Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Keith Maitland on September 20, 2015, 04:00:48 PM
-
Many are wondering why he made us who we are, but also who made him.
RTWT here:
http://tinyurl.com/qcq7xgz
-
Places with lower life expectancies and more poverty are more religious
Nothing we didn't know already, but it bears repeating.
-
Places with lower life expectancies and more poverty are more religious
Nothing we didn't know already, but it bears repeating.
Less toys therefore not so much of a childish or adolescent delusion of invincibility?
-
And in English?
-
Less toys therefore not so much of a childish or adolescent delusion of invincibility?
What a bizarre comment.
Surely it the religious with their purported deity looking out for them who are much more likely to develop a delusion of invincibility.
-
What the prof said.
And it's "fewer" not "less".
-
Places with lower life expectancies and more poverty are more religious
Nothing we didn't know already, but it bears repeating.
Less toys therefore not so much of a childish or adolescent delusion of invincibility?
Do you have a fridge and a washing machine?
-
Surely it the religious with their purported deity looking out for them who are much more likely to develop a delusion of invincibility.
And why would that be, PD? After all, is it even true to say that their 'purported deity (is) looking out for them'? Just what do you even mean by ' ... looking out for them' in this context? Doesn't the rain fall and the sun shine on all humanity equally? Does God only perform miracles in the lives of those who believe in him? Biblically, that never happened; instead, a miracle was just the opening for Jesus to explain to people who he was and what his purpose was.
So many questions leading from such an un-thoughtout assertion.
-
Many are wondering why he made us who we are, but also who made him.
RTWT here:
http://tinyurl.com/qcq7xgz
The problem with Google is that it can't differentiate between someone with a negative connotation of God carrying out a search, and someone with a positive one. Related to this, it can't work out the purpose for which someone does a search. Nor can it tell us what the person's conclusion was after reading the material. It could be that, having read an article or two on 'Why God allows suffering' the reader changes their attitude to God. As such, I would suggest that no-one is any the wiser having read this article than they were before doing so.
-
Places with lower life expectancies and more poverty are more religious
Nothing we didn't know already, but it bears repeating.
When life is difficult, belief in a better one to come is a clever carrot to offer.
-
Places with lower life expectancies and more poverty are more religious
Nothing we didn't know already, but it bears repeating.
When life is difficult, belief in a better one to come is a clever carrot to offer.
I'm sorry I didn't realise Sweden and everywhere else had banned religion.
Whereas the places that have have shocking records.
-
What the prof said.
And it's "fewer" not "less".
A+ comment!
-
Places with lower life expectancies and more poverty are more religious
Nothing we didn't know already, but it bears repeating.
When life is difficult, belief in a better one to come is a clever carrot to offer.
Well, what would YOU say to these people?? You carry on being miserable, your belief's a load of SH++ anyway.
At least it might make it more bearable for them. ::)
-
Well, what would YOU say to these people?? You carry on being miserable, your belief's a load of SH++ anyway.
At least it might make it more bearable for them. ::)
I certainly wouldn't mislead them with daft fairy stories. Help them to improve their lives is the obvious answer, rather than talking at them.
-
Surely it the religious with their purported deity looking out for them who are much more likely to develop a delusion of invincibility.
Doesn't the rain fall and the sun shine on all humanity equally?
Hope, for a supposedly intelligent man you make some really stupid statements and this one is a corker!
NO NO NO! The rain does not fall and the sun does not shine on all humanity equally - if they did there would never be the devastating droughts that occur with devastating ferocity and frequency.
-
Surely it the religious with their purported deity looking out for them who are much more likely to develop a delusion of invincibility.
And why would that be, PD? After all, is it even true to say that their 'purported deity (is) looking out for them'? Just what do you even mean by ' ... looking out for them' in this context? Doesn't the rain fall and the sun shine on all humanity equally? Does God only perform miracles in the lives of those who believe in him? Biblically, that never happened; instead, a miracle was just the opening for Jesus to explain to people who he was and what his purpose was.
