I think you missed a bit of what I said. If we could find a way to make our lives last forever, life would have purpose. Everything would. I'm not saying everything would be perfect, but I do believe morals would abound and life would be more enjoyable (not to say that it isn't enjoyable now). Everybody would be more intelligent eventually. Prison and execution would be actual threats. Take Jeffrey Dahmer, a pretty gruesome serial killer by today's standards. He figured, nothing I do matters anyways, and even if I get caught what are they going to do, put me in jail for 50 years? Irrelevant fun fact: Interestingly enough he accepted Christ and was baptized while in prison, just a year or two before being murdered himself by another prisoner. Now, if humans eventually found a way to become immortal, they would have purpose, and they would find purpose in everything those who came before them had done. Of course, there's still no purpose for all who came before for they themselves to enjoy. This would bother some people, like me, but thrill others, like teachers. If you ask me the only problematic situation would be when man eventually asked, who should we give the immortality to and who will we allow to die. As for your black hole point, considering 60 years ago we couldn't even get to space and now we're close to putting a base on Mars, I think we'll be able to colonize on another planet long before our sun turns into a black hole in 10 million years. Also, enjoying something and valuing it personally does not give it objective value, none of us have the power to do that.

I see what you're saying, but I'm not sure you have answered my question quite directly. Perhaps humans would be more intelligent and ethical if we were immortal, but what value does intelligence and morality have in the first place? Why should a nihilist care about the pursuit of knowledge? I'm not saying you shouldn't, I'm just wondering what a nihilist's justification for that is.

As for us avoiding black holes, it is quite unlikely that we will be able to avoid them for all of our existence. Even under the slim chances that we do, we'll all die because our universe is ever-expanding and will end up going into a state where there is no more energy left, and everything will be dead. (see The Big Freeze).

What I meant to demonstrate with the example of the bees is that "self-preservation" does not always mean the individual organism; it can also apply to a whole species. Most humans have no problem with killing other animals for food, but in general, humans and don't like to see other humans die. (There are fringe groups in both the atheist and religious schools of thinking who have had agendas to kill other humans, but these will always exist since not every human is sane.)

Ah, that makes more sense then! However, what gives us this innate sense of brotherhood towards our fellow man? Why are we willing to sacrifice our lives for the betterment of our friends, family, country, and humanity? It seems to me that as man develops, we give more and more to those who do not necessarily deserve to receive (government welfare, unemployment), and we establish more and more morals which benefit those in need, instead of eliminating them from our gene pool.

This seems to be the exact opposite direction which natural selection should be going. Should not humans be getting stronger and stronger as we go along? Why is it that the more civilized we become, the further we stray from natural selection, which is ultimately the guiding light for evolution?

Perhaps humans would be more intelligent and ethical if we were immortal, but what value does intelligence and morality have in the first place? Why should a nihilist care about the pursuit of knowledge? I'm not saying you shouldn't, I'm just wondering what a nihilist's justification for that is.

Like everything else, there is not intrinsic value (assuming there is free will). For example, hammers have a purpose. They are used to get nails where they need to be, and have no free will. Humans seem to have some (limited) free will, but no immortality, and therefore no purpose. To quote someone (I can't recall the name off the top of my head), "Humans are not tragic because they are victims of nature, but because they are conscious of it." As for justification, I've never been one to feel the need to justify my actions per se, simply because, why should I? There's no moral rights or wrongs, only factual ones, so justification is irrelevant. Why do I care? No good reason I guess, I'm sure if you followed my sociological and psychological conditions my whole life you would be able to find out that answer.

As for your "Big Freeze" point, I'm afraid I don't have the scientific knowledge to comment on that at the moment.

@TBG, I'm currently listening to an iTunesU lecture on Kierkegaard, by Dr. Ronald H. Nash of Reformed Theological Seminary. I'll respond to your post after I'm finished with the lecture.

Like everything else, there is not intrinsic value (assuming there is free will). For example, hammers have a purpose. They are used to get nails where they need to be, and have no free will. Humans seem to have some (limited) free will, but no immortality, and therefore no purpose. To quote someone (I can't recall the name off the top of my head), "Humans are not tragic because they are victims of nature, but because they are conscious of it." As for justification, I've never been one to feel the need to justify my actions per se, simply because, why should I? There's no moral rights or wrongs, only factual ones, so justification is irrelevant. Why do I care? No good reason I guess, I'm sure if you followed my sociological and psychological conditions my whole life you would be able to find out that answer.

Ah, glad we could clarify. Well, I'll have to observe more of what you say to make any sort of argument against you at this point, because you surely must have your own opinions and philosophical foundation. True nihilists are quite hard to argue against, since nihilism is as much of a philosophy as not-collecting stamps is a hobby.

Food, this may be my agnostic streak coursing through me but I think to say unfalsifiable claims have to be true and ignore any other possibility shows that you have stopped looking for an answer and settle for dogmatism. I'm not saying I'm above this, in fact I've fallen prey to it recently. It's easy for someone like me who still believes in objective reality. But there's a delicate balance between accepting things on faith and closing yourself out to alternatives.

No it wouldn't: you would just go from finite meaninglessness to infinite meaninglessness.

I know some people who would feel this way; an atheist I know holds that life has value because it is so short, and the less you have of something (in this case, time) the more it is worth. But time isn't like gold, where you can trade it in for some dollars. It's something that will be gone, along with you and everything you could accomplish.

You have to own up to the fact that you aren't a self-sufficient source of your own value and that you are, in reality, running from God.

I agree that I'm not self-sufficient by any means, and that I don't have intrinsic value.

That simply proves that what you had was not really faith at all. A faith that cannot stand up to scrutiny is no faith at all. Those who refuse to examine or reassess their beliefs merely show that they don't really believe them.

I disagree that I never had faith, I think it was the belief itself that could not stand to the scrutiny I offer. But that goes without saying; it's what we've been debating all along. As for your mentioning about whether people really believe something, do you know who Ted Haggard is? He started a church called New Life, and almost single-handedly converted hundreds of pagans in Colorado to Christianity, while simultaneously growing his church from 15 people meeting in a basement to one of the largest churches in America. A few years ago, it came out that he had been having an affair (of a nature which we cannot discuss within the guidelines of the forum), been lying to his wife and children and congregation of thousands for years. I'm not saying people aren't allowed to stumble, but if people really believed in the power of God and the eternal afterlife, wouldn't they put THAT before THIS? 80% of Americans identify as Christians, but obviously they don't believe it, or in most cases even know what it means. Lucifer didn't seem to think God and heaven was so great.

I'd also suggest looking at some of the writings of Kierkegaard, a man who wrestled with many of the same questions that you wrestle with, and yet came to very different conclusions.

I don't know much of Kierkegaard to speak of, but from what I gleaned from the lecture I listened to he was a possibly bipolar crippled hunchback suffering from severe depression who spent his life discovering hedonism doesn't lead to happiness and eventually decided to follow a moral code, and when that didn't satisfy him converted to Christianity which he used as a tool to abuse his fiancé and trick himself so he didn't have to deal with severe despair anymore. I haven't yet delved into his writings yet, I believe we're supposed to be covering him in my philosophy class after spring break, but he doesn't sound overly credible to me. I mean, he was an irrationalist.

Why do I care?

