Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

Whoa... this thread has gotten way off-topic. The current argument has already been discussed elsewhere, namely the now dead and buried "Can (a Christian) God be?" thread. Every argument on this will lead to the fact that there is no way to percieve the existence or absence of God with human senses. In fact, I've already said this in this thread.

There is something I've learned from this thread. I asked for the Christian opinion on non-christians going to Hell, and got a mixed response. While Didymus and Jimmie Johnson said what seemed like most clergy would say, most of the Christian response to this thread was different. "If you're good you'll go to heaven." It just goes to show you that religion doesn't define state of thought.

My family is Jewish, but my mother believes in reincarnation and my father doesn't believe in heaven. Which reminds me, the common conception that Jews feel about heaven in the same respect as Christians is incorrect. While they can, there is practically nothing in the old testament (Jewish bible) about death. Even the Jewish prayer for death doesn't mention death!

TOTPD!!!:trogdor:

_________________

171st POST ANNIVERSARY!!!

Rick is right about that. The Hebrew faith doesn't say much at all about the afterlife, and nothing at all about what most people call heaven (Ha shamaiim in Hebrew is literally "the skies" and the realm of God, whereas sheol is the realm of the dead; the dead do not go to ha shamaiim).

Even the early Christian Church didn't say much about dying and going to heaven, but about hope in the Resurrection of the Dead (and resurrection IS discussed in the Tanak). In fact, both of the ancient Creeds of the Christian Church speak of Resurrection of the Dead, not dying and going to heaven.

The modern conception of a disembodied afterlife is a relatively recent development, mostly from platonic interpretations of the Christian faith that tended to view having a physical body as somehow less than adequate for perfection.

Now, the idea of dying and going to heaven isn't entirely off base, though. The Scriptures also say that those who die in Christ are with him (i.e., in heaven) as we await the Resurrection.

I would like to point out, along the lines of something Rick observed, that most of those Christians who say, "You just need to be a good person," most of them also said they do not go to church or study the Scriptures. I can only conclude, then, that their assessments are not based on wisdom, but on their own assumptions. Those of us who actually study the Scriptures conclude that God's mercy is demonstrated in Christ, and therefore, Christ is necessary for anyone (regardless of piety, theological aptitude, or good works) to enter into God's kingdom.

I also agree with Rick in this: all the arguments concerning whether the Scriptures are reliable, or whether Christ indeed rose from the dead, or whether God exists or can be known by people, these things have already been discussed in numerous other threads.

And frankly, because I know God personally, I tend to get tired of all these arguments. To me, it's like someone trying to use tricky syllogism to prove to me that I don't even know my own mother. If you've never met him, then I cannot help that, except to grieve. LIke Jesus, I can only lament, "How I have longed to gather you like a mother hen gathers her chicks beneath her wings. But you would not have it."

I know this topic, particularly my answer to the question, is offensive to people. But how can you expect me to be faithful to my Lord if I deny his own words, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life"?

_________________

Because people disagree with you. When you disagree with someone, you want to prove them wrong. You want to prove atheists wrong, right? You want to show them the light of God, right? You want to show them your truth. That's the same thing. In there minds, there is not God. And they want to show you their truth.

Now that we're back on topic, are you trying to say that non-Christains can't go to heaven?

_________________

I know of no way that it could be otherwise. If the only way to receive the benefits of God's mercy are in Christ, then those who do not know him miss out. I'm pretty sure I've said that a few times before.

It's just like if someone gives you a present, and you never take the wrapping paper off of it. How is it going to do you any good unless you actually accept the gift that has been given to you?

But I would point out that I wasn't the one who started this topic. I would point out that I never once talked about hell unless someone mentioned it to me. Personally, I don't like this topic. I'd just as soon not talk about the fate of nonbelievers. But with the subject on the table, I cannot simply avoid it.

_________________

You said something similar to this in my "Religious Force/ Influence on Others" thread. You know, Didymus, you don't have to post in threads you don't want to. Please keep posting; you bring very good arguments to the table, but why did you reply to a thread about the fate of non-christians if you hate the topic?

_________________

171st POST ANNIVERSARY!!!