So many questions leading from such an un-thoughtout assertion.
Surely the notion that you believe that when you die you don't actually die but live on in paradise is just about the most extreme example of an 'invincibility delusion'. I can't think of anything more extreme in that way. If that isn't a deity looking out for you then I don't know what is.
For non believers we completely recognise that death is death, the end, finality, - we recognise that we aren't invincible. Those with religious belief (specifically christian) think otherwise, that death isn't the end, that death has been defeated, that they are, therefore invincible and cannot really die.
-
Places with lower life expectancies and more poverty are more religious
Nothing we didn't know already, but it bears repeating.
When life is difficult, belief in a better one to come is a clever carrot to offer.
Well, what would YOU say to these people?? You carry on being miserable, your belief's a load of SH++ anyway.
At least it might make it more bearable for them. ::)
So you consider telling lies is an acceptable ameliorative for poverty and hopelessness?
-
Places with lower life expectancies and more poverty are more religious
Nothing we didn't know already, but it bears repeating.
When life is difficult, belief in a better one to come is a clever carrot to offer.
Well, what would YOU say to these people?? You carry on being miserable, your belief's a load of SH++ anyway.
At least it might make it more bearable for them. ::)
Indeed - the opiate of the masses. I think this is correct - if life is so unbearably hard, surely the only thing that may keep you going is having a belief that there is something better after death. And of course for those in power who keep the lives of ordinary people unbearably hard there has always been a great incentive to support those beliefs as the best way to ensure that those people will accept their sh***y lives.
-
How do YOU know they're lies ??? You DON'T !!!
Make their lives better by all means, as this is what as humanity, we SHOULD be doing but not let us do what the Christians did & use this as a way to 'convert' them.
I'll help you but get rid of any religious ideas?? ?!?!?! How dare you ?!!??
-
Surely it the religious with their purported deity looking out for them who are much more likely to develop a delusion of invincibility.
And why would that be, PD? After all, is it even true to say that their 'purported deity (is) looking out for them'? Just what do you even mean by ' ... looking out for them' in this context? Doesn't the rain fall and the sun shine on all humanity equally? Does God only perform miracles in the lives of those who believe in him? Biblically, that never happened; instead, a miracle was just the opening for Jesus to explain to people who he was and what his purpose was.
So many questions leading from such an un-thoughtout assertion.
Surely the notion that you believe that when you die you don't actually die but live on in paradise is just about the most extreme example of an 'invincibility delusion'. I can't think of anything more extreme in that way. If that isn't a deity looking out for you then I don't know what is.
For non believers we completely recognise that death is death, the end, finality, - we recognise that we aren't invincible. Those with religious belief (specifically christian) think otherwise, that death isn't the end, that death has been defeated, that they are, therefore invincible and cannot really die.
Christians are not the only believers who consider that "death is death".
Many Pagans hold the belief in the cycle of Birth, Life, Death, and Re-birth - not all, but I am one of them.
-
How do YOU know they're lies ??? You DON'T !!!
Make their lives better by all means, as this is what as humanity, we SHOULD be doing but not let us do what the Christians did & use this as a way to 'convert' them.
I'll help you but get rid of any religious ideas?? ?!?!?! How dare you ?!!??
How do YOU know that they are NOT!?
You DON'T!
You believe this to be true but you do not know it to be true!
Get rid of religious ideas? NO! Just get rid of the blatant lie that they are an irrefutable truth! Thgey are not and how dare you say that they are!
-
How do YOU know they're lies ??? You DON'T !!!
Make their lives better by all means, as this is what as humanity, we SHOULD be doing but not let us do what the Christians did & use this as a way to 'convert' them.
I'll help you but get rid of any religious ideas?? ?!?!?! How dare you ?!!??
Help them unconditionally. Don't help them and feed them religion too.
-
Does God only perform miracles in the lives of those who believe in him?
Alan Burns seems to think so. It makes a certain sort of sense - atheists don't believe in miracles from God; you have to be a theist for that.