The question is not whether or why you do care, but why you should care about anything. Frankly, in a nihilistic framework, there can be nothing---literally. Not only a lack of value, but of reason, for there is no motivation to be reasonable, no basis for a faith in reason.

@TBG, I'm currently listening to an iTunesU lecture on Kierkegaard, by Dr. Ronald H. Nash of Reformed Theological Seminary.

Good to hear you're getting it from a good source. I have several friends who've been to RTS or are connected with it in some other way. The one caution I'd have is that you may or may not be hearing the usual broad-brush-stroke popular understanding of Kierkegaard that actually misses the point on his project.

TBG

However, what gives us this innate sense of brotherhood towards our fellow man? Why are we willing to sacrifice our lives for the betterment of our friends, family, country, and humanity? It seems to me that as man develops, we give more and more to those who do not necessarily deserve to receive (government welfare, unemployment), and we establish more and more morals which benefit those in need, instead of eliminating them from our gene pool. This seems to be the exact opposite direction which natural selection should be going. Should not humans be getting stronger and stronger as we go along? Why is it that the more civilized we become, the further we stray from natural selection, which is ultimately the guiding light for evolution?

If human evolution needed to make humans stronger and stronger, it would have. But if the goal of evolution was to create creatures with increasingly greater physical might, why would humans have come about in the first place? Millions of years ago, dinosaurs covered the globe and were the largest, most powerful creatures the earth has ever known. One would assume that in the next 100 million years, even larger and stronger creatures would emerge as world leaders. But instead, tiny hairless intelligent apes became the new dominant species.

The human race has evolved beyond the point of needing physical adaption. Our evolution as a species is now entirely information-based. The countries with the smartest humans, not the strongest, have the longest life spans. Ultimately, we want to have as many humans as possible live happy lives.

We choose to give to members of our community because those members of our community do not pose a threat to us. Once a particular group's funding becomes too large, funding for it will cease. (For instance, in the United States Social Security system is currently on pace to betray an entire generation.) We will see how the human race responds in the next century when overpopulation and aging demographics become a real problem.

I’m sorry to add yet another topic to this already-busy discussion, but my friends Sweeetlilgurlie and Tesseract have been waiting patiently for a response from me. It's extremely long, for which I apologize. This is a response to two different discussions that went off topic in another thread, and so had to be moved here.

To Sweeet -- (from this thread -- viewtopic.php?f=12&t=2552&start=16#p147514)

Though, Riella, you must keep in mind that the Bible also states very clearly that Faith without works is dead (See James in the bible), thoroughly negating the argument that faith is all we need to get to Heaven. The two go hand in hand.

Okay. Well, I've done debates on this topic before, and they usually end up being a stalemate since it all depends on how you interpret the scriptures in question. But I'll tell my view on this again.
James says that faith without works is dead. I believe this means one of two things, though I'm not sure which one. I do not believe, however, that if you have faith, become a Christian, etc. but don't do works, that you'll go to Hell. I'll tell you what two things I do think it may mean.
1. When it says "Dead" I believe that means "Useless". The next question is "Useless towards what?" Useless as in, it won't keep you out of Hell? I don't believe so, as I said above. I think it may be more referring to it being useless on Earth. As in, they have Faith, which is a gift from God, but they're letting it sit dormant. I'm sure we have all met people like that. Maybe even some of us have been like that at some point. I don't think it means you're going to Hell. I think it just means that you're kind of a "dead Christian", or someone who isn't shining the light like they should.
2. It could be more referring to the kind of faith you have. Works are an outside sign of an inside faith. Example: If a person cares nothing about God, cares nothing about Christianity, cares nothing about helping, but says a prayer to God to "become a Christian", it's doubtful that person even means it. Afterward, he won't have any works. But it's not the lack of works that sends him to Hell. It's the false faith he used, the false conversion. The lack of works is just an outward sign of it. Whereas, if a person truly loves God, truly loves Christianity, and truly becomes a Christian, then they won't really have to worry about whether "Lack of works" is an issue anyway. They will have works. The holy Spirit that enters them puts God's love in their hearts, and that's very difficult to resist. They will do works as a result of it. That doesn't mean that the works themselves saved them in any way. it's just an outward sign to others of their true inside faith. It's a sign to us that shows their faith was real and is working within them. If anyone does not have works, why not? Most likely because they didn't really mean it when they prayed to God to become His. otherwise His Spirit would be driving them to do works.
The Bible says pretty clearly that works is not what saves us. Even if it was a combination of faith and works, it still would contradict what the Bible says. Think of the reason the Bible lists as to WHY God made it so that we are not saved by works. it says "... so that no man should boast." If we were saved by works, even if only in part, we could still boast because it was still, in part, to our credit. And we can't take credit. Credit is due to God alone. God gives us faith, the faith He gives us through His Grace. It's none of our doing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To Tesseract --

First, in reply to your responses here -- viewtopic.php?f=12&t=2552#p147153.

Hmm. Saying that any Christian who hindered scientific discoveries just "didn't get God's Word" and weren't real Christians seems like a bit of an easy way to clear Christianity from tarnish. The Catholic Church suppressed critical thinking during the Dark Ages and shunned the idea that we might not be the center of the universe.

But the question is, did they base their beliefs on what the Bible actually said? Or was it just their own personal beliefs? Any person, from any religion, can have a wrong opinion, or do something wrong or harmful. That doesn't necessarily mean their religion, or anything else they might do/believe, is to blame. That would be like saying, if a basketball player committed murder, then basketball must be wrong since basketball players murder people. Unless the game of basketball actually encouraged murder, it wouldn't be the game's fault. Same with religions. As far as I know, the Bible doesn't contradict Science, and it doesn't deny that we go round the sun. God is not guilty for the sins of His people. Although He washes away our sin and is slowly perfecting us through trials and situations, we Christians are not instantly made into perfect saints right now, here on earth. We still sin, mess stuff up, act like jerks and get stuff wrong. That’s our fault; not His. You have to take that into account when you see a Christian doing something wrong. You have to find out if they are basing their beliefs/actions on something the Bible says/commands, or if it’s just something they’re doing/believing because they’re “imperfect pigs”.

I could just as easily say that all atheists who were destructive to society didn't get atheism either.

Does that mean you think Atheism is to blame for anything bad atheists do?

The Middle East used to be a high point of learning in the world, with the development of algebra and many other things. But recently it has been in an educational withdrawal due to heavy promotion of Koran ideals. Not to mention that people burned animals for centuries hoping that God would heal them instead of developing medicine.

If they’re doing what they do because of their beliefs, I guess that's a good argument against Islam then. I'll have to remember that if I ever get into another debate with a Muslim. I'm not here to defend all religions; Just my own. I don't believe in Islam any more than you do. (Their god, Allah, by the way, is not the same as mine. Just making sure you knew that; although you might already.) Just because one or some religions do something wrong or are inaccurate, that doesn't mean that any thing that is a religion contains the same faults. I don't think it's a good idea to take every religion and put them all in one category, because each one is a completely different thing than the others.

But the idea of God using death and pain to accomplish great things is something that has never quite made sense to me. Many Jews abandoned their belief in God while suffering in the concentration camps, and then died, leaving them no chance for redemption or salvation. (Elie Wiesel's book "Night") I can't see God always being able to use death and pain as a good thing when it leads to lost souls.

