NationStates Jolt Archive

Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the only way to Heaven?

and

Do you believe that anyone who is not a Christian, ie atheist or someone of another faith, will go to Hell?

Question courtesy of M-mmYumyumyumYesindeed

Poll on shorter thread that was merged:

Mahatma Gandhi, Mother Teresa and heaven ...

Poll query: Well, will it help you reach heaven?

Worshipping them will help. (I am christian)
Acting like them will help. (I am christian)
Worshipping and acting like them both help. (I am christian)
Neither worshipping nor emulating them will help. (I am christian)
Worshipping them will help. (I am not christian)
Acting like them will help. (I am not christian)
Worshipping and acting like them both help. (I am not christian)
Neither worshipping nor emulating them will help. (I am not christian)
I do not believe in heaven.
I am illiterate, so I picked a random response and got this one!

I'm a Deist, leaning towards Pure Land Buddhism.

Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the only way to Heaven?

and

Do you believe that anyone who is not a Christian, ie atheist or someone of another faith, will go to Hell?

Question courtesy of M-mmYumyumyumYesindeed

No


and


No

Answer courtesy of me.

I'm an agnostic. If I were leaning towards any belief, it wouldn't be one of the Abrahamic Religions in any case.

Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the only way to Heaven?

and

Do you believe that anyone who is not a Christian, ie atheist or someone of another faith, will go to Hell?

Question courtesy of M-mmYumyumyumYesindeed

Kind of.

and

No.

hahahahahaha!

Hell no!

And nope.

Seriously, what's the point of NS religious threads? They just become Athiest orgies, mixed with the occasional n00b.

No ^ 2. Also, I believe that the idea of Afterlife is actively harmful.

Pass that on for me, will ya?

Seriously, what's the point of NS religious threads? They just become Athiest orgies, mixed with the occasional n00b.

Qft.

They just become Athiest orgies...
And why wasn’t I invited? :mad:

And why wasn’t I invited? :mad:

You just wern't Atheist enough. Thou must burn a church.

Since I believe in reincarnation rather than a concept of heaven or hell, no. Although, if Heaven/Hell dichotemy did exist (along the Good-Evil axis), created by a loving, beneficent God, one would hope entrance would be dependant on a holistic overview of a person's life rather than singular belief in one set of dogma.

Since I believe in reincarnation rather than a concept of heaven or hell, no. Although, if Heaven/Hell dichotemy did exist (along the Good-Evil axis), created by a loving, beneficent God, one would hope entrance would be dependant on a holistic overview of a person's life rather than singular belief in one set of dogma.

Did someone say Dogma?

When are you people going to learn? It's not about who's right or wrong. No denomination's nailed it yet, and they never will because they're all too self-righteous to realize that it doesn't matter what you have faith in, just that you have faith. Your hearts are in the right place, but your brains need to wake up.

Did someone say Dogma?

When are you people going to learn? It's not about who's right or wrong. No denomination's nailed it yet, and they never will because they're all too self-righteous to realize that it doesn't matter what you have faith in, just that you have faith. Your hearts are in the right place, but your brains need to wake up.

So you're saying we should not act based on our faith? Because contradictory faiths bring contradictory behaviors, if acted upon.

So you're saying we should not act based on our faith? Because contradictory faiths bring contradictory behaviors, if acted upon.

I think it's better to have ideas. You can change an idea. Changing a belief is trickier. Life should malleable and progressive; working from idea to idea permits that. Beliefs anchor you to certain points and limit growth; new ideas can't generate. Life becomes stagnant.

Nope and nope.

Seriously, what's the point of NS religious threads? They just become Athiest orgies, mixed with the occasional n00b.

You will forever burn in Satans hell for using your computer. This message is broadcast by Gods own mouth through another posters profile.
I repeat, you will buuurrrn in righteous flame!
*waves flamethrower enthusiastically*

see? that's why it's hard to believe in religion, because that's what ye olden Christianity was once like.

To OP Christ is the only way to a Christain heaven, i don't like the idea of heaven anymore, i prefer the cold endlessness of non existance. so much more peaceful. of course i can't prove it, so i won't say it's the only way, but i think it is the better option.

Did someone say Dogma?

When are you people going to learn? It's not about who's right or wrong. No denomination's nailed it yet, and they never will because they're all too self-righteous to realize that it doesn't matter what you have faith in, just that you have faith. Your hearts are in the right place, but your brains need to wake up.
You know, as much as I love that movie, it's always bothered me that you have to have faith. That seems to imply that atheists still go to hell, which seems rather unpleasant. :p

1: Where's the poll?

2: What heaven, and what hell?

I think it's better to have ideas. You can change an idea. Changing a belief is trickier. Life should malleable and progressive; working from idea to idea permits that. Beliefs anchor you to certain points and limit growth; new ideas can't generate. Life becomes stagnant.

Unless your beliefs change according to your actual sitatuation and reality.

And why do you keep writing in italic?

I believe Jesus Christ is a son of God, and came to Earth to set a message of peace for the world.

I'm a universalist. I think that people create hells inside of themselves with their own hatred. If they live hateful lives, that's what they'll see as they're dying. If they want to pull themselves out of their "hell", all they have to do is abandon their hatred. Do I believe in eternal damnation? Absolutely not.

And why do you keep writing in italic?
They're quotations from the film.

They're quotations from the film.

Ah, I see. That's where all that cheese comes from.

Seriously, what's the point of NS religious threads? They just become Athiest orgies, mixed with the occasional n00b.

If you don't like them, you don't have to take part in them you know.

If you don't like them, you don't have to take part in them you know.

Or better yet, just don't make them.

1: Where's the poll?

2: What heaven, and what hell?

Polls coming

...and up now.

They're quotations from the film.

Tell a person that you're the Metatron and they stare at you blankly. Mention something out of a Charlton Heston movie and suddenly everybody is a theology scholar.

If you don't like them, you don't have to take part in them you know.Or better yet, just don't make them.

Nobody is forcing you to take part, so as I said to the other poster:
If you don't like them, you don't have to take part in them you know.

Nobody is forcing you to take part, so as I said to the other poster:

How did you manage to mangle 'only' into 'onle'

EDIT: How did I manage to miss the double 'onle', 'only'

Still don't get it though.

:(

You need more poll options like -

There is no Hell

and

Who the Hell cares?

How did you manage to mangle 'only' into 'onle'

EDIT: How did I manage to miss the double 'onle', 'only'

Still don't get it though.

:(

LOL, I have no idea how I did that, especially since I copy and paste from the OP for the poll questions. I guess I'm just 'special' that way. :D

LOL, I have no idea how I did that, especially since I copy and paste from the OP for the poll questions. I guess I'm just 'special' that way. :D

Yes, you are 'special' - we all say that about you :)

And why wasn’t I invited? :mad:

You were behind on your baby-eating quota.

Yes, you are 'special' - we all say that about you :)

:D

You were behind on your baby-eating quota.

Apparently they were needed for some art project.

Christianity is only true if Judaism is true so there is at least one other ticket besides handing over your sins to Jesus, anyone who gets to heaven according to Judaism must also get to heaven according to Christianity. Regardless of if you take the old or new testament ticket it's still Jesus who paid for your sins though.

The Bible also says several times that each will be judged according to the understanding they where given, the more you where given the more is expected of you. I think that means if you understood that Jesus died for your sins but did not accept forgiveness, okay you won't be forgiven then. If you only understood that you're supposed to be a good person and tried then God will be more understanding. This also indicates punishment is a measurable amount in proportion to what you deserve rather than infinite.
"That servant who knows his master's will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows. But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.

You will forever burn in Satans hell for using your computer. This message is broadcast by Gods own mouth through another posters profile.
I repeat, you will buuurrrn in righteous flame!
*waves flamethrower enthusiastically*

see? that's why it's hard to believe in religion, because that's what ye olden Christianity was once like.