Biblically, that never happened
I again refer you to the aforementioned AB, who only yesterday provided a biblical quote to exactly that effect. Take it up with him.
-
I'm sorry I didn't realise Sweden and everywhere else had banned religion.
Since nobody said that they had I have no idea what this comment refers to. What the aforementioned countries have in common are very high rates of what the sociologist Phil Zuckerman (q.v.) calls organic atheism. This is not enforced state atheism in the service of another, separate agenda (i.e. Stalinism) but the atheism that comes from the gradual attrition of religious belief over time by multiple factors - cohort replacement (older people tend to be more religious, but older people die first and their religious beliefs aren't replaced or equally represented amongst the younger generations), financial prosperity and social security are considered to be some of the most important. Others in being harder to pin down are more controversial.
The short and simple version is that such societies essentially grow out of religious adherence over time. Organically, hence Zuckerman's coinage.
-
When life is difficult, belief in a better one to come is a clever carrot to offer.
Except that most Christians - if they think about the after-life at all - probably seen it in terms of 'different' as opposed to 'better'. As I've pointed elsewhere, albeit in slightly different context, these ideas of worse/better seem to come more regularly from the non-believers here.
-
I'm sorry I didn't realise Sweden and everywhere else had banned religion.
Since nobody said that they had I have no idea what this comment refers to.
That's precisely why I didn't bother to answer. Vlad loves to waste time creating straw men to argue about.
-
Hope, for a supposedly intelligent man you make some really stupid statements and this one is a corker.
It's only a corker if you misunderstand what I said, Matt.
-
How do YOU know they're lies ??? You DON'T !!!
Make their lives better by all means, as this is what as humanity, we SHOULD be doing but not let us do what the Christians did & use this as a way to 'convert' them.
I'll help you but get rid of any religious ideas?? ?!?!?! How dare you ?!!??
Help them unconditionally. Don't help them and feed them religion too.
A lot of people choose religion Len.
It gives them answers they need.
I disagree.
Most people do not "choose" religion. In one way or another, whether by evangelism or familial membership, they have it thrust upon them and it probably gives them, rather than the answers that they need, the answers that they want to hear.
No religion, telling some poor sod living in abject poverty and suffering a multiplicity of unpleasant diseases, that it will lead them to a better life in this world and/or the next is telling the truth. It is telling blatant and horrendous lies because they are selling a belief not a truth.
No religion's promises regarding life after death are true, except to the believers in that religion as it is only based upon belief not upon certainty or known facts - and that includes my own religion. My belief in the cycle of Birth, Life, Death, and Re-birth, while strong, is nothing more than MY belief and it is the Pagan acceptance of this fact that results in the Pagan refusal to proselytise.
-
When life is difficult, belief in a better one to come is a clever carrot to offer.
Except that most Christians - if they think about the after-life at all - probably seen it in terms of 'different' as opposed to 'better'. As I've pointed elsewhere, albeit in slightly different context, these ideas of worse/better seem to come more regularly from the non-believers here.
Bollocks!
In how many films, plays, historical dramas, books, have you seen someone say about someone who has died "He/she/it has gone to a better life", or are you saying that all scriptwriters and other authors are non-believers?
-
Don't help them and feed them religion too.
You'd be surprised how many non-religious people the same sentiment applies to, Len. You'd also be surprised to know how many religious contexts it doesn't apply to.
-
Bollocks!
In how many films, plays, historical dramas, books, have you seen someone say about someone who has died "He/she/it has gone to a better life", or are you saying that all scriptwriters and other authors are non-believers?
Remarkably few, Matt. If you think about the various euphemisms for death, religious and otherwise, that get used in such contexts, you will realise how few actually make a judgement about better or worse.
-
Hope, for a supposedly intelligent man you make some really stupid statements and this one is a corker.
It's only a corker if you misunderstand what I said, Matt.
You said
Doesn't the rain fall and the sun shine on all humanity equally?
. . . and posited that they do - anyone with an ounce of commonsense knows that they do not.