There are many examples of God using pain as a good thing. Even atheists I know believe pain is often good. People become stronger after they have gone through trials. They also often become better people. I know of many people who lived terrible lives, but after experiencing certain things that were/are still painful, they renounced those ways.
As for your example with the Jews, I have two comments to make. One is that most Jews are not Christians. They believe in God, but most reject Christianity.
As for Christians in general renouncing their faith because of pain, either one of two things happened there. Either they weren't Christians in the first place (1 John 2:19), or God brought them back at the end. No one can see into a person's heart. No one knows what goes through their heart in the very last moments of their life. People often think that if you stray, you go to Hell. But that isn't the case. God goes after the lost sheep who have strayed away from him, and brings them back to the flock. (Unless, of course, they weren't that serious in their hearts about being His "sheep" in the first place. Just like some people like a certain hobby for awhile and then drop it, there are people who like a certain religion for awhile and then drop it)

Of course, this assumes that religion = a belief in hell. What if there was a religion where people only went to heaven? Then there'd be no problem with being an imperfect pig.

There'd also be no problem with being a murderer or rapist. If you believe in any morality at all, then generally you believe in some kind of reward/consequences. By the belief you just gave as an example, if you murdered someone, you'd be just fine and go to Heaven when you died. You and your victim could spend eternity together. If that's the case, I feel sorry for the people who were wronged, be it by murder, rape, or any other means, since they will never have any justice.

----------------------------------------------------------------

To Tesseract, in response to this video --

. It came up when in our discussion I, inadvertently, used “Pascal’s Wager”, which I had never heard of prior. I recommend that anyone wanting to take part in this conversation watch the video before reading further. Since my responses are very long, I divided them into categories.

1. Pascal’s Use of “Wager”

I’m going to begin by saying what may sound surprising -- I disagree with most of what Pascal said. (Although, I haven’t read his words in their original context. I only have this video to go by) but I still stand by what I said in the post. And I’ll explain what I mean by that. I used “Pascal’s Wager” in a completely different context than Pascal used it. My intention was to use it to prove that believing in Christianity was not dangerous, whereas Atheism could be. It is a good argument against those claiming faith places you in danger, and I will defend the argument as such a little later in the post. However, I was not implying that it should be your main reason or motivation for becoming a Christian, as Pascal was doing. “Pascal’s Wager” was not my reason for accepting Christ, and I wouldn’t recommend it as a reason for anyone else either. Why? Because it eliminates faith and belief from the picture. Pascal seems to be implying that we should decide Christianity is a good view to take because it’s “the best bet”, and then try to erase any doubts we have by just getting into the religion, going through the motions, dulling our thoughts or pushing doubts to the back of our minds. I’d say that’s the worst thing you could do because, as the video says, “An omniscient god would know your actions were the product of a mercenary bet rather than sincere belief.” Faith and belief must be the key motivation. I didn’t accept Christ because I was “making a good bet”. I accepted Christ because I believed Christianity to be true. If that faith and belief isn’t there, and you accept Christ out of a mere “bet”, then it’s most likely a false conversion.

2. Other Disagreements With Pascal

There is yet another point on which I disagree with Pascal, and it is when he says that “If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible. You must wager.” While it’s true that God is so complex that we cannot completely comprehend Him, it’s not true that we can never know 100% that He exists and must therefore bet, as Pascal seems to be implying. We can be 100% sure of His existence if God chooses to reveal Himself to us in some way. And believe me, if he reveals Himself to you, you no longer have any doubts. How does he reveal Himself to us? Well, in many ways. Of course, there’s always the extreme examples, like talking to people through a burning bush. But that isn’t very common. he’s much more likely to do so through circumstances, assurance, or even miracles. And sometimes he reveals himself before we are saved, and other times he chooses to wait until after we’ve chosen to come to Him. This is usually because of tests of Faith. A good illustration of this is in Narnia, PC, Ch. 11, when Aslan shows Himself to Lucy and the others. Lucy knew 100% that Aslan was there because he revealed Himself to her, but the others had to follow by faith first, and then Aslan showed Himself to them afterwards. (My personal experience was that of Lucy’s. I knew about God, and that He was real ,before my parents or anyone had even told me about Him. When they told me about God for the first time in my life, I already knew Who they were talking about, because God had made Himself known to my heart. Whereas, from what you’ve told me about yourself, it sounds like you’re more in the position of the other Pevensies and Trumpkin.)

3. Defending My Usage of the “Wager”

As I stated above, unlike Pascal (who was using it as a purpose behind conversion), I am using this argument strictly as a defense against those saying Christianity is dangerous to its believers. I will defend it as such now. The argument again is -- Believers, if right gain everything; if wrong, lose nothing. Non-Believers, if right gain nothing; if wrong, lose everything. The video gave two basic arguments against this. One, it claimed Believers can lose something. And two, it claimed Believers gain very little even if they win. I will address each of these claims. First, about loss --

If you lose, you lose: integrity, critical thought, untold hours of empty ritual.

A. Integrity. I’m not sure what it means by Believers “losing integrity”. unless it’s talking about us losing integrity in the eyes of Non-Believers. But if it’s referring to that, it’s not really an argument. That would be the case not only with Christianity in the eyes of non-followers, but also with any stance in the eyes of anyone who disagreed with it. I could just as easily say Atheists lose integrity in the eyes of Christians.

B. Critical Thought. You don’t lose critical thought by becoming a Christian. As I said above, I don’t agree with Pascal’s statement about “dulling” the mind. I assure you, I have as much thought, reason, and discernment as any Atheist does. I’m sure I could say the same about my fellow Christians on this site, as well as Christians in general. Just because we have a different opinion than Atheists do, that does not make us unreasoning fools. I could just as easily say people who disagree with me or my religion have lost their critical thought. But that would be an incorrect thing for me to do, because I know you and Atheists in general are very intelligent. There are many questions in the world -- whether the earth was created or came about on its own, whether there is any purpose to life, whether we go somewhere when we die or just cease to exist -- and some people will be on one side and other people will be on the other side. But there is nothing that indicates one side to be more reasonable than the other.

C. Untold Hours of Empty Ritual. I’m sorry, but I couldn’t help laughing at this a little. It makes me wonder if the person who made this video thinks that all Christians are like monks or nuns, performing rituals in caves by candlelight or uttering chants inside circles drawn on the ground. I (along with most other believers) do not perform rituals. I’ve heard a couple denominations have a few, such as Catholicism, but as far as I know it is not necessary to be a Believer or be saved. And it doesn’t exactly consume their life in their case anyway. My Catholic friend usually ends up calling me out of boredom frequently and daily, because she has too much spare time. So she isn’t exactly throwing her life away with rituals. And, as I said and will repeat, even those rituals are not necessary to be a Believer. There are many Believers who do no rituals at all. But then, it also depends on what you call a ritual. I thought about it for awhile and there were only three things which might be considered a ritual to a Non-Believer -- Deeds, Church, and Prayer.

Deeds: Deeds are a way of serving God. They are usually things such as helping those in need, giving to the poor, volunteering, etc. Anything to help others. Since this is beneficial whether God is real or not, I wouldn’t consider this wasting time with empty ritual.

Church: Church (or at least, the churches I’ve been to) is only about two hours long and only takes place once a week. Here we are taught what the Bible says (which helps us understand more and teaches us how to explain our beliefs to others), how to get along better with people, offers places for counseling for any who need it in any area, provides resources for housing and jobs and volunteer work, etc., and reminds us to show more kindness to others. I know many Non-Believers who attend church -- not because they believe in God or because they are religious. Many of them aren’t. But because it serves as a weekly reminder to help others (something easily forgotten in this busy world) and provides them with good resources.