*woosh*

That's my point going right over your head.

The way I see it, NS religion threads consist primarily of people who don't believe in a God meeting other people that don't believe in a God and saying "hurr, we is teh smartz. God should GTFO and STFU, hurrr". Surely we have better things to besides engage in a big penis contest over who hates the idea of God the most.

Just my observation.

If you don't like them, you don't have to take part in them you know.

I know, but threads like this clutter meh NSG. I prefer meh NSG waxed and polished.

When are you people going to learn? It's not about who's right or wrong. No denomination's nailed it yet, and they never will because they're all too self-righteous to realize that it doesn't matter what you have faith in, just that you have faith. Your hearts are in the right place, but your brains need to wake up.

I think it's better to have ideas. You can change an idea. Changing a belief is trickier. Life should malleable and progressive; working from idea to idea permits that. Beliefs anchor you to certain points and limit growth; new ideas can't generate. Life becomes stagnant.

To quote Rufus the 13th Apostle who was left out the bible for being black. Ah, you gotta love Dogma.

In seriousness though it's a good point, philosophies, even religious ones, need to be interpreted in the light of the environment you're in. To treat such things as inflexible ignores the context within which they were written and will often result in a loss of the underlying message as people end up concentrating on the superficial factors in the message.

Or at least that's my view. But then again I'm a pagan and firmly believe that, within a certain framework, people must find the path that is right for them and no two paths will be exactly the same.

You know, as much as I love that movie, it's always bothered me that you have to have faith. That seems to imply that atheists still go to hell, which seems rather unpleasant. :p

Not necessarily, you can still have faith and be an atheist. Faith in human nature, faith in yourself, faith in a humanistic/secular moral code, faith in a philosophy/ideal (e.g. Marxism) ... faith can be very losely defined, especially in the context of the quotation which is talking about ideas/philosophies

*woosh*

That's my point going right over your head.

The way I see it, NS religion threads consist primarily of people who don't believe in a God meeting other people that don't believe in a God and saying "hurr, we is teh smartz. God should GTFO and STFU, hurrr". Surely we have better things to besides engage in a big penis contest over who hates the idea of God the most.

Just my observation.

Perhaps you should get your eyes tested. There are some atheist trolls around but not many: the main irritation for me on religion threads is people who either complain about the fact that there's a religion thread in the first place or make ridiculous generalisations about the people taking part. They far outnumber the trolls...

I don't believe in heaven or hell, what do I click on the poll????

Repent and ye shall be saved.

http://www.shieldandrefuge.org/articles/art_needsaved.pdf

I think it's better to have ideas. You can change an idea. Changing a belief is trickier. Life should malleable and progressive; working from idea to idea permits that. Beliefs anchor you to certain points and limit growth; new ideas can't generate. Life becomes stagnant.


This is great way to look at life. I have been mentally working like this for years. Works good for me.

I don't believe in heaven or hell, what do I click on the poll????
Two contradictory ones. Or all of them. *Shrug*

Christianity is only true if Judaism is true.

Not following you...

Perhaps you should get your eyes tested. There are some atheist trolls around but not many: the main irritation for me on religion threads is people who either complain about the fact that there's a religion thread in the first place or make ridiculous generalisations about the people taking part. They far outnumber the trolls...
Exactly
I don't believe in heaven or hell, what do I click on the poll????
Either nothing or this \/
Two contradictory ones. Or all of them. *Shrug*

*Groans* How many people can possibly want to know or care about this on the internet! Why do things like this pop up everywhere? Can't you people read all the other threads!? Ok....The rant is over.

Can't you people read all the other threads!?
Each thread is subtly different. Kinda like the creation stories. In a general sense, they're the same, but the little details make for interesting divergences in interpretation.

Do people on the internet have a Christian fetish? It's ALWAYS the Christian threads! Nothing new or creative! It's simply a non-ending torrent of unimaginative "lulz Christians lulz" threads! Pure torture I tell you! Whyare there no threads about buddhists or something?

*Groans* How many people can possibly want to know or care about this on the internet! Why do things like this pop up everywhere? Can't you people read all the other threads!? Ok....The rant is over.

Well, I do. And this isn't covered in any other thread.

Do people on the internet have a Christian fetish? It's ALWAYS the Christian threads! Nothing new or creative! It's simply a non-ending torrent of unimaginative "lulz Christians lulz" threads! Pure torture I tell you! Whyare there no threads about buddhists or something?

People write about what they care.

If you don't like it, kindly buzz off.

People write about what they care.

If you don't like it, kindly buzz off.

That answers my question about the Christian fetish.

Do people on the internet have a Christian fetish? It's ALWAYS the Christian threads! Nothing new or creative! It's simply a non-ending torrent of unimaginative "lulz Christians lulz" threads! Pure torture I tell you! Whyare there no threads about buddhists or something?

I don't start threads about buddhism because I don't know enough about buddhism to intelligently debate about it. If you want a thread about buddhism, then start one.

Also, I would like to point out that my intention when I start a thread about christianity has never been to make fun of christians.

Heaven and hell is one of the concepts in christianity that makes no sense to me whatsoever. It's an oversimplification of the complexity that is life. Or maybe I should say "was life"... Jesus as son of God is the other concept that I don't buy. Why does God need a son in the first place and why does he send him a couple of thousand years after he created mankind? I think a god who needs to incorporate itself in a human body to get taken serious is a bit silly...

Anyway, to get back to the poll at hand, and considering my own worldview:
- You probably need Jesus to get to the christian heaven, it does not mean others cannot reach theirs.
- Non-christians will not go to the christian hell; only christians can end up there.

Do people on the internet have a Christian fetish? It's ALWAYS the Christian threads! Nothing new or creative! It's simply a non-ending torrent of unimaginative "lulz Christians lulz" threads! Pure torture I tell you! Whyare there no threads about buddhists or something?

There's an enemy living among us
I think you who I mean
Nobody really knows a thing about them
Not even Martin Sheen

They're a threat to our standard of living
And the cheap supply of oil
I say let's rout their sorry asses out
Before they soil our American soil

Oh, let's go after the Buddhists
Let's knock some shaven heads
Those humanistic, non-materialistic,
Pacifistic slugabeds

They're ego-less and nonviolent
Un-American and weird
They just sit and stare at the wall and their
God doesn't even have a beard

Oh, I don't want to say too much about it
They might be listening right now
Meet me later in the parking lot
I got the yellow El Camino with the
Bumper sticker saying,
"Isolationism — Ask Me How!"

It's a nation of freedom and tolerance
And that's just plain dangerous
Let's wipe out terrorism everywhere
Except, of course, where the terrorists are us

Oh, let's go after the Buddhists
Let's go rough up some monks
Those semi-mystic, anti-dualistic
Morally relativistic punks

Instead of contemplating their navels
They can contemplate our naval might
Hone your epithets, grab a torch and let's
Go find somebody to enlight...en

Hey, dude
You look like you'd
Have a patri-idiotic attitude
Let's kick some Bude!

Oh...mmm

Roy Zimmerman- Let's Go After the Buddhists (http://www.royzimmerman.com/lyrics/homeland_buddhists.html)

Also on Youtube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dtMpjeAMtk).

Roy Zimmerman- Let's Go After the Buddhists (http://www.royzimmerman.com/lyrics/homeland_buddhists.html)

Also on Youtube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dtMpjeAMtk).

Not what I meant, but whatever floats your boat.

I don't start threads about buddhism because I don't know enough about buddhism to intelligently debate about it. If you want a thread about buddhism, then start one.

Also, I would like to point out that my intention when I start a thread about christianity has never been to make fun of christians.