But I should have expected this answer, you really do not like to have it pointed out that you have made a silly or fallacious comment and throw out this "you are too stupid to understand what I am talking about" defence.
-
You said
Doesn't the rain fall and the sun shine on all humanity equally?
. . . and posited that they do - anyone with an ounce of commonsense knows that they do not.
But I should have expected this answer, you really do not like to have it pointed out that you have made a silly or fallacious comment and throw out this "you are too stupid to understand what I am talking about" defence.
If I have made a silly or fallacious comment, Matt, then why is this a commonly used piece of English phraseology? 'Equally' isn't only a quantative term; it can also refer to manner. If you look at the definition at www.oxforddictionary.com, you will find that the first definition is "In the same manner or to the same extent" (my emphases)
-
You said
Doesn't the rain fall and the sun shine on all humanity equally?
. . . and posited that they do - anyone with an ounce of commonsense knows that they do not.
But I should have expected this answer, you really do not like to have it pointed out that you have made a silly or fallacious comment and throw out this "you are too stupid to understand what I am talking about" defence.
If I have made a silly or fallacious comment, Matt, then why is this a commonly used piece of English phraseology? 'Equally' isn't only a quantative term; it can also refer to manner. If you look at the definition at www.oxforddictionary.com, you will find that the first definition is "In the same manner or to the same extent" (my emphases)
Sorry, Hope, but I consider your statement to be in error by both definitions.
-
When life is difficult, belief in a better one to come is a clever carrot to offer.
Except that most Christians - if they think about the after-life at all - probably seen it in terms of 'different' as opposed to 'better'. As I've pointed elsewhere, albeit in slightly different context, these ideas of worse/better seem to come more regularly from the non-believers here.
Bollocks!
In how many films, plays, historical dramas, books, have you seen someone say about someone who has died "He/she/it has gone to a better life", or are you saying that all scriptwriters and other authors are non-believers?
Actually not just better, but paradise, no less than perfect.
So the notion that christianity considers afterlife in heaven to be merely different than life - no better or worse, just different is frankly laughable.
-
I did the Christian thing for many years and being perpetually in God's presence is something to be longed for. It's not supposed to be like this life and it certainly isn't regarded as 'just as good'.
-
I did the Christian thing for many years and being perpetually in God's presence is something to be longed for. It's not supposed to be like this life and it certainly isn't regarded as 'just as good'.
By that I presume you mean it is meant to be better?
Isn't the whole point that it is meant to be perfect, paradise no less, and also eternal.
-
I did the Christian thing for many years and being perpetually in God's presence is something to be longed for. It's not supposed to be like this life and it certainly isn't regarded as 'just as good'.
By that I presume you mean it is meant to be better?
Isn't the whole point that it is meant to be perfect, paradise no less, and also eternal.
A tempting belief to offer! Little wonder so many fall for it!
-
If it's Paradise then why do we have all this mythology of The Bible ????
-
If it's Paradise then why do we have all this mythology of The Bible ????
It is part of the mythology of the Bible! Well, the NT, anyway.
-
I did the Christian thing for many years and being perpetually in God's presence is something to be longed for. It's not supposed to be like this life and it certainly isn't regarded as 'just as good'.
Indeed. And life in Heaven is supposed to be a reward for a righteous life on Earth. What kind of reward would not be desirable?
Righteous: there's a word we haven't seen on this forum for a long time. The scientific sort of righteous, that is ....
-
Places with lower life expectancies and more poverty are more religious
Nothing we didn't know already, but it bears repeating.
Less toys therefore not so much of a childish or adolescent delusion of invincibility?
Perhaps. Or, perhaps, less education, less grasp of the realities of life, and a higher sense of desperation that there must be something better than this...?
O.
-
Indeed. And life in Heaven is supposed to be a reward for a righteous life on Earth. What kind of reward would not be desirable?
Is it, H? Not sure that is the message in the New Testament. Rather, its the result of a renewed relationship with one's creator.
-
Surely it the religious with their purported deity looking out for them who are much more likely to develop a delusion of invincibility.
