Why are heaven or hell the only options

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You have to come to a conclusion about what you think is actually true. Otherwise, you are just making things up in your head.

For me, after exploring different religions and systems of belief, I came to the conclusion that Christianity was most likely to be true — not 100% convinced, but at the same confidence level that I make any other important life decision (which is always less than 100%).

Hell is one of the Christian doctrines that makes the most sense to me. If there is no hell at all, no final judgment, then there is really no basis for any moral obligation. We can just act however we want, no matter how terrible or cruel it is. The current occupant of the White House is exhibit A of the horrible place where this leads. That way of looking at the world doesn’t seem like any way to live.

Also, trying to “delete” hell from Christianity is a very western way of looking at the world. People living in oppressive regimes care a lot more about a God of justice making things right in the end than a God who just loves everyone.

Religion makes much more sense when you see it as a way to control people.

Is the only reason you don't harm your friend because of God? Or because you are intelligent enough to recognize harm and decided it was bad?

Why is it “bad”? How you even define “harm”? There can be plenty of things that you might do to your friend that they may consider “harmful,” but you may not. Where do you even begin to draw these lines?

The entire premise of your answer is based on a moral value judgment. If there is no God, then there really cannot be these categories of “good” and “bad.” If all that ever happened was one day millions of years ago a fish got on the land and we have been evolving ever since — then there really isn’t any moral obligation at all not to “harm your friend.” It is simply a strong eats the weak world - just like the animal kingdom. And all of life is completely and utterly meaningless.

You are free to use this as a reason not to believe in God. But then own the natural endpoint of your argument.

And yet, there is. Think of it as "advantageous to a social species" or not. Some non-human animals help others, even outside of their own species.

If your life only has meaning because you think there is some future supernatural world waiting for you...that's beyond sad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You have to come to a conclusion about what you think is actually true. Otherwise, you are just making things up in your head.

For me, after exploring different religions and systems of belief, I came to the conclusion that Christianity was most likely to be true — not 100% convinced, but at the same confidence level that I make any other important life decision (which is always less than 100%).

Hell is one of the Christian doctrines that makes the most sense to me. If there is no hell at all, no final judgment, then there is really no basis for any moral obligation. We can just act however we want, no matter how terrible or cruel it is. The current occupant of the White House is exhibit A of the horrible place where this leads. That way of looking at the world doesn’t seem like any way to live.

Also, trying to “delete” hell from Christianity is a very western way of looking at the world. People living in oppressive regimes care a lot more about a God of justice making things right in the end than a God who just loves everyone.

Religion makes much more sense when you see it as a way to control people.

Is the only reason you don't harm your friend because of God? Or because you are intelligent enough to recognize harm and decided it was bad?

Why is it “bad”? How you even define “harm”? There can be plenty of things that you might do to your friend that they may consider “harmful,” but you may not. Where do you even begin to draw these lines?

The entire premise of your answer is based on a moral value judgment. If there is no God, then there really cannot be these categories of “good” and “bad.” If all that ever happened was one day millions of years ago a fish got on the land and we have been evolving ever since — then there really isn’t any moral obligation at all not to “harm your friend.” It is simply a strong eats the weak world - just like the animal kingdom. And all of life is completely and utterly meaningless.

You are free to use this as a reason not to believe in God. But then own the natural endpoint of your argument.

And yet, there is. Think of it as "advantageous to a social species" or not. Some non-human animals help others, even outside of their own species.

If your life only has meaning because you think there is some future supernatural world waiting for you...that's beyond sad.

And some animals bite each others heads off, literally. What’s your point?

How do you draw the line around your categories of good and bad — “advantageous to a social species” — ? Who says? How is it defined? A little old woman is crossing the street about to hit by a truck she cannot see. Is it “advantageous to a social species” to risk your life to save hers? What if she is very rich and you are very poor? What if she had a large family that relies on her and you have nobody?

Under a pure evolutionary perspective, your origin to life has no meaning — and your ending has no meaning because the sun will just burn up someday — so why does your actually life have any meaning? Why not simply live for yourself and not care too much about the rest of the world?

Your worldview has no moral answers for any of these questions beyond some vaguely defined idea about “how we should act.”

My worldview goes far beyond the supernatural after life — though that’s part of it. My view is that there is a supernatural creator, that we are made in his image, and there is a moral order to the universe that we innately understand as humans — the law of God is written on our hearts as the apostle Paul writes in the Book of Romans. But under this worldview, there are moral obligations, a clear definition of right and wrong, and a strong moral basis for everything that we hold important to us as humans — justice and love.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ridiculous to think that you can only choose between those 2 options once you die.
Surely the other side has multiple options on how to be. With each option having their own leaders and entrance requirements.
There are numerous benefits anyway.