Prayer: Prayer is the only one of the three that would not also be beneficial to a Non-Believer. Prayer takes about 2-5 minutes, can be done any time or place, and you can also do other things while you pray. I often pray while I’m making breakfast, doing household chores, taking a shower, etc. So I don’t exactly lose any time by doing this either.

From this, it appears to me that there is still no loss in Christianity. Now for the video’s other claim that there is barely any gain.

Pascal suggests a dubious gain: "You will be faithful, honest, humble, grateful, generous, a sincere friend."

If a string of virtues was the only gain, I would see their point. But this isn’t the case. I’m afraid this is another error on Pascal’s part. The prize if Christians are correct is not honesty and humility and the rest of it. It’s spending eternity in unspeakable happiness in the place God will provide for His Followers. Also, avoiding Hell is a pretty good thing too.

4. The Stack of Cards

The rest of my arguments will be, not on Pascal’s wager, but on further claims made by the video. This section will contain my responses to the video’s arguments concerning: Other Religions, Future religions, Christian Denominations, and god’s Punishing the Unbelievers.

a. Other Religions. I don’t have much to say on this point. I basically came here to defend my own religion. Discussing all religions at once is a rather broad category -- too broad for this already-too-long post. If you want to find out more about other religions the best thing to do is to ask someone actually in that religion. And not having experienced the other religions myself, I don’t feel qualified to say anything positive or negative about them here on an internet message board, if you’re asking me personally why I rejected other religions, it’s because (as I said earlier, about the Lucy/Aslan example) God revealed himself to me before I accepted Him; and being certain of His existence beforehand, I found it unlikely that other gods would be real if mine was real at the same time. Since God has not revealed himself to you yet, this won’t be of much help to you. Maybe someone else on here who, in their pre-Christianity life, was in a similar situation as Tesseract, would like to share their story on this?

b. Future Religions This is much like the case above, although I would question a god who chose this long to reveal himself. My God revealed Himself to the first people on earth, Adam and Eve. Although the word “Christianity” was not around until after Christ’s death and the beginning of the New Covenant , and it was called Judaism during the time of the Old Covenant, you have to remember that it was all under one God, since the beginning of time.

c. Denominations The video shows a list of denominations and sub-divisions and then asks, if we’re going to choose Christianity, then, which Christianity? The answer is just plain Christianity itself. It’s God and the bible that should be your main focus here because true Christian denominations worship the same God and believe the Bible. (If a Denomination does not follow God or the bible, then I would question their being called Christian) Let me explain denominations a little further so you have a better idea what I’m talking about. This is an important issue since it causes a lot of misunderstandings about Christianity, and sometimes even leads people to believe the religion is weak.
What Denominations Are: Denominations are not “different Christianities”. There is only one Christianity. Christian denominations worship God, and believe the bible. Surprisingly, many denominations are not that different from each other. I know two people, each from a completely different denomination, who agreed on everything except one point -- one preferred worshipping God through rock music; the other only thought hymns were appropriate. I’ve been to many different types of churches, been friends/had discussions with people from all different denominations, and we all shared pretty much the same beliefs. At times we disagreed on what a certain scripture meant, but it was usually something small and insignificant to the faith itself. From what I’ve seen, denominations are usually based on a personal preference, interpretation of a usually vaguely worded scripture, or is based on something other than/against the Bible (in which case, it would most likely be a denomination to avoid).
Denominations Are Everywhere. Not just Christianity. Not just religions. But in any group of people. Due to each person having their own viewpoint, denominations seem almost inevitable. There are “denominations” in Atheism -- disagreements concerning morals, purpose, etc. There are even “denominations” on NarniaWeb. Although we are all fans of C.S. Lewis and the Narnia books, we each have personal preferences and viewpoints. There are Book Purists, Non-Purists, Lispian fans, Suspian fans, and we have disagreements about what certain passages mean. For example, on this thread I thought a certain passage was making a statement on the appearance of dwarves in relation to their morality. Others disagreed. Does that mean a person who is not a Narnia fan yet should say, “So you want me to become a Narnia fan. But my question is, which Narnia? The Narnia where that passage is talking about the appearance of dwarves, or the Narnia where that passage is not talking about the appearance of dwarves?” No, it’s all the same Narnia. It’s just a disagreement about a certain passage. I could create a denomination of Narnia fans who see it my way, as could those who disagree with me. But that doesn’t mean there is more than one Narnia. Also, does it mean C.S. Lewis or Narnia is weak, because we had a disagreement about a certain passage? No, it just means we’re not completely certain what that particular passage means. And the disagreement concerning it is our problem. Any fights concerning it is not in blame of C.S. Lewis, any more than god is to blame for the fights between denominations. Also, because such disagreements occur, does that mean non-fans should never become fans, because they don’t know which side of the disagreement to join? No, if they want to become fans, they should do so. The disagreement about dwarves has little relation to the books themselves. Same goes for denominations and Christianity.

d. God’s Punishment of Unbelievers This is a broad category that would take too long to discuss in full, so I will limit it to the instance discussed in the video. The video claims that since there are so many possible religions and gods, and since there is so little solid proof, a God who punished anyone who accidentally picked the wrong god, would be an unfair, cruel God, since there is no way we could have known. But the truth is, God doesn’t punish those who “accidentally picked” the wrong god. He judges by the heart. The people He punishes are those who do not want Him -- even if they were 100% certain He was real, even if He showed them himself, and went up to them face-to-face, they would not come to Him, because they despise Him. If there is a person who, in their heart, truly just wants to find the truth, but doesn’t know how to find it or where to look, then God will understand that. He will bring circumstances in their lives that will somehow show them He is real. He doesn’t just leave people in the dust because they accidentally picked incorrectly.

5. The Unknowable

a. Three Explanations. The next part of the video claims that since God cannot be proven, then other unprovable theories are just as likely. It then gives three unprovable explanations to the world’s questions about our origin (other than creation by a god).

What if your life is just the intricate dream of an alien being who sleeps for decades?

If, by alien, you mean a creature from another planet in space (which is usually what people mean by “alien”), then it would be very difficult for something inside our universe to create or “dream” or universe into existence while he is already inside that universe. However, if by “alien” you simply mean some divine super-intelligent being outside our universe, then he doesn’t sound much different from a god… It looks like this one fits into the same category as the Pink Unicorn and Flying Spaghetti Monster, which I will address a bit later in the post.

The next two, I think, are my favorites. They are meant to be “explanations” to the question of origin, but in the end they leave us with the same questions if not more.

What if you were immersed in a psychotic hallucinatory delusion and couldn't get out of it?

The question is, if the world is a delusion or hallucination, am I the one having the hallucination, or are you? Are you the one who isn’t real, or am I? If I woke up from this hallucination, where would I be? Heaven, hell, another world, nowhere? How did I come to be in the first place? What caused the hallucination?

What if your life was actually a virtual reality computer game you were hard wired into? There is no 'ancient history'. It's all just a back story in your game. What if the game was a test of reason? You only exit if you embrace rationality and reject all superstitious and supernatural concepts, or stay trapped inside forever. Or what if the game was just a leisure activity with no end or goal, no reward, no punishment?