And why would that be, PD? After all, is it even true to say that their 'purported deity (is) looking out for them'? Just what do you even mean by ' ... looking out for them' in this context? Doesn't the rain fall and the sun shine on all humanity equally?
That would be evidence-based thinking, and if they were given to that they wouldn't be accepting the unevidenced god-claims in the first place.
Does God only perform miracles in the lives of those who believe in him? Biblically, that never happened; instead, a miracle was just the opening for Jesus to explain to people who he was and what his purpose was.
Do gods perform miracles at all? Maybe these desperate, poor, starving people are waiting for one of these hinted at miracles.
O.
-
The problem with Google is that it can't differentiate between someone with a negative connotation of God carrying out a search, and someone with a positive one. Related to this, it can't work out the purpose for which someone does a search. Nor can it tell us what the person's conclusion was after reading the material. It could be that, having read an article or two on 'Why God allows suffering' the reader changes their attitude to God. As such, I would suggest that no-one is any the wiser having read this article than they were before doing so.
About God? No, they aren't, but that's not the point, it's not an article about what Google can tell us about gods, it's an article about how what people are asking about gods is changing. It tells us about people, and their attitudes and interests.
O.
-
I did the Christian thing for many years and being perpetually in God's presence is something to be longed for. It's not supposed to be like this life and it certainly isn't regarded as 'just as good'.
By that I presume you mean it is meant to be better?
Isn't the whole point that it is meant to be perfect, paradise no less, and also eternal.
'Paradise' was seen as the place to wait to the resurrection of the dead, or possibly the restoration of the state of creation in the Garden of Eden when heaven is restored on earth.
The Gospels are sketchy on the details of heaven but Jesus said there will be no male or female, but a becoming 'like the angels' who perpetually praise God. It basically means that instead of seeking to have a relationship with a god you can't see you are always in his presence, always bathed in his love, and free from suffering, and presumably loss and desire too. There is nothing that the Christian could possibly want more than this and it goes beyond 'better' - it's envisaged as unimaginable bliss.
And it is actually a very different vision of heavenly existence from that of the generally accepted view of being reunited with loved ones.
-
By that I presume you mean it is meant to be better?
I suppose it depends on whether you regard life in Malibu as being better than life in Bondi.
-
How do YOU know they're lies ??? You DON'T !!!
We don't know they're lies, but even if we assume that they aren't, which particular set of unevidenced supernatural claims should we be advocating? Given that, in a lot of cases, the poverty, hardship and suffering these people are undergoing is the result of conflict between these competing assertion-clusters that we call religion, adopting none of them and advocating living well regardless of them seems a valid way forward.
I'll help you but get rid of any religious ideas?? ?!?!?! How dare you ?!!??
No. Secularism - help them, but encourage everyone to keep their religious ideas to themselves.
O.
-
About God? No, they aren't, but that's not the point, it's not an article about what Google can tell us about gods, it's an article about how what people are asking about gods is changing. It tells us about people, and their attitudes and interests.
O.
I wasn't talking "About God", O. I was pointing out that having read the article I doubt whether anyone is any the wiser "about people, and their attitudes and interests", simply because we can't be sure of the purpose or motivation of the searchers.
-
Indeed. And life in Heaven is supposed to be a reward for a righteous life on Earth. What kind of reward would not be desirable?
Is it, H? Not sure that is the message in the New Testament. Rather, its the result of a renewed relationship with one's creator.
A beneficial result from a benefactor with the capacity to give or not give - please explain how that doesn't constitute 'a reward'?
I appreciate that there are Christian theologies out there that don't support this idea (Calvinism?), but in this description entry to Heaven is explicitly pitched as a reward for good behaviour.
O.
-
About God? No, they aren't, but that's not the point, it's not an article about what Google can tell us about gods, it's an article about how what people are asking about gods is changing. It tells us about people, and their attitudes and interests.
O.
