good Heavens
pieter
keep blogging for Bush and ignorance, i keep plagueing your free speech
zone. if you don't like it, change the name of it will ya?
so, my topic,,, it's about heaven. i would like to hear/read from
believers how they imagine going to heaven. the concept of it just is
to difficult for me to believe in. even as a child (and belgium is a
catholic country) i had difficulties believing in it.
why is it usefull?
what is it about?
what is going on there?
i'm not the kind of person to simply accept and believe. accepting me
going to heaven when i die equals accepting i have a soul equals
accepting there is a god.
i just don't understand how one can imagine it and look forward to it.
my primary concern with it is how i can come in the heavens with no
body. telling to myself that it's my soul who gets in is not satisfying
either. there is no soul to be found in our body; not in the hart, not
in the brain, not anywhere...
if we have a soul, why did god hide it so well? to test us? aren't we
created in his image? so he has a soul too? also well hidden? also with
all the flaws comming with inhabiting this body?
but wait, if we are created in his image, he has a body too. and since
he lives in the heavens and all around us, is it possible to enter the
heavens in our body?
but i still see them rotting away after death.
and what about that rapture/armageddon thing? the resurection of the
dead/calling to heaven concept... is that what god looks like, a
decaying body?
and why is an "end of days"psychosis threatable, the same psychosis
described in john's apocaliptica? all to test us? because He works in
mysterious ways?
it's to difficult for me to accept there are still people believing all
of what the bible tells. it has it's uses but to blindly believe it??
like the psychosis i mentioned, it is a disease! but when the bible
describes the exact same thing it is seeing the light/a prophecy.
so why do people strongly defending their right to accept the bible in
all it's absurdidness are also profitising from practics and ideas
comming from people they detest? cause god wants it that way? but god
just shows it's a threatenable disease, not a prophecy! couldn't you
people just accept what god offers us in our daily struggle for
understanding the world without denying it but still using it all?
it's just hypocritical to doom non-believers for their sins when those
sins are used by you when you go to a hospital or just get benifited by
them.
please, if someone has some decent arguments, spill it out!
pieter
"believing in an acting god is just ignoring mind-body accomplishments.
we're humans, we don't need a puppetmaster to excist. in the light of
that Plato was closer to the truth."
"the human mind and body are one, one can not act [normally] without
the other
Aurain
pieter wrote:
> ok, it's been the thirt time i get a ban here but i don't care. you
> keep blogging for Bush and ignorance, i keep plagueing your free speech
> zone. if you don't like it, change the name of it will ya?
conservative.
> so, my topic,,, it's about heaven. i would like to hear/read from
> believers how they imagine going to heaven. the concept of it just is
> to difficult for me to believe in. even as a child (and belgium is a
> catholic country) i had difficulties believing in it.
> why is it usefull?
way the religion states they should. Practically, it means that what
you do in life has a point, even if you don't make it into the history
books.
> what is it about?
It's about being rewarded for obeying God, and trusting in him and his
Son, Jesus Christ. It's also about admitting you've done wrong, and
taking responsibility for your actions in this life, so that Jesus will
basically cover for you when you get to meet the Big Man.
> what is going on there?
Revelations. Jewish interpretation is in the Book of Genesis or
Exodus, I believe...I know references are scattered throughout the
Torah (the first five books of the Bible, basically). Islamic
interpretation, couldn't tell you where in the Qu'ran (don't have a
copy in front of me), but I know it involves rivers of various
substances (water, wine, milk, and honey, if I remember correctly), 72
eternally virgin women, and young nubile men in miniskirts, basically.
*GAG* Anyhow, the Islamic one isn't as good as it sounds...if you read
the Qu'ran, you have to commit some pretty vile acts to get there.
> i'm not the kind of person to simply accept and believe. accepting me
> going to heaven when i die equals accepting i have a soul equals
> accepting there is a god.
believes, but does not see." Unfortunately, there is no better answer
until you keel over dead. As far as the existance of God, I would
challenge you to explain the possibility of creation without him. Even
if you use the Big Bang nonsense that some astronomers believe (my
version: God said to be, and BANG! it happened), there had to have been
a source for all that matter to begin with...explosions don't just
occur out of sheer emptiness. So at the very least, you need some sort
of originator completely outside any regulatory bounds for the universe
to even exist. Also, given the universal tendancy towards entropy
(disorder), the idea of a universe ordering itself from disorder
spontaneously goes against relatively proven scientific
theories...thus, you once again need an originator who can violate the
rules estabilished. Lastly, if you want some proof in front of your
face, go watch a bumble bee. Physics says the bumble bee can't fly.