There should be a Medium Place!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You have to come to a conclusion about what you think is actually true. Otherwise, you are just making things up in your head.

For me, after exploring different religions and systems of belief, I came to the conclusion that Christianity was most likely to be true — not 100% convinced, but at the same confidence level that I make any other important life decision (which is always less than 100%).

Hell is one of the Christian doctrines that makes the most sense to me. If there is no hell at all, no final judgment, then there is really no basis for any moral obligation. We can just act however we want, no matter how terrible or cruel it is. The current occupant of the White House is exhibit A of the horrible place where this leads. That way of looking at the world doesn’t seem like any way to live.

Also, trying to “delete” hell from Christianity is a very western way of looking at the world. People living in oppressive regimes care a lot more about a God of justice making things right in the end than a God who just loves everyone.

Religion makes much more sense when you see it as a way to control people.

Is the only reason you don't harm your friend because of God? Or because you are intelligent enough to recognize harm and decided it was bad?

Why is it “bad”? How you even define “harm”? There can be plenty of things that you might do to your friend that they may consider “harmful,” but you may not. Where do you even begin to draw these lines?

The entire premise of your answer is based on a moral value judgment. If there is no God, then there really cannot be these categories of “good” and “bad.” If all that ever happened was one day millions of years ago a fish got on the land and we have been evolving ever since — then there really isn’t any moral obligation at all not to “harm your friend.” It is simply a strong eats the weak world - just like the animal kingdom. And all of life is completely and utterly meaningless.

You are free to use this as a reason not to believe in God. But then own the natural endpoint of your argument.

And yet, there is. Think of it as "advantageous to a social species" or not. Some non-human animals help others, even outside of their own species.

If your life only has meaning because you think there is some future supernatural world waiting for you...that's beyond sad.

And some animals bite each others heads off, literally. What’s your point?

How do you draw the line around your categories of good and bad — “advantageous to a social species” — ? Who says? How is it defined? A little old woman is crossing the street about to hit by a truck she cannot see. Is it “advantageous to a social species” to risk your life to save hers? What if she is very rich and you are very poor? What if she had a large family that relies on her and you have nobody?

Under a pure evolutionary perspective, your origin to life has no meaning — and your ending has no meaning because the sun will just burn up someday — so why does your actually life have any meaning? Why not simply live for yourself and not care too much about the rest of the world?

Your worldview has no moral answers for any of these questions beyond some vaguely defined idea about “how we should act.”

My worldview goes far beyond the supernatural after life — though that’s part of it. My view is that there is a supernatural creator, that we are made in his image, and there is a moral order to the universe that we innately understand as humans — the law of God is written on our hearts as the apostle Paul writes in the Book of Romans. But under this worldview, there are moral obligations, a clear definition of right and wrong, and a strong moral basis for everything that we hold important to us as humans — justice and love.

So this whole fabricated origin story is to fill some need you have for "meaningfulness"? And a set of rules? Seems like a cope for people who can't handle uncertainty.

Right/wrong can all be boiled down to what is advantageous to the survival for our species. It is advantageous for humans (and other species) to help each other; to save each other from harm. Pretty sad that you need some supernatural story to tell you right/wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You have to come to a conclusion about what you think is actually true. Otherwise, you are just making things up in your head.

For me, after exploring different religions and systems of belief, I came to the conclusion that Christianity was most likely to be true — not 100% convinced, but at the same confidence level that I make any other important life decision (which is always less than 100%).

Hell is one of the Christian doctrines that makes the most sense to me. If there is no hell at all, no final judgment, then there is really no basis for any moral obligation. We can just act however we want, no matter how terrible or cruel it is. The current occupant of the White House is exhibit A of the horrible place where this leads. That way of looking at the world doesn’t seem like any way to live.

Also, trying to “delete” hell from Christianity is a very western way of looking at the world. People living in oppressive regimes care a lot more about a God of justice making things right in the end than a God who just loves everyone.

Religion makes much more sense when you see it as a way to control people.

Is the only reason you don't harm your friend because of God? Or because you are intelligent enough to recognize harm and decided it was bad?

Why is it “bad”? How you even define “harm”? There can be plenty of things that you might do to your friend that they may consider “harmful,” but you may not. Where do you even begin to draw these lines?

The entire premise of your answer is based on a moral value judgment. If there is no God, then there really cannot be these categories of “good” and “bad.” If all that ever happened was one day millions of years ago a fish got on the land and we have been evolving ever since — then there really isn’t any moral obligation at all not to “harm your friend.” It is simply a strong eats the weak world - just like the animal kingdom. And all of life is completely and utterly meaningless.