I wasn't talking "About God", O. I was pointing out that having read the article I doubt whether anyone is any the wiser "about people, and their attitudes and interests", simply because we can't be sure of the purpose or motivation of the searchers.
We can't be sure, but we can draw inferences.
O.
-
A beneficial result from a benefactor with the capacity to give or not give - please explain how that doesn't constitute 'a reward'?
I suppose that you could regard a positive outcome in a relationship as a 'reward'. I don't.
-
We can't be sure, but we can draw inferences.
Precisely, and in general, inferences are biased to one's existing understanding. That is why I have tried to be neutral, rather than suggesting that the searches have been from Christians/religious people searching for new ways of expressing responses to the likes of Shaker and yourself.
-
A beneficial result from a benefactor with the capacity to give or not give - please explain how that doesn't constitute 'a reward'?
I suppose that you could regard a positive outcome in a relationship as a 'reward'. I don't.
A positive outcome is 'getting fitter because you've exercised' - it's purely dependent upon the activities.
A reward is given by someone - for this to be purely an outcome you'd have to be suggesting that we'd get to Heaven/paradise regardless of whether god existed or not, and I don't believe you're doing that. This isn't an inevitable result of a process, it's a bequeathment from a deity - that makes it a reward.
By contrast, the Calvinist idea that some are chosen and some are not, regardless of the activities they conduct in life makes it a gift, still not a result of the process.
O.
-
Whether or not heaven is seen as a 'reward' or simply a fulfilment of relationship, there's no doubt that it's supposed to be a perfect state and definitely superior to this. 'Now we see through a glass darkly', remember.
That's not to say that Christians generally think this life is something to escape from. It's still seen as a gift to be inhabited and enjoyed. And many Christisns think heaven is glimpsed in this life - through the sacraments for example.
-
We can't be sure, but we can draw inferences.
Precisely, and in general, inferences are biased to one's existing understanding. That is why I have tried to be neutral, rather than suggesting that the searches have been from Christians/religious people searching for new ways of expressing responses to the likes of Shaker and yourself.
Given the ubiquity of Google, the trends in the searches show the general trends - they are no more nor less dominated by a particular group than the earlier searches against which they are compared.
Yes there can be bias in the interpretation, but that bias can be called out in the discussion, that's why we have them.
O.
-
By that I presume you mean it is meant to be better?
I suppose it depends on whether you regard life in Malibu as being better than life in Bondi.
I think you are being disingenuous in the extreme.
Rhiannon (an ex christian) is pretty honest - the concept of heaven in christianity isn't somehow no better or worse, just different, to life - nope the whole notion is that the afterlife with god is not just better but perfect. That's the whole point isn't it - that for christians they believe that they attain a perfect state after death with god, and that this goes on for ever.
Frankly if heaven was a bit like Bognor Regis rather than Skegness and that it's lack of perfection was endless I can't imagine there would be many holding out for it.
-
I think you are being disingenuous in the extreme.
Whereas I believe that those here who want to suggest that heaven is 'better' than earth are also being disingenuous. It is why I used the two beach resorts I did as exemplars. One can't really say that one is better than the other - they are different.
nope the whole notion is that the afterlife with god is not just better but perfect.
Precisely, its different
-
I think you are being disingenuous in the extreme.
Whereas I believe that those here who want to suggest that heaven is 'better' than earth are also being disingenuous. It is why I used the two beach resorts I did as exemplars. One can't really say that one is better than the other - they are different.
nope the whole notion is that the afterlife with god is not just better but perfect.
Precisely, its different
Hell is depicted as different.
Do you want to end up there, if difference is all you seek?
-
That really isn't true from a Christian point of view though Hope, and if it is one you hold then it it pretty unusual. I do agree that most Christians view this life as something to be treasured rather than hurried through or transcended, but no Christian would think that 'seeing through a glass darkly' is adequate compared to eternal bliss in the presence of God?
Incidentally, I don't agree with heaven as a reward either. It's more about fulfilment of relationship.
-
That's not to say that Christians generally think this life is something to escape from. It's still seen as a gift to be inhabited and enjoyed. And many Christisns think heaven is glimpsed in this life - through the sacraments for example.