I did exaggerate some, but it just seems like a person can't go one second without having a Christian thread.

I don't start threads about buddhism because I don't know enough about buddhism to intelligently debate about it. If you want a thread about buddhism, then start one.

Also, I would like to point out that my intention when I start a thread about christianity has never been to make fun of christians.
About half of the threads about Christianity seem to be started by persons who don't know enough about other branches of Christianity than the Bible thumping right wing in the US.

Also the ratio of non Christians to Christians is too high to have balanced debates about Christianity. Much like there are too few Muslims or Communists to discuss those topics properly.

The only time it actually annoys me though is when the topic is ID since that modern joke theory is almost non existent outside of the US. On other topics I'll happily contribute my view on things.

About half of the threads about Christianity seem to be started by persons who don't know enough about other branches of Christianity than the Bible thumping right wing in the US.
I'll admit that a lot of my problems with christianity, are because of them, and that I don't know a whole lot about the beliefs specific to particular denominations.
Also the ratio of non Christians to Christians is too high to have balanced debates about Christianity.
The problem is more that with a few exceptions the people with better debating skills are on the non-christian side.

Yes Jesus Christ is the only way to Heaven. But, that doesn't necessarily mean anyone who isn't a Christian will go to Hell. Jewish people reject the belief that Jesus is the Christ, but they are God's chosen people.

Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the only way to Heaven?

and

Do you believe that anyone who is not a Christian, ie atheist or someone of another faith, will go to Hell?

Question courtesy of M-mmYumyumyumYesindeed

Nope Jesus isn´t the only way into Heaven. You can believe in Jesus and be a despicable human being. And by being so despicable, you won´t go to Haeven.

Second question. Nope. Just because you happen to be a Buddhist or a Muslim, or Jewish doesn´t earn you going to Hell. If you´re a good person, I believe you´ll get your just reward.

*puts on religious hat*

yes jesus christ is the only way to heaven.

no. everyone goes to heaven through the sacrifice of jesus. belief is irrelevant.

Belief in Jesus certainly helps you get to heaven, but does it guarantee entry? Does disbelief bar it? Beats me; I don't know the mind of God.

Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the only way to Heaven?

and

Do you believe that anyone who is not a Christian, ie atheist or someone of another faith, will go to Hell?



Well, no and no, but I don't believe in heaven and hell anyway.

Seriously, what's the point of NS religious threads? They just become Athiest orgies, mixed with the occasional n00b.

Don't you remember? Fresh vitae.
http://dl6.glitter-graphics.net/pub/196/196786ynyxx4o5zv.jpg

I think it's probably time we grew out of such infantile concepts/relationships and worried a little more about doing good/just things instead of focusing on how to make creatures of all types suffer, this life and/or next/past/possible ... or at least wishing really hard that they'll suffer.

Jewish people reject the belief that Jesus is the Christ, but they are God's chosen people.I was waiting for such a clear perspective. Thank you.

Seriously, what's the point of NS religious threads? They just become Athiest orgies, mixed with the occasional n00b.

C'mon, we're owed at least one place to have our orgies. You followers-of-a-specified-faith out there have the whole rest of the planet practically. :(

This question is the reason I am no longer a Christian. I called it the foundational problem.

You can certainly interpret Christianity to mean that heaven is open to non-believers, but I just don't buy it. There's too much in the New Testament about how good works won't save you, and there is also the inconvenient quote by Jesus which states that "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me."

"I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me."
And, like his daddy, leads a most excellent example of parental abandonment.

I give this thread a hearty meh.

I give this thread a hearty meh.

We're not supposed to ENCOURAGE trolls. Is it lonely up there in your ivory tower? *sobs*

I believe that the only way to the Father is through Jesus, yes. Does that mean Heaven? Damned if I know, nothing I've read said that you either go before Him and stay there or get tossed into Hell directly. There seems to be a lot of wiggle room for various forms of belief.

So, no, I don't think that Atheists, Agnostics, followers of Buddha, Pastafarians, etc. are going to go to Hell. I think that if they tries to do what was right and followed their own moral code, they too would go to a just reward, wherever that might be (Hawai'i maybe?), they just won't be with God. Hell is reserved for those who truly were evil in thought, word, and deed.

So, no, I don't think that Atheists, Agnostics, followers of Buddha, Pastafarians, etc. are going to go to Hell. I think that if they tries to do what was right and followed their own moral code, they too would go to a just reward, wherever that might be (Hawai'i maybe?), they just won't be with God. Hell is reserved for those who truly were evil in thought, word, and deed.

Then why doesn't the Bible ever mention this other place? Why is it always between Heaven or Hell? And if the Father is in Heaven, then wouldn't going to the Father automatically be going to Heaven?

Interestingly, the Mormons do have a nice system worked out.

Then why doesn't the Bible ever mention this other place? Why is it always between Heaven or Hell? And if the Father is in Heaven, then wouldn't going to the Father automatically be going to Heaven?
The Bible is rather silent on both Heaven and Hell as well. If you look how the idea of Hell has evolved through the Bible... well, it's actually rather hard to state what Hell is and who goes there except for the wicked. As for where God is, that's even harder to state.

Actually the Bible is just vague. ;)

Perhaps you should get your eyes tested. There are some atheist trolls around but not many: the main irritation for me on religion threads is people who either complain about the fact that there's a religion thread in the first place or make ridiculous generalisations about the people taking part. They far outnumber the trolls...

Perhaps you should ask for a refund from that Lobotomy.

You seriously can't believe that. The vast majority of religious threads I have ever seen on NSG turns into a bunch of Atheist/Antitheist posters ragging on and on ad nauseam about how bad religion is, how dumb believers are, and how superior Atheism is. It goes on and on and on with no end in sight. These threads are utterly pointless when there is no counterpoint. And there is no serious counterpoint to be had on this forum.

...and now, a musical interlude.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTzjWrAnMVY

Why Jesus? Why not Liu Xiu? He was born around the same time (5 BC), became the first real Emperor of China's Eastern Han dynasty, and was anmong China's best rulers.

Do you think that worshipping one of them and/or emulating them will increasde your chance of spending time in a pleasant afterlife?

(give Atma time to put up a poll...)

Well Mother Theresa was a scumbag who believed people should be made to suffer in order to make them more religious.

Gandhi was a pretty remarkable person, though with some faults.

Heaven doesn't exist.

well heavin or no heavin, more people acting like them would certainly make this world a safer, and quite possibly for a much greater percentage of people gratifying, world.

what i believe is that while heavins certainly CAN exist, and something close enough to being a god to call it one almost certainly does, what christians, muslims, or anyone else thinks they know about either of these things, begins and ends pretty much in pure, unadulturated speculation.

i don't believe in worshiping anything ever to have walked this earth on two legs. and i don't see how doing so is going to get anyone anywhere. but the founders of the various organized beliefs, who in all likelyhood were choosen by that something close enough to being a god to call it one, considering as how what it actually cost them in thier lives, rather then choosing such lives themselves, are all likely to have a lot of good positive lessons to teach us.

though i think the most important of these boils down to every last sentient living soul having a personal vested intrest in the avoidance of causing suffering, motivating the causing of suffering, or contributing any any way to any motivation for causing suffering. that universal vested intrest being the kind of conditions/world, how we live in it, creates for each other, and by creating for each other, our own selves as well, the kind of world that we do.

i would also think that any god that wished us well, would be far more likely pleased to see us emulate such souls, then to use its name, or that of any belief, as an excuse to cause harm to one another.

