Posted on 02/28/2010 1:53:01 PM PST by NYer
“Michael Shermer, editor of Skeptic magazine, wryly comments that no one has ever met a dead guy who came back to report on the afterlife.”
But, there is a dead guy who came back to report on the afterlife. That’s the point here. The point is not that Christians insist that they believe on their position without evidence, the point is that atheists reject evidence which doesn’t fit their preconceived notions.
I was an agnostic. However, the question has to be, if scripture is correct, and the account of Christ dying and coming back to life is correct, then the choice is simply to believe. That’s it.
But wait I was speaking of oblivion and you just brought emotions “peace” and time “billon” into the equation.
Before you were conceived there was no you and you had not entered into this world and hence there was no time to experience. So if there is no life after death there is only oblivion and really what is so bad about it? There is nothing to be afraid of if death is oblivion and why is not one life well lived enough? Why do people think life has to be eternal? And eternal bliss at that? Why is not virtue it's own reward? Why do you need a reward for doing good? If doing the right thing meant you had to go to hell would you still do the right thing>
Just one anecdote.
I’ve been at the bedside of many people dying in almost 30 years of nursing.
The only one I ever saw sit up and open their eyes to die was a professed atheist.
Wasn’t a sudden death either as what comes in a cardiac event.. He was comatose and expected to go as his liver shut down .
Bingo. We have ample historical evidence of what a world without Christian morality looks like. It is deadly and evil.
“I was an agnostic. However, the question has to be, if scripture is correct, and the account of Christ dying and coming back to life is correct, then the choice is simply to believe. That’s it.”
Yeah but what’s so great about eternal life? And what is so terrible about death followed by oblivion that one must be afraid of it? See the problem is if death were merely oblivion then eternal life does not seem quite so mean an alternative. According to scripture and many other religions there’s only two places you can end up. Eternal bliss or eternal torture. Let’s face it, fear is a motivator to faith. Fear of eternal torture if one does not surrender and believe. Do you want your spouse to marry you and love you because you will torture her if she does not? No! You would be a sick puppy if you hung that threat over her head! There’s something wrong with God if he has to threaten us with eternal torture to get our love and obedience. There can’t be anything wrong with God, he is perfect. Therefor there is either no God or we have him all wrong and he does not have a heaven or a hell prepared for us. When we die he just sends of back to the void of oblivion where we came from.
I think the biggest detriment to belif is the concept of hell. No loving God would send a person to an eternal torture chamber no matter what that person has done. The concept of hell has to go. And why eternal bliss? Why not live a good virtuous life as a reward in itself and let that be enough?? What’s wrong with that? And let the law, imperfect as it is take care of evil doers in this life? There does not have to be perfect justice in an afterlife where everyone gets what’s coming to them. The essence of virtue just might be accepting that many wrongs will never be redressed in this life or the next and neither will all virture be rewarded.
“Bingo. We have ample historical evidence of what a world without Christian morality looks like. It is deadly and evil.”
But Buddists are moral too. Many, many atheists are very moral. Humanity is mostly moral or has been to this point or we would have wiped ourselves out by now.
There just does not have to be a promise of an eternal life of bliss to give you strength or motivation to live happily and with charity to all mankind. I am sure there are a lot of happy, content atheists.
There just does not have to be a promise of an eternal life of bliss to give you strength or motivation to live happily and with charity to all mankind.
Just sharing this clever story:
Dr. Schambaugh, of the University of Oklahoma School of Chemical Engineering, Final Exam question for May of 1997. Dr. Schambaugh is known for asking questions such as, “why do airplanes fly?” on his final exams. His one and only final exam question in May 1997 for his Momentum, Heat and Mass Transfer II class was: “Is hell exothermic or endothermic? Support your answer with proof.”
Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle’s Law or some variant. One student, however, wrote the following:
“First, We postulate that if souls exist, then they must have some mass. If they do, then a mole of souls can also have a mass. So, at what rate are souls moving into hell and at what rate are souls leaving? I think we can safely assume that once a soul gets to hell, it will not leave.