There are also those Christians - and I'm one of them - who believe that heaven (aka the Kingdom of God) is here and now (and 'glimpsed' in everyday life, not just the sacraments), as well as in the future.
-
That really isn't true from a Christian point of view though Hope, and if it is one you hold then it it pretty unusual.
It's one I've heard throughout my life, Rhi., a pretty mainstream evangelical life.
Incidentally, I don't agree with heaven as a reward either. It's more about fulfilment of relationship.
I mader the same comment in a previous post, but perhaps a tad more clumsily.
-
I think you are being disingenuous in the extreme.
Whereas I believe that those here who want to suggest that heaven is 'better' than earth are also being disingenuous. It is why I used the two beach resorts I did as exemplars. One can't really say that one is better than the other - they are different.
nope the whole notion is that the afterlife with god is not just better but perfect.
Precisely, its different
Hell is depicted as different.
Do you want to end up there, if difference is all you seek?
Exactly.
Sure earth, heaven and hell are portrayed as different, but more than that, heaven and hell are portrayed as extremes, heaven being perfect, paradise, hell being the opposite. And earth, well somewhere between the two extremes.
Hope you notion that they are just different, but in no way better or worse, I am afraid lacks any credibility.
-
Hell is depicted as different.
Do you want to end up there, if difference is all you seek?
OK, hell is different because it is existence without the presence of God. AS I noted in a previous post, I believe that heaven (in the form of the Kingdom of God) is here, here and now. As such, the relationship with God that I enjoy (and the fulfillment of which, as Rhi states in a recent post, is what heaven is all about) will be different in form after my physical death to that which I enjoy here on earth. It won't be 'better'.
-
Whereas I believe that those here who want to suggest that heaven is 'better' than earth are also being disingenuous. It is why I used the two beach resorts I did as exemplars. One can't really say that one is better than the other - they are different.
I don't know that anyone's questioning that this is your take on the situation, but it doesn't seem likely that even a significant majority feel the same way given our collective recollection of people's descriptions and depictions. Heaven is described as Paradise, some perfect afterlife, not merely a different place to Earthly life, but a better one.
O.
-
Hope you notion that they are just different, but in no way better or worse, I am afraid lacks any credibility.
It depends on what you believe the basis of existence 'within' heaven, hell and earth is. If, as I and Rhi - and probably others here - believe, it is 'relationship', then the relationship I have with God whilst I live here on earth will continue after my physical death but in a different way. I wouldn't say that it will necessarily be 'better' because that immediately suggests that one's relationship with God prior to death is of a poorer quality.
-
Heaven is described as Paradise, some perfect afterlife, not merely a different place to Earthly life, but a better one.
O.
Except that the term translated as Paradise never bore that connotation, O. It is an connotation that has been superimposed on the term in recent centuries - (?)by the Roman Catholic Church to try to encourage the sale of indulgences.(?)
Note that (?) ... (?) is just a thought I've had whilst writing this post.
-
Hell is depicted as different.
Do you want to end up there, if difference is all you seek?
OK, hell is different because it is existence without the presence of God. AS I noted in a previous post, I believe that heaven (in the form of the Kingdom of God) is here, here and now. As such, the relationship with God that I enjoy (and the fulfillment of which, as Rhi states in a recent post, is what heaven is all about) will be different in form after my physical death to that which I enjoy here on earth. It won't be 'better'.
Now perhaps you will simply dismiss these statements as they are from a different 'branch' of christianity but I think these are pretty mainstream.
"heaven is the ultimate end and fulfillment of the deepest human longings, the state of supreme, definitive happiness"
"The life of the blessed consists in the full and perfect possession of the fruits of the redemption accomplished by Christ... Heaven is the blessed community of all who are perfectly incorporated into Christ."
Note 'definitive happiness' 'perfect possession', 'perfectly incorporated'.
The clear implication is that heaven is perfect - so unless life on earth is also perfect (I don't think anyone including christians would claim it is) then heaven is better, because you can't get better than perfect.