=^^=
.../\...

flesh and blood humans, when chosen by something we may, for the sake of convenience call a good, to channel it, do indeed become something a bit more special then other more ordinary mortals.

this jesus of whome christianity speaks, beyond being a charismatic, and thus theoretically threatining to any establishment, figure in his own day, was indeed most like such a person.

but no one really knows even that.

nor does anyone really know what the heavin of which he spoke, may or may not be a metaphore for. asuredly for it to be a physical place would be meaningless to the disembodied spirits, likely lacking mind or memory, which seem likely dependent upon physical substance, while awairness, conceivably, might somehow not be, we, may this likely become, upon the perminent failure of our present physical forms.

it may be a mode of experiencing, and one dependent upon the preferences and perceptions we may have developed in tangable living. even this though, is of course speculation as well.

it is a nice reasurance that such things may await those love and value the calmness and gratification of others, if perhapse also it missess the point, of how we live individually, adding togather with all of us, to create the kind of world we each have to live in, while we're alive in this one.

i'm not saying it has to be all about any one thing either, this heavin bussiness, but i'm afraid if you want to know what he had in mind, you'd probably have to hop in your little time machines and go ask him.

we do have somewhat more explicit more recent revelations that may shed some valid and legitimate light.

to anyone who is truly curious, i would highly recomend exploring them.

=^^=
.../\...

Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the only way to Heaven?
and
Do you believe that anyone who is not a Christian, ie atheist or someone of another faith, will go to Hell?


1.Question unanswerable. There is no Heaven.
2.Question unanswerable. There in no Hell.

Short answer? No.

Long answer? Why would I want to get to heaven?

I hear that Mother Theresa and Gandhi were actually rather shitty people. The former gathered people together and let them die painfully because suffering brings one closer to Christ(or so she said) and the latter was a total racist(he claimed, IMS, that the life goal of black people is to leech off welfare and have kids).

Or so I hear.

But assuming that these were actually good people, then from a Christian point of view, worshipping them would be a rather bad thing. First Commandment and all that. Emulating them would be a better idea.

I should probably note that I'm not actually a Christian, I was just raised one.

Why would I want to get to heaven?

Bragging rights?

Long answer? Why would I want to get to heaven?Well, supposedly it is the place one would be happiest; or something to that effect. Would you not want to be in the place you'd be happiest?
On the other hand, I can imagine there's alternative views of heaven, like a place you can grovel at God's feet for eternity; in which case, I don't really see the appeal either; not unless she has very pretty feet and it'll make me very happy to grovel at them..

Bragging rights?

I got those anyway :D

Well, supposedly it is the place one would be happiest; or something to that effect. Would you not want to be in the place you'd be happiest?
On the other hand, I can imagine there's alternative views of heaven, like a place you can grovel at God's feet for eternity; in which case, I don't really see the appeal either; not unless she has very pretty feet and it'll make me very happy to grovel at them..

Well, if heaven has blackjack and hookers...

Well, supposedly it is the place one would be happiest; or something to that effect. Would you not want to be in the place you'd be happiest?
On the other hand, I can imagine there's alternative views of heaven, like a place you can grovel at God's feet for eternity; in which case, I don't really see the appeal either; not unless she has very pretty feet and it'll make me very happy to grovel at them..

For eternity? No. Happiness only makes you happy when it's temporary.

And I actually assumed heaven as in the groveling and praising and all that... not my cup of tea, really.

We're not supposed to ENCOURAGE trolls. Is it lonely up there in your ivory tower? *sobs*

:confused:

The vast majority of religious threads I have ever seen on NSG turns into a bunch of Atheist/Antitheist posters ragging on and on ad nauseam about how bad religion is, how dumb believers are, and how superior Atheism is.

Then you haven't been reading any of them in a while.

Do you think that worshipping one of them and/or emulating them will increasde your chance of spending time in a pleasant afterlife?

(give Atma time to put up a poll...)

I don't believe in heaven, however worshipping them certainly wouldn't get you into heaven since that would almost definitely fall under the heading of "worshipping false gods" which is a big no-no according to the bible. As far as emulating them, well they both did a lot of good, on the other hand the also both had many flaws.

Mother Theresa was a cruel person who if such a Heaven existed does not deserve to go to.

For eternity? No. Happiness only makes you happy when it's temporary.Well, it needn't provide continuous happiness to count as the place you'd be happiest, I think. Maybe take the average, or set a maximum for the misery punctuating the happiness, or something to that effect.

Well, if heaven has blackjack and hookers...Well, if it didn't, that would be hell wouldn't it ;)
And it must certainly have broadband internet as well..

Why would I want to get to heaven?
I'm sure God is capable of designing heaven to be a suitable environment for humans. The common descriptions of heaven where likely written by stoners rather than people who have actually been to heaven so pay no attention to them.

To the op, doing good could help but it's not the amount of good you do that counts, it's your motives/attitude. If you do it to be rewarded, for example to make others like you and think you are a great person then it won't help. If you genuinely want to do what you can to help others regardless of if you receive any reward or not then that attitude helps.
"Be careful not to do your 'acts of righteousness' before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.

"So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

Some people think of heaven as an eternal paradise inhabited after death - I'll leave the definition of "paradise" to the individual. Some people think that heaven is a blissful state of being that can be achieved in life. The ways to get to either comprise large portions of many religious teachings; suffering, selfless acts, faith, obedience, prayer and penance are a few of those ways.
Mother Theresa and Mahatma Ghandi were following the teachings of their respective religions, so if you emulate them, you, too, are following the teachings of their religions. If you believe heaven is achievable, either before or after death, it might be best to follow the teachings of your own religion.

why would anyone consider worshipping dead people?

I don't believe in the after-life-heaven kind of thing, so whatever. Ghandi was a Hindu, wasn't he? So I don't think he believed in that kind of heaven, either. Not much saint-worship potential there. I believe Mother Theresa is up for sainthood, isn't she? But that's only relevant to Catholics, so whatever, again.

If one wishes to be a good person, I suppose it's a good idea to emulate people who one considers to be good and/or to have done good things -- like the way Dr. King emulated Ghandi by preaching and exemplifying non-violence in civil resistance.

You know, to be honest, it kind of pisses me off when I hear people bitching that the notable figures of history weren't as nice as some people think they are, so that means they're not worth admiring. Frankly, that's just nitpicking bullshit, imo. Let's get real here -- nobody cares about the actual real human beings behind the "notable figures." What matters in whether a notable figure is admirable or not is whether he/she really did what they are credited with doing and did it in the way and for the reasons it is said they did. What they were like when they were not doing those things is totally irrelevant because that's not what they are famous for.

For instance, I don't care if Mahatma Ghandi was a racist, sexist, boozing horn-dog with a gambling problem. He actually did what he is famous for, didn't he? He was instrumental in gaining independence for India, and he did it by non-violent civil disobedience instead of violent insurrection, which in India, is pretty fucking remarkable. He proved, once and for all, that non-violent resistance gets results. If anyone is going to say that the fact that he wasn't also the perfect embodiment of Jesus, Buddha, and the Easter Bunny all rolled into one somehow negates that accomplishment or means that his example of how to do non-violent resistance is not worth following, I'm going to call bullshit on that. I'd call BS on it for two reasons: (1) that non-violence advances the civility part of civilization and is far better for society than violence; and (2) that Ghandi's experiment was repeated successfully by both Dr. King in the US and Vaclav Havel, the Charter 77 group and countless other Czechs and Slovaks in the former Czechoslovakia. So obviously, the fact that Ghandi didn't universally love everyone did not mean that his political tactics were not useful. (Btw, King and Havel don't qualify as angels in human form, either, but so what?)