Which is why I said "some may not understand this". Its hard to comprehend if you never truly met Christ.

Because I feel compelled to. There's something inside of me that knows that, regardless of how unpleasant the subject matter, I can't just hide from it. If I believe the only way to God is through his son, how can I in good conscience allow people to drift away from him thinking they've got it all together? I feel like that mother hen Jesus talks about sometimes.

_________________

^Exactly how I feel. In fact, that something (someone?) led me to my recent activeness. Something led me here.

Nevertheless, the fact that eight contemporary people (which in the first place is hardly a big number) agreed on the subject does not make their interpretation so. It's not a proof that the Bible is true, and doesn't make the Bible logically consistent.



Yep. And what's wrong with that? Assume you read a book which insists that dogs have eight legs, with the same reliability factor (in terms of supporters, historicity and so on) as the Bible. By your logic, to say "That's nonsense, everyone knows that, Li'l Brudder aside, dogs have four legs" would be a circular argument.



Because many Muslims believe with an equal conviction that they know God. Many atheists deny the existence of a god as vehemently as you endorse it. I could say with just as much conviction as you display here, "Jesus was not divine", and I doubt you'd take it at face value. Christians are not the only ones with that card up their sleeve.



And why's that? Nonsense written down is still nonsense.



I have yet to see any that is reliable.



Well, at the risk of causing offence, I get tired of this argument, almost offended by it. It seems arrogant just to claim to have ultimate authority on the matter like this. The potentially offensive part comes with the hen simile: it depicts infidels as completely aware that Christianity is the truth, but completely unwilling to comply, like young, nonconformist children. Whereas in truth, most of us are those who simply do not believe. In fact, that is the argument I tire of the most: "why can't you just accept Christ?" It's like asking why I can't accept the Invisible Pink Unicorn.



It's not a matter of me not understanding this. I understand it well enough to know that it doesn't constitute a proof (which is how you labelled it).

_________________
"You get the Most Annoying Transsexual I've Ever Spoken To award." -The Zephyr Song

Ahh, but there's the rub. How can anyone authoritatively deny the existence of anything? The only evidence that the atheist can present is that they themselves have had no experience with God. That's like saying, "Gorillas don't exist because I've never seen one in person." One cannot argue authoritatively from lack of experience. However, one can speak of his own experience.

What's more I cannot speak for Muslims or for any other religion's experience of God and/or similar Higher Power. I can only point to my own experience and understanding, which has a living Savior Jesus Christ at its center. Maybe they're experiences are misinterpreted. Maybe they're flat out wrong. Or maybe God deals with them in ways that are beyond my understanding (although I cannot imagine why he would say to me, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life," unless he really meant it).

But if you honestly think you can argue me into believing I don't know my own Father, then I really hate to disappoint you, but you'll have to do much better than that. For me, this is more than a mere intellectual exercise. This is the summation of a whole set of life experiences which would take far more than the space provided in this forum to explain. Not that there is no intellectual foundation: a whole lifetime of historical, philosophical, and biblical studies inform my life experiences, and vice versa.

My question for you would be who gave you the right to completely discount me as a person and completely ignore my life experiences? Who gave you the right to use pink unicorns to try to prove to me that I do not know my God?

It's nonsense because no one has ever seriously made such a claim as, "William Shakespeare is the Son of God." That's what makes the argument nonsense. "If I had a dollar, I could buy a soda," does not afford you a soda in the real world. But the fact is that people did seriously claim that Jesus was the Son of God, and only appeals to real evidence can be used to discredit it, not some silly argument that somebody MIGHT have made the same claim about William Shakespeare. So here we are yet again: eight credible men wrote that Jesus rose from the dead. No credible evidence exists to the contrary. Therefore, the highest probability (barring a priori assumptions against miracles) is that he did indeed rise from the dead.

_________________

That arguement is faulty. You can't prove the existence of God. You can prove the existence of gorillas. Not to say that you never had your own experience with God, but to a nonbeliever, God is merely imaginary and there's no reasonable proof that would lead one to believe in Him.