God says it can. Guess who wins? The flying bumble bee.
> i just don't understand how one can imagine it and look forward to it.
I've got a secure place to go when I'm in the grave. As for
imagination, I don't bother...it's probably so far beyond the scope of
5 senses I'm not even going to try.
> my primary concern with it is how i can come in the heavens with no
> body. telling to myself that it's my soul who gets in is not satisfying
> either. there is no soul to be found in our body; not in the hart, not
> in the brain, not anywhere...
Where is your conscience? Your sense of right and wrong? Your
emotions? Are these physical attributes? You might argue that they're
all controlled by little electric pulses and chemicals in your brain,
but that doesn't really explain it. Take a look at a couple of dogs.
A male won't show interest in a female beyond a play partner...until
she goes into heat. And she doesn't really care about whether it's her
play partner or some strange dog that mates her. It's lust, certainly,
which is a base behavior that can be experienced by humans. But
where's love? All those other things that animals don't show? What
gives humans those abilities that other animals lack? A soul is as
good an answer as any. As for heaven without a body, easiest solution
I can come up with, and one that is, more or less, described in the
Book of Revelations is you're a ghost. A spirit with form, but no
physical body. Though another way of reading it is that basically you
get a new body, one made directly by God himself.
> if we have a soul, why did god hide it so well? to test us? aren't we
> created in his image? so he has a soul too? also well hidden? also with
> all the flaws comming with inhabiting this body?
humans should be? Or to look like Him? Given that He's basically
described as a being, a presence, and is never attributed a specific
description, I can make a solid guess at it being the former. Also,
given that He's supposed to be perfect, He obviously doesn't have a
human body, because that would make Him flawed.
> but wait, if we are created in his image, he has a body too. and since
> he lives in the heavens and all around us, is it possible to enter the
> heavens in our body?
> but i still see them rotting away after death.
> and what about that rapture/armageddon thing? the resurection of the
> dead/calling to heaven concept... is that what god looks like, a
> decaying body?
series, is a falsehood, not in the Bible. However, the Bible gives one
exception, in that a total of 144,000 people will be physically
raptured (at least as I read it, it's physical, they might just all
keel over simultaneously on Earth), 12,000 from each of the tribes of
Abraham. Also, Armageddon is a place, not an event. It's a
translation of Megido, a battlefield in the Middle East where many
catastrophic wars were fought throughout ancient history, and into
modern times. I believe the valley is somewhere in Iraq, though I
could be quite off on this one. As for what God looks like, I just
accept that I won't know until I'm in front of Him being judged. As
for calling to heaving, my bet is it's spiritual. If He does bring the
dead back to life, they will be restored, I'm betting, much as Lazarus
was restored when Jesus resurrected him (he'd been dead over a week,
long enough in that environment for him to be a VERY ripe corpse).
> and why is an "end of days"psychosis threatable, the same psychosis
> described in john's apocaliptica? all to test us? because He works in
> mysterious ways?
psychosis...I'll admit there are some nutjobs who are probably treated
for something called that, but if it wasn't the Second Coming, it would
have been something else their diseased minds picked up on. Jesus
Himself states that no one but the Father knows the time of the Second
Coming, and thus, all attempts to predict it are automatically flawed
and baseless. So therefore, it is impossible to suffer from a
Biblically-induced "end of days" psychosis.
> it's to difficult for me to accept there are still people believing all
> of what the bible tells. it has it's uses but to blindly believe it??
> like the psychosis i mentioned, it is a disease! but when the bible
> describes the exact same thing it is seeing the light/a prophecy.
ancient manuscript and historical record found. The ones that haven't,
were eventually proven to be hoaxes by modern analysis methods.
> so why do people strongly defending their right to accept the bible in
> all it's absurdidness are also profitising from practics and ideas
> comming from people they detest? cause god wants it that way? but god
> just shows it's a threatenable disease, not a prophecy! couldn't you
> people just accept what god offers us in our daily struggle for
> understanding the world without denying it but still using it all?
> it's just hypocritical to doom non-believers for their sins when those
> sins are used by you when you go to a hospital or just get benifited by
> them.
blob that I can't even begin to decifer.
> please, if someone has some decent arguments, spill it out!