Now if a person didn't really do what they're famous for, or didn't really practice what they preached, that's a different story. For instance, my opinon on Mother Theresa is not settled because I hear so many conflicting reports of her. The reports that bitch about her various private comments or thoughts don't interest me, but I am interested in how she actually treated the people under her care, and whether her actions really produced the results she is credited with, whether she really improved people's lives according to the people themselves. If yes, then I'd say she deserves admiration as an example of the value of caring about others. If not -- if she was a hypocrite, or even just a failure -- then she doesn't deserve any credit and is just a propaganda poster-girl for the Catholic Church.

However, that is not to say that there is no value in caring about other people. There are plenty of other historical examples of that to emulate. We don't need Mother Theresa in particular.

The bottom line is this: If you want to get into heaven, and you believe that rejecting violence and working to care for others will get you there, then by all means, emulate people who have done those things. But don't forget that they were just people like you and no more perfect than you are. If they could do it, with all their imperfections, then you have no excuse not to try to do it, too.

why would anyone consider worshipping dead people?

Hahaha! And thus we have proof that Ashmoria is truly 100% not religiously inclined. :D Ancestor worship (the worship of dead people) is arguably the oldest form of religion in the world, among all of humanity. The whole concept of worship relies on having something you care about so much and consider so overwhelmingly important that you just have to show how you feel about it, somehow. And I ask you -- what do people care about, what is more important to people, than people? If anyone is going to worship anything, human beings seem somehow, to me, the least wacky idols we could pick. At least you can point to Mahatma Ghandi's career as your reason for deifying or beatifying him, which is a shitload more than can be said about most gods, idols, angels, etc.

You know, a lot of the time, worshippers don't even wait for the idol to be dead before starting up the worship. :D

Neither worshipping them nor emulating them will help someone reach heaven. It’s mercy and grace through Jesus Christ alone, and no one will be found worthy on their own accord. We are completely incapable of reaching heaven on our own.

As to what heaven is like…

Psalm 16:11
You make known to me the path of life;
in your presence there is fullness of joy;
at your right hand are pleasures forevermore.

Matthew 5:12
"for your reward in heaven is great"

Matthew 8:10-12
"And I say to you, that many shall come from east and west, and recline at table with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven;"

Matthew 22:4
"Behold, I have prepared my dinner; my oxen and my fattened livestock are all butchered and everything is ready; come to the wedding feast"

Ephesians 1:17-2318
…that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of him, having the eyes of your hearts enlightened, that you may know what is the hope to which he has called you, what are the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints, and what is the immeasurable greatness of his power toward us who believe, according to the working of his great might that he worked in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come. And he put all things under his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all.

Heaven is described as a place where you reach your ultimate potential for goodness, happiness, righteousness, a feast with the best food, the best company and the best atmosphere with no ending time on the schedule…for everyone there "are like angels in heaven" (Matthew 22:30).

N
Heaven is described as a place where you reach your ultimate potential for goodness, happiness, righteousness...

I'd become bored in an everlasting Godlywood party, filled with "wonderful people" who are eating and feasting and partying and singing all the time. Also, if you reach the ultimate potential, there is no hope for change, for better (I would have reached *my* ultimate potential, not the *absolute* or someone else's potential) or for worse. Yeech.

I'd become bored in an everlasting Godlywood party, filled with "wonderful people" who are eating and feasting and partying and singing all the time. Also, if you reach the ultimate potential, there is no hope for change, for better (I would have reached *my* ultimate potential, not the *absolute* or someone else's potential) or for worse. Yeech.

It's funny that you think a perfected person would be capable of becoming bored...

It's funny that you think a perfected person would be capable of becoming bored...

So when you go to heaven you become a completely different person?

It's funny that you think a perfected person would be capable of becoming bored...
Of course they would. Boredom is a force for motivating a change in action; the human mind's equivilent to the Stack Overflow. It would be a poor human indeed that when confronted with an endless cycle of unproductive and unfulfilling work would not seek to change direction.

In other news, objective Perfection is an imaginary construct.

So when you go to heaven you become a completely different person?

Why would you think that? If I have a broken statue, or a torn or unfinished painting, or an antique car in my garage that is in the process of being 'repaired,' if I could fix and perfect them they would still be a statue, painting or car, as the case may be, just perfected, not changed.

Why would you think that? If I have a broken statue, or a torn or unfinished painting, or an antique car in my garage that is in the process of being 'repaired,' if I could fix and perfect them they would still be a statue, painting or car, as the case may be, just perfected, not changed.

How can you 'perfect' a person without changing them?

Of course they would. Boredom is a force for motivating a change in action; the human mind's equivilent to the Stack Overflow. It would be a poor human indeed that when confronted with an endless cycle of unproductive and unfulfilling work would not seek to change direction.

In other news, objective Perfection is an imaginary construct.

An endless cycle of unproductive and unfulfilling work is YOUR description, not something I said. You are attacking your own assumptions, not my post. If a person is perfected, they will not be unproductive and unfulfilling in the things they do... Your imagination is your limit. Boredom occurs when there is little interest or involvement in a situation or circumstances, that situation will not occur in the Heaven described elsewhere.

How can you 'perfect' a person without changing them?

I just told you. Fixing my broken bike makes it a perfected bike, not a different bike.

Then you haven't been reading any of them in a while.

I've been reading them far longer then you have, friend.

I just told you. Fixing my broken bike makes it a perfected bike, not a different bike.

No you didn't, fixing an inanimate object simply deals with eliminating physical defects. How do you take away emotional or psychological 'defects' without changing who the person is?

I've been reading them far longer then you have, friend.

And I say again, obviously you haven't been reading them in a while.
For the most part since I came back to NSG the religious threads that I have taken part in have been very cordial, and with the exception of a couple of posters there haven't been attacks on people's belief.
The exception to this is when people make the claim that they can prove some portion of their belief when in fact there is no way to do so.

No you didn't, fixing an inanimate object simply deals with eliminating physical defects. How do you take away emotional or psychological 'defects' without changing who the person is?

Take away the defects. That's the operative word... Emotional defects are no different than physical defects.

If you're changing your position from you become a completely different person?, to, 'any modification, including the elimination of 'broken' things, is change', then okay. I disagree with the prior, as I've already shown, and the later is true. The 'defects', emotional and otherwise, are removed/repaired.

An endless cycle of unproductive and unfulfilling work is YOUR description, not something I said. You are attacking your own assumptions, not my post. If a person is perfected, they will not be unproductive and unfulfilling in the things they do... Your imagination is your limit. Boredom occurs when there is little interest or involvement in a situation or circumstances, that situation will not occur in the Heaven described elsewhere.
Attacking my own assumptions, indeed.

If you've ever tried to keep a cat amused, you may have noticed that after doing the same thing over and over again without any tangible gain, they just lose interest. The same is true across many levels in the animal kingdom; even Dogs get bored just sitting around the house.

Boredom serves a purpose. That's what I was pointing out. It doesn't matter whether that function is ever utilised - for someone to be strong, they need to be able to realise when what they're doing isn't making any difference.

What you're talking about isn't making humans any better. What you're talking about is an environment where positive and negative qualities of personality are rendered useless. And personally, I find that a lot more scary than the idea of not existing any more.

Take away the defects. That's the operative word... Emotional defects are no different than physical defects.
We have a word for this sort of attitude to the human being.

Eugenics.

And I say again, obviously you haven't been reading them in a while.
For the most part since I came back to NSG the religious threads that I have taken part in have been very cordial, and with the exception of a couple of posters there haven't been attacks on people's belief.
The exception to this is when people make the claim that they can prove some portion of their belief when in fact there is no way to do so.

There is nothing cordial about these threads. Nothing. It always ends up in the exact same positions, rehashing the exact same arguements, the same posters making the same attacks, and nothing changing.

{snip}

What you are describing is not perfect, nor perfected people, is it? Then what you describe in your redefining of what I described, is not equal, is it?