Maybe your experiences are misinterpreted. Maybe you're flat out wrong. You're using the exact same arguement against Islam as you hate people using agaist Christianity. "I don't understand their experiences, so I can just assume that they're wrong and I'm right."


But why, because Jesus said that he was the Way, the Truth, and the Life, do you feel so sure that he was right. If someone else made the same claim, you wouldn't believe him. And another thing, God never said anything to you. You have had religious experiences (all of which by the way are easily explained by psychology - not that I'm denying God's existence, I'm just stating the possibility of other reasons why you've had these experiences) that don't constitute as proof of anything. They, in your mind prove something to you. If someone, in their mind, believed that they had a paranormal experience with an Invisible Pink Unicorn, to steal this comparison from Upsilon among others, they might create a religion of it. That doesn't make it true because he had a psychological experience of it, right?


No one's trying to tell you that you can't believe what you want, Didymus (or at least I hope no one is...) Let me ask this of you: do you think that there's any way that you could be wrong? Is there any ounce of possibility that your beliefs are not true?


You can't make up statistics, Didymus. Your "probability" arguement doesn't make sense in the real world. You're saying that because eight men who wrote something down two thousand years ago it has to be 100% true. How on earth do you KNOW that none of it was meant to be metaphorical? How do you know that they really meant that God sent him to teach the rest of the world and not that he was the massiah? How do you know that saying that Jesus rose from the dead was just a metaphor for saying that his legacy and good teachings would live on forever? Just because they would have died for their writings doesn't mean that they only wrote in clear-cut truths. How can you say that probability leans towards Jesus having risen from the dead when there are so many factors you're not considering.

Didymus, I'm sorry for attacking your answers in this post. You're a really awesome person for asserting your beliefs in this forum, and I'm glad you're here to share your views.

_________________

That's a good point. The problem I have is that they then assume that for us he's merely imaginary, too.


It's that whole dying and rising again from the dead thing. If God raised him from the dead, then he's someone we can trust, even if what he says seems outlandish.

There is still one chief difference between Jesus Christ and the Invisible Pink Unicorn: those who concocted the Pink Unicorn do not take it seriously. The whole thing was crafted to mock those of us who do have religious faith. That's a difference that stands out very clearly in my mind: a serious faith vs. a mockery of faith. That to me is one of the chief flaws of the IPU argument: no one really takes the IPU seriously at all, not even her supposed followers.


At this stage of my spiritual life, not really. I realize that may sound arrogant, but there it is. I have not merely prayed to my God; I have FOUGHT with him, and he has fought back. Of course I lost, but that was to my benefit. Remember what Israel means? Well in a sense I have had the same experience.


Why not? They were credible men. No one, even their enemies (of which they had plenty) were able to discredit them. In fact, St. Paul was once an enemy of the Church and then became one of its staunchest advocates. That says something. I didn't make up statistics here. I'm simply laying out the simple logic, which is that you should believe credible people. In the absense of any evidence to discredit their claims, then the claims must be trustworthy.

Given that, I find only one reason anyone could find not to trust them, and that is that they speak of miraculous events (i.e., God acting in history). The only reason to consider that a factor, though, is if you begin with the a priori assumption that God cannot or does not intervene in history (or that he doesn't exist). It is this a priori assumption that begins the circular argument against the Bible.

As for the matter of interpretation: after nearly 10 years of academic studies of Scripture, including studying the Greek and Hebrew languages, I feel fairly confident in my abilities to interpret Scripture. Historically speaking, the first Bible exegete to go the metaphorical interpretation route was Origen, and most of the other theologians of his day thought he was nuts. That was between the 2nd or 3rd centuries AD. Considering that he was the oddball, and that the rest of the early church went with more of a literal interpretation, I tend to follow their lead, being that they are much closer in culture, language, and thought to the apostles themselves. In other words, I find it highly unlikely that, if the apostles spoke only figuratively, then only a hundred years later a literalist interpretation has overridden them. This is not to say that they never used figurative language, only that their use of figurative language tends to be quite obvious.


Thanks. And I appreciate you trying to keep me on my toes.

_________________

You guys do realize that Jesus was Jewish, right? He wouldn't follow a religion based on himself. If non-christians can't go to heaven, then Jesus himself wouldn't.