Who programmed this computer game? Where do we go if/when we “exit”? If rejecting God is what it takes to exit, then why are atheists still here? How do we know rejecting God is the same thing as “embracing rationality”? After all, that little question about who programmed the game is still hanging over our shoulders. And if there is no point to the game, does it really matter what we believe anyway?

We could probably delve even deeper into these, but there isn’t much point since I doubt any of us believe these theories anyway. And even if we did, we still have the same questions to deal with concerning origin.

b. Pink Unicorns and Flying Spaghetti Monsters.

There are many fantasy creatures being used lately as “other possible figures” who created the world. And the idea is, since God is a Being who cannot be proven/disproven, then these other unprovable creatures are just as likely gods as the Christian God. The point, of course, is not to bring the validity of these creatures up to God’s level of validity, but to bring God’s validity level down to the level of these creatures.

We might dismiss many of these unknowables as bizarre, feeling that familiar unknowables like 'gods' are more likely. But one unknowable cannot be graded more or less likely than the next.

I disagree, and I’ll explain why. A while ago, an example was given about banshees -- that since banshees are fictional, one would not research banshees, ask questions about banshees, think about banshees, etc. And so, if God was just as fictional as a banshee to someone, why would they do all of these things concerning Him? And Tesseract, if I remember right, the argument you gave was that the reason why one does not do these concerning banshees is because we don’t see all the people around us worshipping banshees, banshee churches, banshees everywhere in our culture, etc. Whereas, if we did, then we would get used to banshees, not see them as ridiculous, and start thinking and wondering about them.
But I believe this to be incorrect, and I can speak from experience. Growing up, from my toddler years to the present, I have lived in a town (containing a good-sized population, I might add) who’s main religion and culture centered on the worship of The Spirits of the Crystals and the Trees (for short, I will call it by the acronym SCT). Everywhere around me at all times were churches for the SCT, shrines and statues for the SCT, signs and products concerning the SCT, holidays and ceremonies for the SCT, and almost every person -- doctors, politicians, friends, neighbors, some family members -- were staunch believers of the SCT. Many doctors I went to for medical treatment would pray to the SCT for advice on what to prescribe for me. Important people made decisions based on what they believed the SCT said. And if you disbelieved in the SCT, many people would shun you, spit at you, or sometimes even vandalize your house depending on how radical they were. I had SCT shoved at me all the way up, and saw it completely accepted in the culture that surrounded me. But trust me, it never stopped seeming silly and ridiculous. I don’t think about SCT, ask questions concerning SCT, debate with people who believe in SCT, because (even though I was immersed in a culture surrounding it, and even though it is something not provable/disprovable), I, like you, am an intelligent person and recognize that SCT is obviously false and ridiculous, not worthy of my time or consideration. I’m sure if you had been in that situation, you would have taken the same stance. Yet, intelligent people are willing to discuss and ask questions about the Christian God. Why? It all goes back to that Critical Thinking we both have, as talked about earlier. Even if something is an idea we personally disagree with, an intelligent mind can discern whether an idea is a valid one, or whether it is just silly nonsense. This doesn’t prove Christianity to be true, but it does prove it to be a valid argument worth our discussion and consideration, unlike Pink Unicorns, Spaghetti Monsters, and SCT. After all, we know the world came about somehow. And the idea that it was supernaturally created, and the idea that it came about on its own, are both ideas that are neither far-fetched or ridiculous. That is why intelligent people like us are willing to discuss both. Whereas, we can easily see how transparently false ideas like Pink Unicorns, Spaghetti Monsters, and SCT are.

I believe that concludes my argument for now. I encourage everyone to take part in answering Tesseract’s further responses, as I will most likely not be able to do so myself. I’m going to be extremely busy the next few months and probably will not be able to post (Although I might some days if I ever get a chance). Goodbye for now, everyone! Thanks for allowing me the opportunity to express my opinions, thoughts, and views! It’s been fun.

~Riella

I think you missed a bit of what I said. If we could find a way to make our lives last forever, life would have purpose. Everything would. I'm not saying everything would be perfect, but I do believe morals would abound and life would be more enjoyable (not to say that it isn't enjoyable now). Everybody would be more intelligent eventually. Prison and execution would be actual threats.

So you mean immortal but not eternal i.e. like Tolkien's Elves, you will live forever unless something bad happens to you?

I think the reaction of most people to that would be to wrap themselves in a coccoon and try to preserve themselves as long as possible!

And wouldn't executing someone in that case be a horrendos crime?

My idea (as an atheist/naturalist ) of morality is somewhat different.

You speak of as if all the horrible things people do to each other as part of their nature, and contrast it with what morality teaches- treating others well, sacrificising yourself for them etc.

But of course those wondefrul things people do are equally part of their nature- for a thorough-going naturalist, what else could they be?

Ooops, sorry- 20th wedding anniversary and my wife is yelling at me from downstairs it's time to go- some people have no sense of priorities.

The famous joke:
She, from another room: "It's so late. Aren't you coming to bed?"
He (typing furiously) : "No, this is important."
She "What is it?"
He: "Somebody on the Internet is wrong!"

MM wrote: Is there any point in you making further comments on the Bible, the God of the Bible, or Christianity? That depends. If you believe that YOUR measure of happiness should be EVERYONE'S measure of happiness, then yes. You will need to preach the Gospel of MD to everyone who will listen.

I don't believe everyone will find happiness the same way I have but I believe some people could. Therefore I see it as something worth sharing.

With that being said, I tried the whole be-a-good-Christian and it made me miserable.

That's because you weren't truly a Christian at all. It is impossible to be happy acting like a Christian if you are not one--and it is impossible to actually be a "good" Christian if you are not one. As I said, it's in the DNA.

If you are happy, it is good and right. If you are unhappy, it is bad and wrong.

I don't really see it as "bad" or "wrong." I've gone through periods in my life where I was miserable and depressed and I don't think it was wrong. It was good because it made me stronger. I believe both happiness and sadness are equally beautiful--but being true to yourself is the most beautiful thing of all.

No. Wait. I'm confused. You said before that becoming a better person makes you happy...and made sure that we understood that acting like a Christian didn't make you happy. NOW you say being true to yourself is the most beautiful thing of all. So being true to yourself--what does that mean? Doesn't it essentially mean making yourself happy? Or could someone actually be true to themselves while at the same time acting in a way that makes them sad?

You will need to preach the Gospel of MD to everyone who will listen. Maybe run for President of the US or something. You'll need to make sure you know what your definition of "happy" and "good" are, so you can communicate it to others. Better get busting on that...you have yet, as Dr. R pointed out, to define these, even for yourself, beyond "whatever MD likes". In fact, you can just start writing books. Books and books and books detailing every decision that you make so that people who want to be happy can read them and make the same decisions and therefore be happy.

There's nothing I'd like more than to run for president (and my friends would tell you the same thing) And I'd love to write a book someday. Absolutely.

However I get the feeling you are mocking me so...in that case, I think you might be taking things a bit too far. I'm not offended though.

No, I'm only taking the things that you have stated so far to their logical conclusion. I'd gladly consider any evidence that you can offer that shows that my proposition goes farther than the actual logical conclusion of what you have stated.

Well...until I punch you in the nose. Then we will have to have this discussion again. What if it makes me sublimely happy to punch you in the nose? It must be good and right if it makes me happy, mustn't it?