If something is 'perfected' then there will be no boredom, there will not be 'uselessness and unfulfillingness' in it's existence. Everything would be fully functioning and fulfilling and boredom would serve no purpose...

We have a word for this sort of attitude to the human being.

Eugenics.

I would say it is closer to Medical Doctors and Psychiatrists... People who try to help you put things where they are supposed to be and where they work best...

I'm sure God is capable of designing heaven to be a suitable environment for humans. The common descriptions of heaven where likely written by stoners rather than people who have actually been to heaven so pay no attention to them.



That doesn't really answer my question : Why would I want to go to heaven?

What you are describing is not perfect, nor perfected people, is it? Then what you describe in your redefining of what I described, is not equal, is it?

If something is 'perfected' then there will be no boredom, there will not be 'uselessness and unfulfillingness' in it's existence. Everything would be fully functioning and fulfilling and boredom would serve no purpose...
But you're talking about a "perfect circumstance", not "perfect people". The person still retains all their built-in flaws and insecurities - they're just never expressed or called upon. Someone who gets bored easily is still someone who gets bored easily even in a dynamic and feature-filled fairground where they aren't currently bored. A gambling addict is still a gambling addict even if he's not currently at a casino or bookmaker's. A sociopath is still a sociopath if they live in seclusion in a house in the woods.

Providing an environment where people don't get bored is not changing anything about the people themselves. It's just nullifying personality. A "perfect" person, if such a thing exists, doesn't need to have such restrictions of circumstance in order to thrive. If you're a perfect person, it's okay if useless or unfulfilling things exist - you'll know how to deal with it, or even improve things. For a perfect person, it's okay if not everything is fully functioning - you can help to make it work again.

The ideal world is not a bubble, clean and clinical and free of potentially damaging factors. The ideal world is one where potentially damaging factors are positive and constructive contributions to it.

It's funny that you think a perfected person would be capable of becoming bored...

You know, the mere thought of perfection implies infinite boredom.

You know, the mere thought of perfection implies infinite boredom.

The mere thought of perfection through the lens of an imperfect mind and flawed imagination, could imply the possibility of boredom. But if it's boring, it's not perfect, is it... the misconception that perfect might be boring disproves itself.

Take away the defects. That's the operative word... Emotional defects are no different than physical defects.

If you're changing your position from you become a completely different person?, to, 'any modification, including the elimination of 'broken' things, is change', then okay. I disagree with the prior, as I've already shown, and the later is true. The 'defects', emotional and otherwise, are removed/repaired.

And if you take away all of a person's idiosyncracies then they are no longer the same person.

The mere thought of perfection through the lens of an imperfect mind and flawed imagination, could imply the possibility of boredom. But if it's boring, it's not perfect, is it... the misconception that perfect might be boring disproves itself.

Speaking as an artist, give me imperfection any day. They're what make things interesting.

There is nothing cordial about these threads. Nothing. It always ends up in the exact same positions, rehashing the exact same arguements, the same posters making the same attacks, and nothing changing.

So nobody in this thread has been cordial? Point out one instance of an 'attack' on somebody.
A perfect example of how this is remaining cordial is the exchange between Baldy and myself, we disagree completely and yet neither one of us is the least bit hostile.

So nobody in this thread has been cordial? Point out one instance of an 'attack' on somebody.
A perfect example of how this is remaining cordial is the exchange between Baldy and myself, we disagree completely and yet neither one of us is the least bit hostile.

Not this thread as of yet. But I believe it will get there in good time.

Speaking as an artist, give me imperfection any day. They're what make things interesting.

Then that would be your 'perfection.' If you describe perfection and its not perfect, then it's not an accurate description of perfection.

Then that would be your 'perfection.' If you describe perfection and its not perfect, then it's not an accurate description of perfection.

My perfection is imperfection?
*lol You have to be religious to be able to bend your brains like that! :D

And if you take away all of a person's idiosyncracies then they are no longer the same person.

My car with a scratch.... scratch removed/fixed, my car still, now better.

My person with a flaw (short tempered, a bad attitude etc.,)... my person with the flaw repaired, fixed, still me, now better.

Not this thread as of yet. But I believe it will get there in good time.

Oh, I have no doubts that there will be certain posters who if/when they find this thread will attack the people on the other side of the issue for "being to stupid" to agree with them, but that is the exception to the rule lately.

When I was on before, I'd have to say the was a greater number of 'confrontational' posters, hell I was one of them.

My perfection is imperfection?
*lol You have to be religious to be able to bend your brains like that! :D

You described your own perfection. You said what you wanted better, not I. I'm not trying to tell you how to describe your perfection.

Then that would be your 'perfection.' If you describe perfection and its not perfect, then it's not an accurate description of perfection.Maybe there can be no perfection?

You described your own perfection. You said what you wanted better, not I. I'm not trying to tell you how to describe your perfection.

I didn't describe what I wanted better. I said that perfection is stagnation, boredom, standstill, unimprovable, unchangeable. Therefore, boring.

You then turned around and claimed that for me, imperfection would equal perfection, which, frankly, is nonsense.

I didn't describe what I wanted better. I said that perfection is stagnation, boredom, standstill, unimprovable, unchangeable. Therefore, boring.

Then clearly the perfection you are 'thinking of' when you use that word then is NOT in fact perfect to you.

You then turned around and claimed that for me, imperfection would equal perfection, which, frankly, is nonsense.

If you say so. Why you think what is perfect for someone is the same perfect that is for everyone else is beyond me. Seems like a lack of imagination on your part.

I said that perfection is stagnation, boredom, standstill, unimprovable, unchangeable. Therefore, boring.And therefore imperfect.
So either a different concept of perfection is needed (one that allows for flaws and change), or perfection cannot exist.

Maybe there can be no perfection?

'define' the word perfection.

Then clearly the perfection you are 'thinking of' when you use that word then is NOT in fact perfect to you.

If you say so. Why you think what is perfect for someone is the same perfect that is for everyone else is beyond me. Seems like a lack of imagination on your part.

Well, perfection in the normal sense refers to things that can no longer be improved.
I've got no idea what definition of "perfect" you are using here now, though.

Well, perfection in the normal sense refers to things that can no longer be improved.
I've got no idea what definition of "perfect" you are using here now, though.


The perfected you, the perfect place in Heaven, for you...

'define' the word perfection.

Perfection
1: the quality or state of being perfect: as
_____a: freedom from fault or defect : flawlessness
_____c: the quality or state of being saintly

My car with a scratch.... scratch removed/fixed, my car still, now better.
Is it really better? Maybe that scratch on my car was put there as part of a rare manufacturing process, and it symbolises the car's uniqueness? Or maybe it got there because my future wife bumped into me and that was how we first got to know each other?

Removing bad things involves removing good things too. If perfection is simply the elimination of negatives, then the only possible perfection is the void of total nonexistence.

'define' the word perfection.Yes, that's kind of the problem. Is there a consistent definition of perfection possible?
For example, defining perfection as "without flaws" does not work if this 'flawlessness' leads to the flaw of being boring.

Is it really better? Maybe that scratch on my car was put there as part of a rare manufacturing process, and it symbolises the car's uniqueness? Or maybe it got there because my future wife bumped into me and that was how we first got to know each other?

Removing bad things involves removing good things too. If perfection is simply the elimination of negatives, then the only possible perfection is the void of total nonexistence.

Then your perfect car has a scratch in it... What makes you think it can't be provided that way if that's what makes it better for you?

EDIT: perfect may, or may not, be 'finished'. As in, a perfect car may be one that requires hours and hours of labor beacuse a person likes to work on cars. But it won't be too much work and it won't be too little...

Yes, that's kind of the problem. Is there a consistent definition of perfection possible?
For example, defining perfection as "without flaws" does not work if this 'flawlessness' leads to the flaw of being boring.