Therefore, no souls are leaving. As for souls entering hell, let’s look at the different religions that exist in the world today. Some of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, then you will go to hell. Since there are more than one of these religions and people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all people and souls go to hell. With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in hell to increase exponentially.
Now, we look at the rate of change in volume in hell. Boyle’s Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in hell to stay the same, the ratio of the mass of souls and volume needs to stay constant. Two options exist:
1. If hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter hell, then the temperature and pressure in hell will increase until all hell breaks loose.
2. If hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until hell freezes over.
So which is it? If we accept the quote given to me by Theresa Manyan during Freshman year, “that it will be a cold night in hell before I sleep with you” and take into account the fact that I still have NOT succeeded in having sexual relations with her, then Option 2 cannot be true...Thus, hell is exothermic.”
The student, Tim Graham, got the only A.
I do not believe Richard Dawkins exists. I have seen no proof of it apart from second, third, or even twelfth-hand accounts. He’s an illusion, and a sad and shameful one at that. He has no existence, no reality whatsoever.
I said nothing about emotions being the barometer of reality or the essence of being born again. I do not trust emotions either (and spiritual impressions, though different, also need to be subject to the Bible), yet they are real, thank God (Jesus rejoiced, and wept) and can truly testify of something inside, but they are to be the caboose, not the engine. And being born again is not really about emotions, but about radical changes in heart attitude and spiritual affections that are not caused by group pressure, or will to change, etc., all of which can happen in religion but still are not the realization which souls manifest who truly do humble repent and turn in faith to the Lord Jesus.
My changes were not about emotions, and to relegate being born again to emotions is neither logical or reasonable. When the fire-breathing, Christ-hating Saul was converted, his consequent love for Jesus and Christians was not just emotions. While there are always superficial conversions, which do not last, plenty of verifiable testimonies show a deeper and lasting reality.
As far as being born again, and the Bible not requiring a personal relationship with God/Jesus, both are clearly attested to.
As for personal relationship, not only do the personal prayers from David to Paul indicate more than “saying prayers,” but plenty of verses speak of knowing God, meaning something deeper than head knowledge.
(John 14:16-21) “And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; {17} Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. {18} I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you. {19} Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also. {20} At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you. {21} He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.”
(Gal 4:6,9) “And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.”
(Romans 8:15-16) For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
It was Jesus who spoke of two birthdays, one physical and the others spiritual:
(John 3:6-7) “That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. {7} Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.”
And that is what happened to the souls who believed in Acts, such as in Acts 2:38 and here in 10:43-47:
“To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. {44} While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. {45} And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. {46} For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, {47} Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?”
(Acts 15:8-9) “And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; {9} And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.”
(Eph 1:13) “In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,”
(James 1:18) “Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.”
Catholicism believes that this happens at baptism when you assent to statements of doctrine, but which usually is held to take place by proxy when an infant is baptized. However, an infant cannot obey the commands given in order to be baptized, that of repentance and whole-hearted faith, (Acts 2:2:38; 8:37), and that infants need salvation is debatable, while the only example of proxy faith did not procure salvation for a man who was incapable of believing, though intercession can procure mercy for others.
Instead, as seen above, the Holy Spirit is given to contrite souls who truly repent and believe on Christ to save them by faith (which overall follows Christ). To God be the glory!
*Bump!*
Great piece.
“Yeah but what’s so great about eternal life? And what is so terrible about death followed by oblivion that one must be afraid of it?”
You have a false dichotomy here. If it is true that eternal life exists, then both heaven and hell are true as well.
“Let’s face it, fear is a motivator to faith.”
Something either is or it isn’t. Death is inevitable to us all. The question whether or not eternal life exists does not care about whether you fear hell or not.
“There’s something wrong with God if he has to threaten us with eternal torture to get our love and obedience.”
Where has he threatened us? It is a fact. If heaven and hell are true, then the consequence is that those who do not go to heaven go to hell. It is no different then the fact that gravity causes an object to fall.
It is not because God hates us, that Hell exists. We can choose to be without him and the result is that we go to hell, or we can choose to be with him and go to heaven.
“There can’t be anything wrong with God, he is perfect. Therefor there is either no God or we have him all wrong and he does not have a heaven or a hell prepared for us.”