_________________

LSS, your absolutley right. Noone is going to hell, unless they have violated the big laws of their religion.

_________________

Basically if you break any of the ten commandments you are going to hell. Especially number 5.

_________________

^Which is impossible. That's Jewish, not Christian.

And yes, Jesus was Jewish, but he had faith in His Father, and he was perfect because he was God in the flesh. He went to Heaven.

What consists of the Bible. The Old and New Testament. In the Christian religion the recognize both the Ten Commandments and Seven Deadly Sins.

_________________

Unless he truly was God. He didn't seem to mind people worshiping him while he was here. St. Thomas even called him God, and Jesus commended him for it because he FINALLY believed.


BTG, do you honestly know anyone who hasn't broken the commandments? Just read through them sometime and think about which ones you've broken. And I don't mean the big ones. I mean lying and coveting, too.

That's part of the reason why we Christians contend that no one truly deserves eternal life (and that includes us, too). But you might want to pay attention the next time you read the commandments: Never Once Do They Ever Promise Eternal Life.

_________________

wow, didymus, next to that chick(probably) in the forums that i called a Visionary, your veiws are that of a wise man. being wise is not knowing what E=Mc2 actually means, its knowing not to follow that wich the modern man does, because it may make you look like him.
wow, darn, i can be like Sensei Puzzuzu sometimes. man, if he ever reads the stuff i put on this forum, he might think better of me and not look me down......aww CR/-\P! im rambling on again!.....ramble on! Ohh yeah! Ramble on!<LedZepplin>

_________________

Depends how they are with God. God Loves ALL of us no matter what we do. If a Baby dies,they go to heaven,the baby never knew right from wrong.If a older person 12-13+ sinned alot, did not repent and never had a good relationship with God, they probly wont be joing the party.Try This on for size
http://www.areyougoingtoheaven.com/GPmovie04.html
I you have Flash (I wonder how you can live with out it?)
To answer your question...no

_________________

What I don't understand is this: how can PEOPLE tell you whether or not you can go to Heaven? Only God really knows how to go to Heaven. People can get a general idea, but no person knows for sure. That's where that test kingofkings posted is lacking. It is only based on one point of view. It asks questions about going to Church, not about going to temple or synagogue or mosque. It asks a lot about Jesus Christ, but only a little bit about God in general. According to that test, It's "highly unlikely" that I'm going to heaven. According to my Hebrew school teachers, I'd probably be more in the range of "Welcomed in" or at least "allowed in." Since there are so many different perspectives, one single group can't possibly say that they're path is the only way to get into Heaven.

_________________

That depends, Evin. If God actually tells us how to reach him, then we know. That's the point that I've been making. Now questions of whether people can trust that message is a different story.

In other words, we Christians trust Jesus when he tells us, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except by Me," and "I am the Good Shepherd, and the Good Shepherd lays down his life for his sheep," and "I came that they might have life, and have it abundantly." To ask us to then say, "But other religions are valid, too," is the same as asking us to reject the words of our Lord (i.e., to reject our own faith in order to accept other faiths).

That is why, when I first posted on this thread, I reposed the question, "Did Jesus really die and rise from the dead in order to reconcile people to God?" Someone who says no to this question will essentially answer no the main question of this thread. But those of us who answer yes, then the answer to the main question is also yes. Why? Because, in our understanding, there can be no reconciliation with God without a Reconciler.

And again, it gets back to what I said in that one post at the bottom of the first page of this thread: no one (not even Christians) deserves the gift of eternal life. But God has given us this gift through Jesus Christ. The only way ANYONE can get to heaven (or more precisely, to enjoy the benefits of the Resurrection of the Body and the life of the World to Come), is because Jesus died. (And even if there was a way for unbelievers to be reconciled without this faith, it would still hinge on Jesus' sacrifice, not on whether they were good people or not).

In short, as someone else on this thread pointed out, almost every religion on the face of the planet thinks that their way is the right way. Even those that claim to accept every religion (like B'hai) tend to discredit those other religions' philosophies by imposing their own on them. So in the end, this exclusivistic tendency is not unique to Christianity.