I'm beginning to think it would indeed make you VERY happy to punch me in the nose but like I said...our society is generally not tolerant of that. So if you did, you'd be arrested for assault and It would probably make ME happy to press charges.

It just makes sense to define your own happiness within the bounds of society's rules.

if you still intend to do it I would strongly suggest you check this out:
http://www.ehow.com/how_2325172_punch-someone-face.html

No...no desire nor intention to punch you in the nose. But now we have another problem...

You've introduced society and its rules into the equation. MD, you can't have it both ways. Either society is right, or your happiness is right. Or perhaps (and I suspect that this is the fact--feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) it is that obeying society's rules makes you feel that you are a better person and therefore makes you happy.

So then, I have two thoughts to offer:

1) You have never in your young life met anyone who is truly happy disobeying the rules of society and of "niceness". Yet whether or not you can comprehend that these types of people exist, they do.

2) So now, being a better person, and being happy, is actually dependent (for you) upon obeying society's rules. What if society changes the rules? What if it suddenly becomes socially acceptable to punch Christians in the nose? (a quickly approaching state of affairs, I might mention). Not only is it now, in our hypothetical situation, socially acceptable, but you will not be considered a good person unless you punch a Christian in the nose at least once a week. Will you then be happier punching Christians in the nose?

So now you see that your decision to be a good person by being "true to yourself", and therefore happy, is actually a decision to obey society's rules, because to you, "society" defines what is good.

If the above paragraph does not accurately reflect what you believe, then you are being inconsistent within yourself, or at the very least entirely blind to your own inconsistencies--and you will never be truly happy, and never joy-filled, because you will always be searching for that which follows the imaginary world you've created in your head.

The other option is that you are right--and that whatever makes you happy is right/good and whatever makes you unhappy is wrong/bad. It follows, therefore, that there are a further two options: either you are god, and all humans must do what makes you happy in order to be happy, or nobody is god, and all humans must do whatever makes each individual happy.

What's so bad about wanting people to be happy? Like I said, our society isn't so tolerant at happiness at the expense of others--so acting out against that is probably going to lead to a less than happy experience.

Nonetheless, I don't think happiness is the ultimate end, and I don't think it's "right" or "wrong" to be happy, or to not be happy. But I think beauty comes from being true to yourself. Find the best life you can live, and live it. If that includes the Bible, great. If it doesn't, that's also great.

As I mentioned above...please define "being true to yourself". According to you, we all need to be true to ourselves--so we need to know how to do that. (look! MD is already preaching the MD gospel! )

That leaves us either at "have a nice life, MD--we won't be seeing you around because you've already answered all your own questions", at "MD is preaching the MD gospel in every thread on Narniaweb" or at MD asks "What must I do to be saved".

I like the second option. I better start writing my gospel. THE GOSPEL of MOONLIGHTDANCER! And of course running for president.

Ah. So you ARE stating that you are God. That's what I thought...thanks for letting us know.

, and want her and everyone reading this to have the best opportunity possible to live forever in a state of true happiness and joy. Making yourself God is not the way to do that--it is in point of fact the exact way to live forever in never-ending misery. So...just sayin').

Just wanted to pop in and say thank-you to Mother-Music for answering my question several pages back; your answer really helped me. Thanks a lot!

Oh, good! I think I'm going to write a blog post on that--it was helpful to me, too, to think of waiting on God that way.

mm

My idea (as an atheist/naturalist ) of morality is somewhat different.

You speak of as if all the horrible things people do to each other as part of their nature, and contrast it with what morality teaches- treating others well, sacrificising yourself for them etc.

But of course those wonderful things people do are equally part of their nature- for a thorough-going naturalist, what else could they be?

Morality as it is arises exists from our membership of small groups- we want to get the most advantage possible, but we recognise others are always trying to cheat.

For our modern society it is based on practical considerations. The odds being what they are, you're better off living in a society with rules against cheating.

However, what gives us this innate sense of brotherhood towards our fellow man? Why are we willing to sacrifice our lives for the betterment of our friends, family, country, and humanity? It seems to me that as man develops, we give more and more to those who do not necessarily deserve to receive (government welfare, unemployment), and we establish more and more morals which benefit those in need, instead of eliminating them from our gene pool.

This seems to be the exact opposite direction which natural selection should be going. Should not humans be getting stronger and stronger as we go along? Why is it that the more civilized we become, the further we stray from natural selection, which is ultimately the guiding light for evolution?

We stray from natural selection because, as it happens, the tendency of our genes is a runaway, like the tail of the peacock.
A peacock would be better with a shorter tail, except that for reasons of sexual selection, peahens like big tails.

In our societies, one thing that has proved selective, like artistic ability, but even more, is the ability to hand out food to those who are suffering from shortages.
Females look at a male who can distribute meat (or fellow females look at an alpha female who knows where to find roots) and says

"Ooh, I'll suppport that person, and maybe when times are bad, he/she will remember and back me."

Our abilities, selected by our genes, do not limit us.

We take the sympathy for others from our local bands of primitive apes and expand it to love for humanity.

We take the story-telling of our ancestors and expand it to Shakespeare andthe "Titanic"

As the thought goes, a liberal is one who extends the bounds of humanity as much as possible from 'us' to 'them'.

That's because you weren't truly a Christian at all. It is impossible to be happy acting like a Christian if you are not one--and it is impossible to actually be a "good" Christian if you are not one. As I said, it's in the DNA.

I think I act like a pretty good Christian, even though I'm not one. I'm generally a good person. And I am happy. Like I said, I'm more happy when I take the credit for myself rather than giving it to a "god" who commanded me to act like that.

No. Wait. I'm confused. You said before that becoming a better person makes you happy...and made sure that we understood that acting like a Christian didn't make you happy. NOW you say being true to yourself is the most beautiful thing of all. So being true to yourself--what does that mean? Doesn't it essentially mean making yourself happy? Or could someone actually be true to themselves while at the same time acting in a way that makes them sad?

Okay I'm gonna have to break this down for clarification.

No. Wait. I'm confused. You said before that becoming a better person makes you happy

It does.

and made sure that we understood that acting like a Christian didn't make you happy

It wasn't acting like a Christian that made me unhappy--I enjoy being a good person. It was the whole belief which didn't resonate with me. I tried to have a relationship with God but it was always a one way street. Giving credit to God for making me a better person and always being there for me was false, and I was living a false testimony. I wasn't a good person because I had found God, and God didn't make me into a good person. I made myself into a better person. It was time for me to stop living a lie. It wasn't God who brought me where I am today...it was me. It was always me.

NOW you say being true to yourself is the most beautiful thing of all.

Being honest to yourself and giving credit to yourself where credit is due. This is when everything fell into place for me and I began to discover who I really was.

being true to yourself--what does that mean? Doesn't it essentially mean making yourself happy? Or could someone actually be true to themselves while at the same time acting in a way that makes them sad?

I see it as a journey. It's not always going to be happy. It will be happy and sad. You can be true to yourself and act in a way that makes you sad, absolutely. I'm not going to say I'm 100% happy all the time and that's not what I'm after. It's hard to describe--I just want to be honest with myself.

1) You have never in your young life met anyone who is truly happy disobeying the rules of society and of "niceness". Yet whether or not you can comprehend that these types of people exist, they do.