You are free to use this as a reason not to believe in God. But then own the natural endpoint of your argument.

And yet, there is. Think of it as "advantageous to a social species" or not. Some non-human animals help others, even outside of their own species.

If your life only has meaning because you think there is some future supernatural world waiting for you...that's beyond sad.

And some animals bite each others heads off, literally. What’s your point?

How do you draw the line around your categories of good and bad — “advantageous to a social species” — ? Who says? How is it defined? A little old woman is crossing the street about to hit by a truck she cannot see. Is it “advantageous to a social species” to risk your life to save hers? What if she is very rich and you are very poor? What if she had a large family that relies on her and you have nobody?

Under a pure evolutionary perspective, your origin to life has no meaning — and your ending has no meaning because the sun will just burn up someday — so why does your actually life have any meaning? Why not simply live for yourself and not care too much about the rest of the world?

Your worldview has no moral answers for any of these questions beyond some vaguely defined idea about “how we should act.”

My worldview goes far beyond the supernatural after life — though that’s part of it. My view is that there is a supernatural creator, that we are made in his image, and there is a moral order to the universe that we innately understand as humans — the law of God is written on our hearts as the apostle Paul writes in the Book of Romans. But under this worldview, there are moral obligations, a clear definition of right and wrong, and a strong moral basis for everything that we hold important to us as humans — justice and love.

So this whole fabricated origin story is to fill some need you have for "meaningfulness"? And a set of rules? Seems like a cope for people who can't handle uncertainty.

Right/wrong can all be boiled down to what is advantageous to the survival for our species. It is advantageous for humans (and other species) to help each other; to save each other from harm. Pretty sad that you need some supernatural story to tell you right/wrong.

No, I believe the origin story is true because … it is true. It goes back to the first point I made in this thread — you must determine what you think is actually true.

But your second point is *incredibly* naive. First, again, says who? You? It sure sounds like you want people to be nice to each other, therefore, you have come with your own arbitrary rule saying people should be nice to each other. Why? If we all come from fish and there is no actual moral order, why is your rule superior to anyone else’s? Who made you God? What if people don’t want to help each other? Why is that not an equally valid choice under your theory of a complete denial of moral order since everything is simply a social construct?

Beyond that, many many, many times it is *not* advantageous for someone to help somebody else. In fact, many times it is advantageous not to help anyone at all — to eliminate your threats and exploit the weak. And that’s certainly the basis of how the animal kingdom works. I live on a small 5 acre farm. Yes, it all seems peaceful and tranquil out here with trees, and birds chirping, and a little peaceful creek. But I’ve personally observed incredible cruelty between animals. Animals that do bite each others heads off, quite literally. There is nothing — nothing — in the DNA of other species that says that they do what is helpful to each other.

Don’t so casually dismiss meaning in life. Christians believe that we have meaning in life in the cosmic sense because we were created by a creator in his image; that there is a moral difference between right and wrong that the creator had established; that the end matters because there is an afterlife and a final judgment by the same creator; and therefore what you do here matters too because people have a moral obligation to each other and God to abide by the created moral order. This then gives you meaning in life because your life and how you conduct yourself here absolutely matters.

If you are really no different than a fish at your core; and the world is just going to burn up anyway; if all moral rules are arbitrary — you have your “you must help people” rule that you made up but another human being can come with an equally valid rule since everything is a social construct and it might say completely the opposite; then nothing we do here really matters. People can be kind or people can be cruel but it doesn’t ultimately matter since we all rot in the ground in the end. If your beginning doesn’t have meaning, and your end doesn’t have meaning, then, your life doesn’t have meaning either.

The reality is — a lot of people don’t want to go there because they want to feel like life has meaning. So they come up with their own little social constructs that are every bit a religion as any organized religion — we can call the previous poster “the religion of helping each other” — and that’s how they live their life. No God, but a moral
rule that I come up with in my head to try to make sense of it all. People deny religion and then just invite their own to help them get up in the morning and live life every day.

There’s nothing wrong with that. Just be honest about what you are doing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You have to come to a conclusion about what you think is actually true. Otherwise, you are just making things up in your head.

For me, after exploring different religions and systems of belief, I came to the conclusion that Christianity was most likely to be true — not 100% convinced, but at the same confidence level that I make any other important life decision (which is always less than 100%).

Hell is one of the Christian doctrines that makes the most sense to me. If there is no hell at all, no final judgment, then there is really no basis for any moral obligation. We can just act however we want, no matter how terrible or cruel it is. The current occupant of the White House is exhibit A of the horrible place where this leads. That way of looking at the world doesn’t seem like any way to live.