KingofKings:
Why 12-13? What's so magical about that age? Don't you believe that all people are born in sin, as stated in the 51 Psalm? I'm asking because I've heard about a so-called "age of accountability" before, but I have yet to find any scriptural basis for it.

_________________

The first time I played the "Are you Going to Heaven?" game I answered truthfully, and was stopped at question 5 with a score of -11. When I played it simply by answering according to the bible I got a score of 95.

I've just realized something: if going to heaven means accepting that humans are basically evil and inferior; that we are bound to God's mercy; that a prophet died for us and we must praise his eternal glory; and that I must admit to sin from not following a book word-for-word, then I'd rather go to Hell.

However, I know that there is no God, Heaven, or Hell because I have the same spiritual highs described here from realizations of philosophy and science.

_________________

171st POST ANNIVERSARY!!!

Jesus is God in the flesh

_________________

Hmm. This has ALWAYS been a touch statement to make in my presence.

No one can truly say that they KNOW that God does or does not exist.

Even us Christians have to have faith in order to walk with God.

Here's my point:

Draw a big circle on a piece of paper. A big one. This circle represents every bit of knowledge that has ever been. Everything, in totality.

Now draw a eety beety slice that represents what you know.

Take a look at your measly little slice.

There is just SO MUCH that you don't know, you cannot possibly say that you KNOW unequivocally that there is NO God.

Logic dictates that you can't make that statement. But this is MY logic, and if someone disagrees, it's no skin off my nose.

And that, Ricksea, is why agnosticism exists. My theological views are constantly bending. When I don't care to take the time to explain that to someone who asks me, I just say I'm agnostic. It's a whole lot simpler that way. The reason I'm not really atheist is because belief in God makes sense and doesn't make sense at the same time. You can't say that there is no God. There isn't any proof that there isn't a God. You can only say whether or not you believe in God.

_________________

I concur with Seethroo on this one. Philosophy and science cannot by their very nature yield any definitive information about the existence of God or lack thereof. What little they can touch on is simply not adequate for any rational judgments. This is why divine revelation is necessary.

But who said anything about "spiritual highs"? I don't remember saying anything about "spiritual highs." And my experience with God is not something that philosophy or science could quite yield. I know I'm not saying enough about it for you to understand, but that is because the experience itself has been very painful for me. I've only told this story to two people on this forum (maybe three, if I ever mentioned it to Seethroo). But I'm not sure I can just open up about the pain I've endured in my struggle with God for just anyone to look at. It is deeply personal to me.


I am sorry to hear you say this. Truly I am. But that is your choice.

_________________

Really though, if you just believe in God and he doesn't exist, you haven't lost anything. But if you don't believe in he does... well, then you're in for a bit of trouble.

A brief, somewhat simplistic restatement of Pascal's Wager. However, I'd prefer to focus on what there is to gain (i.e., eternal life with God).

But I do have some thoughts I would like to interject. Rick, you said that you cannot accept that mankind is basically evil. Well, what if we are? I mean, just look at the world we live in. We're fighting a pointless war in Iraq, and if things continue the way they are, there's a good chance we'll be fighting Iran next. There is political, religious, and racial persecution all around the world; we don't see most of it because we're nice and safe back here in the US, where we're relatively free to live the way we want (as opposed to being shot or beheaded, as you might be in some other countries).

The fact is that there is something wrong with humanity. An honest (and I do mean HONEST) look even at ourselves reveals this. Whether you say we are basically evil, or that we are not perfect, or that we are just plain broken people, the fact remains: none of us are what we could be. All of us have character flaws, mistakes we've made that haunt us, addictive behaviors of various types. It's not that every person on the planet is as bad as that German guy from the 1940's. But certainly every person has the POTENTIAL to be that.

The doctrine of Original Sin is not a theological category intended to motivate people to run to God. It is an honest observation of the world around us. Yes, there is good in people--we are, after all, created in God's own image--but that image is cracked, and in some people, shattered. Something is wrong with us inside, and all of us must either struggle with it, or risk becoming a Charles Manson or a Joseph Stalin.

_________________

It's much like Plato's cave analogy. Imperfect reflections of perfect forms and whatnot.