-
Heaven is described as Paradise, some perfect afterlife, not merely a different place to Earthly life, but a better one.
O.
Except that the term translated as Paradise never bore that connotation, O. It is an connotation that has been superimposed on the term in recent centuries - (?)by the Roman Catholic Church to try to encourage the sale of indulgences.(?)
Note that (?) ... (?) is just a thought I've had whilst writing this post.
I'm not saying that your interpretation of the intention is wrong, and that's not the point that's being made anyway. The point being made is that the message delivered in the main from Christianity to the populace at large is that Earthly life is something less than the paradise of the afterlife.
Your understanding is at odds with that being broadcast as the majority view, which we are presuming is an accurate depiction of the majority Christian view given that there is ample opportunity for them to correct it and they don't.
O.
-
Hope you notion that they are just different, but in no way better or worse, I am afraid lacks any credibility.
It depends on what you believe the basis of existence 'within' heaven, hell and earth is. If, as I and Rhi - and probably others here - believe, it is 'relationship', then the relationship I have with God whilst I live here on earth will continue after my physical death but in a different way. I wouldn't say that it will necessarily be 'better' because that immediately suggests that one's relationship with God prior to death is of a poorer quality.
Sure I understand the concept of a relationship, but again the notion that this is merely different rather than better isn't credible.
Even in the concept of a relationship, the relationship that someone has with god on earth is indirect, based on belief etc etc. The suggested relationship in heaven is entirely different - direct, based on knowledge - god being there too rather than something you have to believe in.
Kind of the difference between a Facebook friend that you interact with but have never met and might not even be a real person, and a real friendship with a real person, in person.
-
Heaven is described as Paradise, some perfect afterlife, not merely a different place to Earthly life, but a better one.
O.
Except that the term translated as Paradise never bore that connotation, O. It is an connotation that has been superimposed on the term in recent centuries - (?)by the Roman Catholic Church to try to encourage the sale of indulgences.(?)
Note that (?) ... (?) is just a thought I've had whilst writing this post.
I'm not saying that your interpretation of the intention is wrong, and that's not the point that's being made anyway. The point being made is that the message delivered in the main from Christianity to the populace at large is that Earthly life is something less than the paradise of the afterlife.
Your understanding is at odds with that being broadcast as the majority view, which we are presuming is an accurate depiction of the majority Christian view given that there is ample opportunity for them to correct it and they don't.
O.
Exactly and I'm not convinced that Hope isn't merely arguing for the sake of arguing. I don't really believe that he thinks that heaven is no better than earth, merely different. I think he really thinks it is better (and different) but has headed down a debate track that he can't now get out of.
-
Another thread that has become a game of going round and round in circles trying to get Hope to accept that he is wrong - the only result of this game is that the thread vanishes up its own arse in a shower of orange pips - and being a total waste of time.
Page three of this thread has been as big a waste of time as Page Three of the Sun!
-
Another thread that has become a game of going round and round in circles trying to get Hope to accept that he is wrong - the only result of this game is that the thread vanishes up its own arse in a shower of orange pips - and being a total waste of time.
Page three of this thread has been as big a waste of time as Page Three of the Sun!
... the only difference being that this thread, unlike Page Three, has just the one tit in it.
-
Another thread that has become a game of going round and round in circles trying to get Hope to accept that he is wrong - the only result of this game is that the thread vanishes up its own arse in a shower of orange pips - and being a total waste of time.
Page three of this thread has been as big a waste of time as Page Three of the Sun!
... the only difference being that this thread, unlike Page Three, has just the one tit in it.
ROFLMFAO!
-
Another thread that has become a game of going round and round in circles trying to get Hope to accept that he is wrong - the only result of this game is that the thread vanishes up its own arse in a shower of orange pips - and being a total waste of time.
Page three of this thread has been as big a waste of time as Page Three of the Sun!
... the only difference being that this thread, unlike Page Three, has just the one tit in it.
;D