2) So now, being a better person, and being happy, is actually dependent (for you) upon obeying society's rules. What if society changes the rules? What if it suddenly becomes socially acceptable to punch Christians in the nose? (a quickly approaching state of affairs, I might mention). Not only is it now, in our hypothetical situation, socially acceptable, but you will not be considered a good person unless you punch a Christian in the nose at least once a week. Will you then be happier punching Christians in the nose?

To be honest, I'm not exactly sure how this is relevant. For option one yes. Obviously there are people who disobey the rules of society.

Option two: Dependent on me being obedient to society's rules? To be honest I'm not too concerned about society's rules. I do my own thing and it just happens to coincide with what is acceptable in society. (although I have been known to jay-walk and speed every once in while ) A hypothetical situation in which bogus rules are introduced? What are the chances of that happening? Plus I don't care who considers me a good person or not. I consider myself to be a good person and that's all that matters. Would I punch Christians in the nose? Probably not. I wouldn't feel comfortable doing that so I'd probably take the alternative.

So now you see that your decision to be a good person by being "true to yourself", and therefore happy, is actually a decision to obey society's rules, because to you, "society" defines what is good.

Society doesn't define what's good--I define what's good for me, and luckily it coincides with society. Society can take care of everyone else.

If the above paragraph does not accurately reflect what you believe, then you are being inconsistent within yourself, or at the very least entirely blind to your own inconsistencies--and you will never be truly happy, and never joy-filled, because you will always be searching for that which follows the imaginary world you've created in your head.

Following the imaginary world I've created in my head is what makes me the happiest and most joy-filled person in the world. I have so much inspiration, passion, and love for art, music, photography, and writing. I have inconsistencies like everyone else but I embrace them because they are mine. Anyway, the God of the bible is very inconsistent. So I don't see how following the Bible would be any better.

Ah. So you ARE stating that you are God. That's what I thought...thanks for letting us know.

I make no claim to be God--that was a joke.

Morality as it is arises exists from our membership of small groups- we want to get the most advantage possible, but we recognise others are always trying to cheat.

For our modern society it is based on practical considerations. The odds being what they are, you're better off living in a society with rules against cheating.

Is this the best you can do for a genealogy of morality? If you're going to try and come up with a counternarrative to the Christian metanarrative, at least make it interesting. Who wants to live in a world where survival value is the measure of what makes a thing worth doing?

Here's a question: why would you regard it as a tragedy if the Louvre were destroyed (assuming all persons escaped alive and uninjured)? An ethic that does not account for aesthetics is deficient.

"Ooh, I'll suppport that person, and maybe when times are bad, he/she will remember and back me."

So where's the survival value of girls swooning over starving romantic painters?

I'm generally a good person.

You aren't. You haven't met the standard that God sets, which is absolute total perfection. Short of that, the only way to God is through Christ.

I enjoy being a good person.

Gee, is that a morally good reason to be good? "Doing good things feels nice, so I do it." Maybe you should want to be a person who enjoys virtue, but you shouldn't be thinking about yourself at all when you do good. The idea ought to be that you are performing good acts for the sake of others, otherwise, the acts are really self-centered.

TBG

Here's a few questions Moonlight may have missed back here. They're kind of near the end. The most interesting could be this:

I'm curious as to why you're faulting the Bible for something it never said: "believe only because you're scared and want fire insurance." That's something man made up and you believed. Now you're going off into even more made-up stuff (and not original with anyone, either!).

How exactly does more of the same making-stuff-up fix the problem?

Similarly, let's say I've decided that according to Godless evolution beliefs, "if man evolved from monkeys and apes, there should be no monkeys or apes." Then I see a monkey or ape. "Aha!" I cry, "evolution is not true." Nonsense. Informed evolution believers never said what I claimed they said. The premise is wrong. Therefore my conclusion is also wrong. (Incidentally, I still disbelieve evolution, but for other reasons.)

Anyway, the God of the bible is very inconsistent. So I don't see how following the Bible would be any better.

Inconsistent with Himself, or simply with what we think He should be?

It sounds like Moonlight keeps answering questions as if they were directed about her and her own personal beliefs about herself, when instead a lot of what I've read (and written) are about: okay, so how would that work with other people, i.e., not just Yourself?

Any moral worldview that will not work with everyone who tries it — i.e., thoughts like "just be true to yourself" — is a failure.

But again, the Bible isn't just a list of rules and ways to follow anyway. It's self-deceptive to claim "well, I tried those rules and wanted to get out of Hell, and that didn't work, so I disbelieve the Bible now." The real Bible never said to do it that way. Scripture actually has a bigger Story, about the Gospel. So don't let's pretend "I tried it the Bible's way and that doesn't work." Actually it sounds like tried it your own way, and it didn't work, then claimed the Bible told you this, Moonlight. Can you show what you thought Scripture was saying?

Response to Andrew

I'm loving TBG's and Food for Thought's, er, thoughts, so I won't pile on about you, Andrew. They've got it well sorted. But I do wish you'd said this earlier, because indeed it does upend my (now shown to be wrong) assumption that you left intentionally last time:

As for running away...I don't find this true as I was starting school for the year, and couldn't afford internet until about two weeks ago, and it's pretty impractical to post on this thread if you can only do so once or twice a week (for me, at least).

I totally understand that, and thanks for clarifying. Will you forgive me for assuming you'd simply left on purpose? 'Twas wrong, and perhaps with that understanding out of the way we can make some headway. (And yes, this thread takes time, especially for those with, oh, jobs, or school, and/or other writing projects ... such as I'll soon leave to go do.)

Responses to Tesseract

I'll go point-by-point, and try to keep it short so as to facilitate speed ...

That's a good point. I just wish that God had made his all-important book a little easier to understand.

It's both easier and more difficult to understand than people think! And it's been only recently that I've read and learned some simple rules to reading Scripture as it was meant to be read — the same way we try to read posts here: keeping in mind the original audience, and what kind of writing the author is giving us (history? letter? poetry? metaphor?). The scholars call this hermeneutics. I just like to call it right reading.

I think you're bluffing. -goes back to check-

[...]

That's only two out of five. The other three were cases of Jesus talking to Jews and Gentiles for the first time.

Dude! Way to hold my feet to the fire. At first I was a bit annoyed, but that was a wrong reaction. In fact, you've done way better hermeneutics than I did, and proved you can indeed see what many people might miss in Scripture.

Thanks for the correction: yes, I was wrong there, 3 out of 5. Wish I'd caught it first, but that's what friends are for.

I wonder, though, if you meant to imply by saying "you're bluffing" that I meant it on purpose? Sorry, I'm not that nefarious. ... Of course I could just say, "Um, yeah! Totally meant to do that! Testing you!" But nope.

Regardless, Jesus' mention of "death" there is still defined elsewhere in Scripture, not by a modern "death means the soul and body die" definition, but dying-forever-in-suffering-Hell death. He Himself defined death apart from God as eternal, conscious suffering. Does that help?

Hmmm, so when Christians rise from the dead, they're going to keep their old bodies?

Nooo ... I'm not sure where you could have gotten that from what I wrote. But Scripture describes the nature of a Christian's resurrected body as physical, re-made, similar to the old body, and still physical.