Aurain
pieter wrote:
> "the notion of a soul is a blasphemy against Life"
> "believing in an acting god is just ignoring mind-body accomplishments.
> we're humans, we don't need a puppetmaster to excist. in the light of
> that Plato was closer to the truth."
need a puppetmaster, but we need something to have birthed the
universe, and God makes the most sense. Besides, the Bible states that
God does NOT act as a puppetmaster. He may know ahead of time what
decisions you are going to make, throughout your entire life, but YOU
still make those decisions, not Him.
> "the human mind and body are one, one can not act [normally] without
> the other
There are records of out-of-body experiences during certain types of
brain surgery, where the person can distinctly recall and describe the
operation, when they've never seen it done before...except from that
experience. This wouldn't be so amazing, if the brain was functioning
AT ALL during these particular surgeries. Effectively, these people
are watching events that occur while they are brain-dead, and therefore
incapable of processing sensory input. What other way to describe it,
than the soul watching on its own?
beta
(disorder), the idea of a universe ordering itself from disorder
spontaneously goes against relatively proven scientific
theories...thus, you once again need an originator who can violate the
rules estabilished."
=>entropy is thermodynamica and about the Posibility of states, it's
not an answer on causalities only a suggestion. like statistics.
my problem with the notion of an Originator is that we are strongly
biased in our views on causality and when a commoner speaks about
"there must be an originator cause everything has a starting point" in
the religious context, i immediately think "your religion is also a
human piece of work contaminated by views and thinking from hundreds of
years ago".
who created the originator? and who created the creator of the
originator? etc,,,
it's not an answer thinking that way. the answer lays in patience. the
rules established are updated almost dayly. a human system is to poor
to experience the whole of what is and if we are created in His image,
He wasn't knowing what He did when he "originated" everything and i
don't find that idea appealing.
"Lastly, if you want some proof in front of your
face, go watch a bumble bee. Physics says the bumble bee can't fly.
God says it can. Guess who wins? The flying bumble bee."
=>uhm, a bumble bee cán fly. a science teacher i know doesn't have any
objections against those creatures and can't think of any physical
problems contradicting the fact it's flying.
"So where is your personality? It's not a physical part of your body.
Where is your conscience? Your sense of right and wrong? Your
emotions? Are these physical attributes? You might argue that they're
all controlled by little electric pulses and chemicals in your brain,
but that doesn't really explain it."
=>why not? a few molecules of adrenaline in the bloodstream is enough
to take your body in a total state of readyness. it's the combination
and the mass of impulses that makes our body function, not a soul.
" Take a look at a couple of dogs.
A male won't show interest in a female beyond a play partner...until
she goes into heat. And she doesn't really care about whether it's her
play partner or some strange dog that mates her. It's lust, certainly,
which is a base behavior that can be experienced by humans. But
where's love? All those other things that animals don't show? What
gives humans those abilities that other animals lack?"
=> love is not a well defined idea. it's something attributional that
differs between cultures. in fact i've seen animals commit acts i could
attribute to love considering the cultural and physical differences
between me and for example a swan.
"I'm not sure what you're talking about with an "end of days"
psychosis"
=>it's a paranoic disorder, allways translated in cultured symbols.
"It's not blind belief...the Bible has been backed up by every truly
ancient manuscript and historical record found"
=>that's not true, there still aren't skeletons found of giant humans;
sumerian, akkadian, babylonian, egyptian etc manuscripts are richer and
more intact;
jesus' life is still a controverse all around and outside the christian
community
"The ones that haven't,
were eventually proven to be hoaxes by modern analysis methods."
=> they were proven to be older and more accurate in most cases.
it's pretty difficult to call a sumerian tablet describing the Flood a
hoax when it was burried for fourthousand years or rejecting scrolls
hidden in a cave for twothousand years only minutes before a roman
raid.
"> so why do people strongly defending their right to accept the bible
in
> all it's absurdidness are also profitising from practics and ideas
> comming from people they detest? cause god wants it that way? but god
> just shows it's a threatenable disease, not a prophecy! couldn't you
> people just accept what god offers us in our daily struggle for
> understanding the world without denying it but still using it all?
> it's just hypocritical to doom non-believers for their sins when those
> sins are used by you when you go to a hospital or just get benifited by
> them.
Please restate this is clear, grammatically correct English. This is a
blob that I can't even begin to decifer."
it's a blob cause you are in the dark about what is moving in the
secular world. it's not my best english but people tell me it's
perfectly readable and understandable if the info interests you