Why does it have to be consistent definition for everyone? If the description of Heaven is perfect, then it is perfect.

Perfection
1: the quality or state of being perfect: as
_____a: freedom from fault or defect : flawlessness
_____c: the quality or state of being saintly

I'll go with the assumption that it is "C: the quality or state of being saintly" that applies to Heaven's perfection.

Then your perfect car has a scratch in it... What makes you think it can't be provided that way if that's what makes it better for you?
Because said scratch is also ugly, it draws attention from passing motorists and it makes my side door rattle. I've also been pulled over by the police a few times.

My perfect car has that exact scratch on it. It has to; that's what makes it special. But my perfect car also does not have that scratch on it. It can't; it's poor aesthetics and construction interfere with the car's function.

You see what I'm getting at? There is no way such a car can exist. Not even in my immense doublethink can I envisage a car which both has and lacks the scratch. You can't have your cake and eat it.

Because said scratch is also ugly, it draws attention from passing motorists and it makes my side door rattle. I've also been pulled over by the police a few times.

My perfect car has that exact scratch on it. It has to; that's what makes it special. But my perfect car also does not have that scratch on it. It can't; it's poor aesthetics and construction interfere with the car's function.

You see what I'm getting at? There is no way such a car can exist. Not even in my immense doublethink can I envisage a car which both has and lacks the scratch. You can't have your cake and eat it.

Yes you can. I eat the cake I bake.

Yes you can. I eat the cake I bake.
But once you've eaten it, it's gone.

Why does it have to be consistent definition for everyone?It doesn't; but if for any person there is not a consistent definition (or at least concept) of perfection, then perfection does not exist for that person. Whether you look at it from a universalist or relativist point of view is irrelevant.

sorry, don't follow mythology, prefer reality.

It doesn't; but if for any person there is not a consistent definition (or at least concept) of perfection, then perfection does not exist for that person. Whether you look at it from a universalist or relativist point of view is irrelevant.

I see no reason that 'perfection' has to be rigid, it could very well be fluid.

But once you've eaten it, it's gone.

Only when you've had enough and you're full ;)

I see no reason that 'perfection' has to be rigid, it could very well be fluid.It may well be fluid, but that still doesn't allow inconsistency. If one's concept of perfection makes contrary demands, it cannot be achieved.

It may well be fluid, but that still doesn't allow inconsistency. If one's concept of perfection makes contrary demands, it cannot be achieved.

If one's concept of perfection makes contrary demands, the concept could be flawed and be fixed during the perfection and removing the contradicting desire... e.g., a desire for a perfect world for person A is one where so-and-so person B is dead. The provided perfect world is one that solves that dilemma and could be; one where the desire for person B to be dead is removed from Person A's concept of perfect, person B does not need to be dead.

The provided perfect world is one that solves that dilemma and could be; one where the desire for person B to be dead is removed from Person A's concept of perfect, person B does not need to be dead.
Eugenics and brainwashing. It gets better and better.

I'll go with the assumption that it is "C: the quality or state of being saintly" that applies to Heaven's perfection.

That does actually seem to be the most appropriate definition for perfect when pertaining to heaven.

If one's concept of perfection makes contrary demands, the concept could be flawed and be fixed during the perfection and removing the contradicting desire... e.g., a desire for a perfect world for person A is one where so-and-so person B is dead. The provided perfect world is one that solves that dilemma and could be; one where the desire for person B to be dead is removed from Person A's concept of perfect, person B does not need to be dead.Eugenics and brainwashing. It gets better and better.

I have to agree with Kams here, for it to be perfect you have to change people from who they are for the perfection to be workable?

I have to agree with Kams here, for it to be perfect you have to change people from who they are for the perfection to be workable?

Are Christians now trying to redefine "perfect" so their religion can continue to claim to be perfect?

Are Christians now trying to redefine "perfect" so their religion can continue to claim to be perfect?

Baldy certainly seems to be...

Baldy certainly seems to be...

Not in the least suprising.

Not in the least suprising.

No, unfortunately it isn't...
Baldy generally starts out doing a good job of defending his position, but all to often he falls back on circular reasoning, which really is a shame.

No, unfortunately it isn't...
Baldy generally starts out doing a good job of defending his position, but all to often he falls back on circular reasoning, which really is a shame.

Lets see who's position is circular. The argument against a perfect heaven is that for some people they don't want 'perfect.' Thus, they don't want to go there because it's not good enough for them. So perfect isn't good enough? The definition of heaven is flawed if they think perfect isn't perfect

So who's using circular logic? It's those that say perfect isn't good enough ...

Lets see who's position is circular. The argument against a perfect heaven is that for some people they don't want 'perfect.' Thus, they don't want to go there because it's not good enough for them. So perfect isn't good enough? The definition of heaven is flawed if they think perfect isn't perfect

So who's using circular logic? It's those that say perfect isn't good enough ...

I was actually referring to your 'perfect person' reasoning.

As to the "I don't want to go their because it's 'perfect'" that is to me rather silly.

You've been running in circles trying to explain to me how it is possible to change a person's personality (i.e. taking away any 'imperfections') without changing who the person is.
Admittedly the fault on that might be with me just not getting what you are saying.
Finally, I singled you out primarily because I like debating with you, your arguments are invariably well thought out, regardless of whether I agree with them or not, which quite frankly I almost never do.

I was actually referring to your 'perfect person' reasoning.

As to the "I don't want to go their because it's 'perfect'" that is to me rather silly.

You've been running in circles trying to explain to me how it is possible to change a person's personality (i.e. taking away any 'imperfections') without changing who the person is.
Admittedly the fault on that might be with me just not getting what you are saying.
Finally, I singled you out primarily because I like debating with you, your arguments are invariably well thought out, regardless of whether I agree with them or not, which quite frankly I almost never do.


Ah, very well then. I got caught up with the other half of the perfect debate and didn't realize you were talking about removing the flaws of the person aspect. My bad. ;)

Ah, very well then. I got caught up with the other half of the perfect debate and didn't realize you were talking about removing the flaws of the person aspect. My bad. ;)

No problem, you're debating with several different people at the same time (and about different aspects of the 'problem'), it can make things a bit confusing at times.

No and no.

To respond to the OP:

Westminster Confession of Faith
Chapter IX Article III. Man, by his fall into a state of sin, has wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation: so as, a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.

Chapter XIV Article II. By this faith, a Christian believes to be true whatsoever is revealed in the Word, for the authority of God Himself speaking therein; and acts differently upon that which each particular passage thereof contains; yielding obedience to the commands, trembling at the threatenings, and embracing the promises of God for this life, and that which is to come. But the principal acts of saving faith are accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace.

Chapter XXV Article II. The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.

Canons of Drodtrecht
Second Head of Doctrine, Rejection of Errors V. [to be rejected are those] Who teach that all people have been received into the state of reconciliation and into the grace of the covenant, so that no one on account of original sin is liable to condemnation, or is to be condemned, but that all are free from the guilt of this sin.

For this opinion conflicts with Scripture which asserts that we are by nature children of wrath.

The perfected you, the perfect place in Heaven, for you...

There is no perfected me. Keep that place in heaven for someone else.

There is no perfected me. Keep that place in heaven for someone else.

Sure there is...
You're running around in it now...
:D

*woosh*

That's my point going right over your head.

The way I see it, NS religion threads consist primarily of people who don't believe in a God meeting other people that don't believe in a God and saying "hurr, we is teh smartz. God should GTFO and STFU, hurrr". Surely we have better things to besides engage in a big penis contest over who hates the idea of God the most.

Just my observation.
:rolleyes:
I knew what you were on about, i hoped to distract you from generall bitterness. It doesn't appear to have worked.

you could say why bother posting on the internet anyway? not merely religion but all sorts of topics.