Randy Alcorn is one of the best authors on this subject, if you want to go further. One of his blog pieces is here, describing the frequent myth Christians have (because they haven't been taught well!) that God is only interested in redeeming their souls, not their bodies -- and not the physical Earth that is His creation and which He loves. And I can't highly enough recommend his book Heaven, Tesseract.

Jesus was only dead for 3 days and received a king's burial, so I doubt he had gotten much chance to decompose. Are some of the people in heaven going to be skeletons? People with severe physical defects would also be at a big disadvantage.

If Christians believe God created the universe out of nothing, it's no stretch at all to repeat what Scripture says: that He will resurrect people in new bodies, but which are clearly the same people, the same DNA, but free of sin and the results of sin, like physical problems. If it comes to whether the actual molecules are the same, that's a moot point: if that qualifies "sameness," none of us are the "same" person as we were years ago. Our bodies have lost some skin cells, grown new ones, etc.; the same with hair and fingernails. Does that help?

Or is God going to give us new bodies? We all going to look like supermodels!

Nah. Some of them look hardly human. Saying people get "new bodies" doesn't automatically mean they'll look completely different — like the guy from James Cameron's blue-people movie stepping into a blue-person body made for him. Want further references on this, Tesseract?

I interpreted it this way because rising again with physical bodies makes no sense whatsoever.

If you mean "it makes no sense even within the Christian paradigm," why not?

It may be possible to avoid individual sins, but according to Christianity, we cannot avoid sin as a whole. Because we have original sin, it is inevitable that we will commit a crime against God at some point.

Yup. And again, the Bible assumes as axiomatic that God exists, has a certain nature, and deserves to be recognized as Creator and Sovereign of the universe. If this were not true, it would be "unfair" indeed to say that what we do offends him and that needs to be fixed. But, the Christians says, it is true, that this is the way the world works.

Cruel according to the old Christian belief that God is good, kind, and loving.

But how are you defining "good, kind and loving"? Is it a man-made idea or a Biblical idea? If it's a man-made idea, that's outside the Christian worldview entirely, a foreign import, so one can't say "Christians are inconsistent." If it's a Biblical idea, where does the Bible every say that "good, kind and loving" is defined by anything other than God Himself?

I'm skipping the Adam and Eve part, because you've skipped over my point about that. Originally you tried to fault God for creating people with a sin nature. But you've missed the point that they freely chose to rebel against Him, failing to pass even the most reasonable test He set up.

I agree, it's easier just to not think about it when you're already on track to go to heaven. When you're on track to go to hell, though, it's definitely something to question.

Then here's more on that — something my wife and I thought about a few hours after I had already posted that: Jesus was still God (as well as Man), and thus Infinite. And if God, the Infinite, requires Infinite amounts of punishment for crimes against Him, and Jesus, also the Infinite, suffers in man's place — God's wrath is satisfied. There's still some mystery to it. But it makes more sense to recall that Christ was still God the Son even as He suffered God's wrath on the Cross, and thus the infinitude of His nature suffered on that scale — which helps answer your question about how Christ could suffer infinite punishment in a few finite hours (by Earth-time, that is, and not counting His God-nature).

I have wondered this as well, since other Christians say God has revealed himself to them, and they have felt God inside them from ages as young as 3. I had Christianity force-fed to me in all my years of childhood, and was a dedicated Christian up until I was about 13, but never felt the presence of God.

Tesseract, this is why I wish I could invite you to lunch, or at least hang out over Skype or something and talk about Life, the Universe, and Everything. I should have said this earlier: but I am sorry you were force-fed. Even if your parents meant the best by it, please recognize that Scripture never encourages force-feeding faith. A person must see for him- or herself Who God is, and who they are by comparison, and want to get rid of the sin and have more of God. Even presentations of Christianity that include it's-all-about-grace statements can fall into making it really about laws and believe-it-or-else.

I'd love to hear more of your story, either here or in other ways. No one hears about Christian beliefs in a vacuum, without already having heard wrong things about them before. I know I haven't. And I know that, despite my parents' best intentions, I have picked up a lot of stupid beliefs about what the Bible says and Who God is. Still sorting through them, and repairing the damage (and making mistakes, as you saw above when I wrongly stated that about the verses -- please forgive me?).

According to original sin, humans are evil deep down inside. Also, the serpent is using every trick in the book to try and decieve the human race. The cards are stacked against us pretty heavily.

There are. Which makes Him even more amazing a Savior, at least if you believe that sort of thing, eh wot?

God's the omnipotent, all-knowing creator! He should have known that his creation would turn against him - after all, he created every aspect of it. Surely he would have recognized such a critical flaw.

But this assumes God didn't have a deeper-level plan: to show people His kindness and mercy in ways they never would have known, had they not freely chosen to sin. ... Whew, that gets into tough territory though, Tesseract. Want to wait on that until we sort through the what-is-the-resurrection-really-about stuff, perhaps?

Skipping a few things, because I want to get to other writing this afternoon, and as you said, posts in here are time-consuming!

That only works if a Christian tried to say "God judges you for your original sin." Incorrect-o. Scripture is clear He judges based on what people freely do. Claiming "my original sin made me do it" is no excuse.

I thought the scripture was clear that Jesus is the way to truth and life. This makes it sound like good works are more important than faith.

In this I was not talking about how God judges Christians, but instead how He judges non-Christians: His judgment of them is not based on what their natures were or something an ancestor (even Adam) did, but what they themselves do. As for Christians, God actually judges them based on Christ's life and death. And what do you know, because Christ lived the perfect life and died for all His people's sins, that's a perfect-10 score.

Sorry I didn't make that clearer at first. Hope this has helped, even though I wasn't able to get to everything — hope it hit the high points.

So sorry for missing that one, Dr. Ransom...I answered it in my head then forgot to post it!

I'm curious as to why you're faulting the Bible for something it never said: "believe only because you're scared and want fire insurance." That's something man made up and you believed. Now you're going off into even more made-up stuff (and not original with anyone, either!).

How exactly does more of the same making-stuff-up fix the problem?

Really? ! The Bible never says you will eternally burn in hell if you don't choose to believe? That's made up??? I will admit that's a relief! The threat of eternal burning is a scary thought and really the ultimate threat anyone could ever make! Eternal pain and misery! Regardless of other reasons the Bible says you should believe, that alone is more than enough to motivate someone to want to believe. It was enough to motivate me for sure. Before I found that I needed more than motivation...I needed truth.

I gotta go for now, will answer the other ones later.

So sorry for missing that one, Dr. Ransom...I answered it in my head then forgot to post it!

I know how that can be.

Really? ! The Bible never says you will eternally burn in hell if you don't choose to believe? That's made up???

Captain, our sensors are detecting the presence of large quantities of sarcasm.

Actually, you seem to have misread what I wrote. Here's the part I asked about:

"believe only because you're scared and want fire insurance."

One of these does not automatically lead to the other.

Do it or else you'll be nuked is not the main reason Jesus says people should repent and believe.

Hey, I don't mean to make it sound like a Trick Question. But Scripture has one other, giant, paradigm-shifting reason to repent of your sin and trust in Christ besides a cheap "do it to get out of Hell" (though the Bible does say Hell is real and we should want to avoid it).

That's what I'm referencing.

I am sorry, though, you were led to believe Avoiding Hell was the main reason for professing faith in Christ. Again, that's not what Scripture teaches. And I hope your participation here shows you may hope to hear the part it sounds like you missed — whatever you decide to do with it, after you've heard it.