How so? If God is good, then he has given us a choice. We can choose to love him of our own free will, or we can choose Hell, to be without him.
“I think the biggest detriment to belif is the concept of hell. No loving God would send a person to an eternal torture chamber no matter what that person has done.”
So let’s review this. God loves all of us. However, would you want to be with him if you hate God? Think of when you are with someone you despise. It is difficult and it is torture. This is why God gives us the choice. If we insist on living our lives without him, then we will get exactly what we have sought for all of our life.
“The concept of hell has to go. And why eternal bliss? Why not live a good virtuous life as a reward in itself and let that be enough??”
What is the good virtuous life? Have any of us lived the good virtuous life?
“And let the law, imperfect as it is take care of evil doers in this life? There does not have to be perfect justice in an afterlife where everyone gets what’s coming to them. The essence of virtue just might be accepting that many wrongs will never be redressed in this life or the next and neither will all virture be rewarded.”
So you do not believe in Justice? God, as you said is perfect. This means that he is perfectly Just. Saying that God should turn a blind eye to your sins is saying that God is imperfect, and flawed.
“But Buddists are moral too. Many, many atheists are very moral. Humanity is mostly moral or has been to this point or we would have wiped ourselves out by now.”
What is the definition of morality?
I disagree. While many people are relatively moral, and atheists can be as well, I believe most people will cheat and break laws if the gov. enforced consequences are missing. Cultural factors have a lot to do with that, and the religion behind the culture, even in formerly religious ones, like Denmark. But take away police (and gun owning homeowners) and in populated areas will be crime ridden in a relatively short time.
To have small government in a large country then souls need to be overall controlled from within, and so they need not be controlled from without, and that is what made American an anomaly, all things considered.
While atheistic government can uphold some degree of morality, lacking a beneficial transcendent objective authority it relies upon human reasoning, which can offer no assurance it will not sanction what Mao, etc saw as reasonable. And such governments have killed more than religious ones in the last century (better weapons helped).
As far as Buddists being peaceful, it depends upon who is control. When their faith is threatened by conversions, they also resort to violence and in Burma they are trying to force Christians to convert to the state religion of Buddhism.
Despite aberrations, the Christian church was not constituted by Christ to rule over those without, or use the sword of men to spread or defend the faith, which sword the Bible sanctions the civil powers to use, while the church work to bring souls to be controlled from within Thus enabling small gov.). And for real believers, contrary to what is charged, the motivation is to be of selfless love, in response to knowing God’s love, not to escape Hell, and the charity that it has exampled is far beyond its secular non-profit counterparts. Praise the Lord.
I do not sanction all Rick Warren says, but as far as social work goes, good interview here by secular press: http://pewforum.org/events/?EventID=221
Good night.
You mean, if I become an atheist I'll live a life of debauchery? Why didn't somebody tell me that while I was young enough to be debauched??
We mostly almost did. What you are looking at are the results of society ordering itself over long periods of time including deadly periods of “trial and error”.
People are moral because we’ve learned and moved toward it.
If we throw that away, we’ll return to those ages and that is my point.
“So let’s review this. God loves all of us. However, would you want to be with him if you hate God? Think of when you are with someone you despise. It is difficult and it is torture. This is why God gives us the choice. If we insist on living our lives without him, then we will get exactly what we have sought for all of our life.”
Okay, since God commands that will love him I will. Yep that’s just what I am going to do. I mean, I would not want to make God angry now would I? So yeah, if God is going to insisit okay then. I love God. I hope he is appeased now and that he will not leave me to myself all lonely and depressed.
“Okay, since God commands that will love him I will.”
Where does he command you to love him? He gives you the choice. You can choose to love him or reject him.
What you object to is that there are consequences to choices. Let me put it another way. Every choice has a consequence, some of which are forseeable, others which are not. If you choose to rob someone, you may get away with it, or you may go to jail and be arrested.
Is it unfair that the choice of robbing someone has the consequence of you getting arrested?
In the case of God, you have a choice. Accept him or reject him. Accepting him means you go to heaven, that is the consequence, and rejecting him means you go to hell.
It has nothing to do with ‘fairness’, but with consequences.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.