EDIT: to OP where's the -other- option? there could simply be no heaven or hell at all.

:rolleyes:
I knew what you were on about, i hoped to distract you from generall bitterness. It doesn't appear to have worked.

you could say why bother posting on the internet anyway? not merely religion but all sorts of topics.

EDIT: to OP where's the -other- option? there could simply be no heaven or hell at all.

No other option because the question was directed at people who do believe in heaven and/or hell.

No other option because the question was directed at people who do believe in heaven and/or hell.

That means I´m safe. I only believe in Candyland or Lalaland.:cool:

That means I´m safe. I only believe in Candyland or Lalaland.:cool:

:D

:confused:

I'm really surprised i haven't been reprimanded more often for that.

I'm really surprised i haven't been reprimanded more often for that.

I'm still confused...

Sure there is...
You're running around in it now...
:D

*lol

All the more reason why I don't need heaven ;)

...
You've been running in circles trying to explain to me how it is possible to change a person's personality (i.e. taking away any 'imperfections') without changing who the person is.

Admittedly the fault on that might be with me just not getting what you are saying.

I’m not convinced that you don’t understand what I’m saying, you may simply be disagreeing with it. But with the chance that I haven’t explained my position well enough, I’ll try one last analogy and be done with it, knowing that we disagree.

Examining how to perfect a person without ‘changing’ them seems to require an analogy of something else, so I’ll try a hypothetical… Lets take smoking as an example.

(For the sake of this let us proceed from the position that smoking cigarettes is a vice here on earth)

Before Perfection Smoking Causes:
Addiction (loss of choice)
Clogging of lungs and loss of breath and lowering of overall health.
Potential cancer and other diseases
Bad smell on the person and the place the activity occurs
Dirty ash and smoke stains or small holes in clothes and seats etc.,
Fire hazard safety
Annoyance to others

After Perfection:
Smoking causes no addiction so a person always has a choice, no clogging of the lungs or health problems, no cancer no diseases, no lingering bad smells or ash or stains or cigarettes holes, no fire hazard and no annoyance to others…

God’s perfection would remove the negatives and leave everything else. Nothing good is changed, smoking is still smoking. In the same way a person’s traits and personality doesn’t need to be altered or changed to become perfected either, only the negative aspects of their personhood are removed. Death, post traumatic shock, sadness, depression, hopelessness etc., and even boredom (as others around here seem to be so afraid of), are things that wouldn’t exist in a perfected person in Heaven.

(I’m not saying people or angels smoke in Heaven, I would have no idea, God could simply remove the desire to smoke instead of perfecting it, I’m just using it as an example of a multifaceted behavior that people like to do but causes problems and could be ‘perfected’)

God’s perfection would remove the negatives and leave everything else.
The thing is that what is good and what is bad is dependent entirely upon God's subjective interpretation. For all you know, God might like having chain-smoking addicts around who could be predictably manipulable, or might enjoy watching things burn for the pretty colours.

What if I disagree with God? What if I like something that he doesn't? It gets eliminated, and my vision of perfection is lost. If I feel that is a fault, that aspect of my personality that thinks differently is lost. If I dislike that, then the aspect of my personality that values a difference in opinion is lost too.

You see? Anything about me that disagrees with God gets wiped out. It's not a question of "good and bad", but one of "submission and dissent", and those aspects of who I am that value and embrace dissent (which is an important part of my world view) get eliminated.

"For what is a man advantaged, if he gain the whole world, and lose himself, or be cast away?" (Luke 9:25)

...snip...
"For what is a man advantaged, if he gain the whole world, and lose himself, or be cast away?" (Luke 9:25)

That's a very good verse. Now consider where you got it from, you got it from the same source that tells us that God values us as individuals and our individuality. Now imagine a reason why God would implant in us a desire to know ourselves and to value our individuality if God only intended to change us into something other than ourselves later? Why would we lose our personalities he took so much effort to build? We would not.

Romans 5:1-5
Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God. More than that, we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, and hope does not put us to shame, because God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us.

There we see that God builds up our individual Character, not wanting to destroy it or remove it, but to grow it...

Philippians 4:4-9
Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, Rejoice. Let your reasonableness be known to everyone. The Lord is at hand; do not be anxious about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.

Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. What you have learned and received and heard and seen in me—practice these things, and the God of peace will be with you.

And here we see what we should think of, God is good, not some alien version of good, but a good we recognize as good.

God's salvation brings peace. God's grace brings acceptance. God's hope brings joy.

That's a very good verse. Now consider where you got it from, you got it from the same source that tells us that God values us as individuals and our individuality. Now imagine a reason why God would implant in us a desire to know ourselves and to value our individuality if God only intended to change us into something other than ourselves later? Why would we lose our personalities he took so much effort to build? We would not.
We don't, we're group animals, we want to belong to a group.

Anyway, I alwayse ask "Why would it?"

Perhaps you should ask for a refund from that Lobotomy.

You seriously can't believe that. The vast majority of religious threads I have ever seen on NSG turns into a bunch of Atheist/Antitheist posters ragging on and on ad nauseam about how bad religion is, how dumb believers are, and how superior Atheism is. It goes on and on and on with no end in sight. These threads are utterly pointless when there is no counterpoint. And there is no serious counterpoint to be had on this forum.

Having skimmed through this thread I've seen plenty of reasonable, civil discussion from people on both sides of the debate. There have been a few 'one-liners', but nothing aggressive. Most of the vitriol on this thread seems to be coming from you, and I've yet to see anything which is as hostile or as abusive as your opening post:

The way I see it, NS religion threads consist primarily of people who don't believe in a God meeting other people that don't believe in a God and saying "hurr, we is teh smartz. God should GTFO and STFU, hurrr". Surely we have better things to besides engage in a big penis contest over who hates the idea of God the most.

or your suggestion that I should "ask for a refund from that Lobotomy".

Don't you find it ironic that most of the accusations of stupidity, claims of intellectual superiority and general wanking on this thread are coming from you?

Now imagine a reason why God would implant in us a desire to know ourselves and to value our individuality if God only intended to change us into something other than ourselves later? Why would we lose our personalities he took so much effort to build? We would not.
What you've been suggesting is that God intends to clean out that which is "bad". If, indeed, there is something innate within the human existence that is a deviation from "goodness", as neither of us would question for the purpose of this discussion, then there is no way that you can remove that trait without removing something fundamentally human from a person's character.

So I agree with your question's relevance and importance. Why, indeed, would God give personality only to take it away? What is the point of putting us through life if in the end we're only going to be that which is "Good" in the eyes of God anyway?

There are many different ways of understanding God that resolve this question; of that I don't doubt. What I do doubt is that its resolution is in removing qualities from people, even if these qualities are perceived as "negative".

No other option because the question was directed at people who do believe in heaven and/or hell.

oh. i forgot about that bit. you got me there.

oh. i forgot about that bit. you got me there.

You're right though, I probably should have included a "I don't believe in heaven or hell option" if nothing else it would have given me a real option for voting in my own poll.

You're right though, I probably should have included a "I don't believe in heaven or hell option" if nothing else it would have given me a real option for voting in my own poll.

Godamn it! you always have to disagree with me, i say have an option you say no it's only for certain people, then i say oh well maybe you were right, then you say no no there should have been an option!

a bit of a circle no?
:p

Godamn it! you always have to disagree with me, i say have an option you say no it's only for certain people, then i say oh well maybe you were right, then you say no no there should have been an option!

a bit of a circle no?
:p

No
It's a complete one...
;)

No
It's a complete one...
;)
no it's....
:mad::rolleyes::eek::p
I will get you back for this, don't you worry about that.

Who wants to go to heaven anyways? The rents are outrageous.