts your God?

With the way it's being described, it sounds like they're **** out of luck--hence, his forgiveness and love is limited.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


Have you ever had a habit or addiction Kidicious?

If so, I think you are familiar with what it means to be predisposed to sin. To not be free to do whatever yuo want.

JM

I used to smoke. It took me a long time to quit, but I did it. I didn't need anyone to take away my desire to smoke. In fact, sometimes I still want one.

I could have still been smoking. I could have never decided to quit smoking. Are you saying I would not have been free, just because I made that choice?

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


I said unrepentant atheists. If Richard Dawkins were on his deathbed, and he said please forgive me God, then he will be in there along with everyone else.

He might be pretty surprised at the end of it, but if he sincerely asked for forgiveness, he'd be there.

So only unrepentant atheists are proscribed from heaven? What about those who never really gave much thought to religion, were atheist, and never heard the Word of your God? Would they be consigned to some place other than heaven?

That applies just as well to those of other faiths, including those without deities.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ben, a person, free from sin, is one with a disability - born without all 5 senses.

That person would be alive, but he/she wouldnt know it, nor would they be physically and mentally able to sin.

You can still sin through thoughts, as Agathon clearly demonstrated.

That person would be alive, but he/she wouldnt know it, nor would they be physically and mentally able to sin.

On the contrary that would be the one thing he would know. He would know that he was alive, but he'd be horrifyingly alone, more alone then anyone else in the history of the world.

Where in the bible does it say that these kinds of people will be excused?

I don't believe there has ever been a person born without the use of any of their senses. I'm not sure whether such a person could survive.

I could see them do without 4, but not without touch.

And how the hell does God, or better yet, us people, know where God draws the line between being excused because of such reason, and not being excused?

It is his prerogative, because he, and only he can see us as we truly are.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Mrs Snuggles

Except for that whole "eternity" bit. If one posits an afterlife, what if someone does change his or her mind during that time and accepts your God?

With the way it's being described, it sounds like they're **** out of luck--hence, his forgiveness and love is limited.

In my understanding of the afterlife, it is only for those who accept God's grace.

I admit I could be wrong. In many ways I would prefer universal redemption.

JM

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
How much of it isn't?

I would point out that it is obvious that there is right and wrong. If you don't see anything wrong with raped and tortured little kids, than you are broken beyond anything I can deal with.

Of course. Except conclusions such as "raping little kids is bad, mmkay?" can be achieved without any religious component whatsoever; conversely, conclusions that enable --and even sanctify-- the inverse conclusion can be --and have been-- justified using religion.

I am not saying to follow what the everyone says is right, with no thought/etc. I will say though, that through prayer and meditation, that God will guide you in what is right.

By that same token, I will say that simple logic and reason can guide one to a sturdy "moral" code as well.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Kidicious


I used to smoke. It took me a long time to quit, but I did it. I didn't need anyone to take away my desire to smoke. In fact, sometimes I still want one.

I could have still been smoking. I could have never decided to quit smoking. Are you saying I would not have been free, just because I made that choice?

Ramp up your addiction levels a lot. To the point where you can't not smoke.

That is sin.

Yes, you aren't free.

In fact, I would say if you still have a strong desire to smoke often, that you still aren't free from your smoking addiction. Your body might be free of it, but your mind isn't.

JM

[Ben Kenobi]

Y'know, science, stem cells, could achieve the same thing, and it wouldn't be that miraculous really.

You'd be my hero.

I don't think you really understand. I've never heard anything properly. It's like looking at the world through dark lenses. Everything is blurred and dimmed, distorted and clipped.

To hear as it's supposed to be? That would be amazing. Like finally being able to see for the very first time.

[FrostyBoy]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
On the contrary that would be the one thing he would know. He would know that he was alive, but he'd be horrifyingly alone, more alone then anyone else in the history of the world.

Um. No Ben.

If I take away your hearing, vision, taste, smell and touch, how the hell is your brain going to gather outside information? The brain isn't pre-installed with any knowledge of the world, it has to gather it via it's senses over time.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Mrs Snuggles

Of course. Except conclusions such as "raping little kids is bad, mmkay?" can be achieved without any religious component whatsoever; conversely, conclusions that enable --and even sanctify-- the inverse conclusion can be --and have been-- justified using religion.


By that same token, I will say that simple logic and reason can guide one to a sturdy "moral" code as well.

I am not Elok, this is his argument.

Are you familiar with Paul? In Romans, he says that Jews are condemned becuase they have the law. And so they know they sin. And that gentiles are condemned as well, because they have their reason and know that they sin.

I think that Paul would agree with you that you can have some moral compass by using your reason.

Where I (and he, I think) would disagree with you is that you can always pick right by using your reasoning.

Easy ones about raping little kids aren't the difficulty. They are the ones that if you can't determine them (and I think many of those that do such things can), then you are almost without hope. It is in more complicated times of life that we need God's guidance.

JM

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by FrostyBoy
The brain isn't pre-installed with any knowledge of the world, it has to gather it via it's senses over time.

Actually, brain scientists disagree with that now.

JM
(Of course, what the brain mostly knows about when a child is born, is how to learn.)