Also, trying to “delete” hell from Christianity is a very western way of looking at the world. People living in oppressive regimes care a lot more about a God of justice making things right in the end than a God who just loves everyone.

Religion makes much more sense when you see it as a way to control people.

Is the only reason you don't harm your friend because of God? Or because you are intelligent enough to recognize harm and decided it was bad?

Why is it “bad”? How you even define “harm”? There can be plenty of things that you might do to your friend that they may consider “harmful,” but you may not. Where do you even begin to draw these lines?

The entire premise of your answer is based on a moral value judgment. If there is no God, then there really cannot be these categories of “good” and “bad.” If all that ever happened was one day millions of years ago a fish got on the land and we have been evolving ever since — then there really isn’t any moral obligation at all not to “harm your friend.” It is simply a strong eats the weak world - just like the animal kingdom. And all of life is completely and utterly meaningless.

You are free to use this as a reason not to believe in God. But then own the natural endpoint of your argument.

And yet, there is. Think of it as "advantageous to a social species" or not. Some non-human animals help others, even outside of their own species.

If your life only has meaning because you think there is some future supernatural world waiting for you...that's beyond sad.

And some animals bite each others heads off, literally. What’s your point?

How do you draw the line around your categories of good and bad — “advantageous to a social species” — ? Who says? How is it defined? A little old woman is crossing the street about to hit by a truck she cannot see. Is it “advantageous to a social species” to risk your life to save hers? What if she is very rich and you are very poor? What if she had a large family that relies on her and you have nobody?

Under a pure evolutionary perspective, your origin to life has no meaning — and your ending has no meaning because the sun will just burn up someday — so why does your actually life have any meaning? Why not simply live for yourself and not care too much about the rest of the world?

Your worldview has no moral answers for any of these questions beyond some vaguely defined idea about “how we should act.”

My worldview goes far beyond the supernatural after life — though that’s part of it. My view is that there is a supernatural creator, that we are made in his image, and there is a moral order to the universe that we innately understand as humans — the law of God is written on our hearts as the apostle Paul writes in the Book of Romans. But under this worldview, there are moral obligations, a clear definition of right and wrong, and a strong moral basis for everything that we hold important to us as humans — justice and love.

So this whole fabricated origin story is to fill some need you have for "meaningfulness"? And a set of rules? Seems like a cope for people who can't handle uncertainty.

Right/wrong can all be boiled down to what is advantageous to the survival for our species. It is advantageous for humans (and other species) to help each other; to save each other from harm. Pretty sad that you need some supernatural story to tell you right/wrong.

NP, not remotely religious. PP’s answer was so much more thoughtful and interesting to me than this. I don’t really share her worldview, but I appreciate learning about it, and hearing it stretches my perspective.

Let people talk, let them say what they believe without insulting them. You won’t lose anything, and others among us might gain something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, sitting on purgatory dreading hell must he hell itself.

if enough people pray for you, maybe you can go to heaven. The nuns at my catholic school had us praying for aborted fetuses to get to heaven. weird.

What an ego. Those fetuses are going to heaven with or without anyone’s prayers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You have to come to a conclusion about what you think is actually true. Otherwise, you are just making things up in your head.

For me, after exploring different religions and systems of belief, I came to the conclusion that Christianity was most likely to be true — not 100% convinced, but at the same confidence level that I make any other important life decision (which is always less than 100%).

Hell is one of the Christian doctrines that makes the most sense to me. If there is no hell at all, no final judgment, then there is really no basis for any moral obligation. We can just act however we want, no matter how terrible or cruel it is. The current occupant of the White House is exhibit A of the horrible place where this leads. That way of looking at the world doesn’t seem like any way to live.

Also, trying to “delete” hell from Christianity is a very western way of looking at the world. People living in oppressive regimes care a lot more about a God of justice making things right in the end than a God who just loves everyone.

Religion makes much more sense when you see it as a way to control people.

Is the only reason you don't harm your friend because of God? Or because you are intelligent enough to recognize harm and decided it was bad?

Why is it “bad”? How you even define “harm”? There can be plenty of things that you might do to your friend that they may consider “harmful,” but you may not. Where do you even begin to draw these lines?

The entire premise of your answer is based on a moral value judgment. If there is no God, then there really cannot be these categories of “good” and “bad.” If all that ever happened was one day millions of years ago a fish got on the land and we have been evolving ever since — then there really isn’t any moral obligation at all not to “harm your friend.” It is simply a strong eats the weak world - just like the animal kingdom. And all of life is completely and utterly meaningless.

You are free to use this as a reason not to believe in God. But then own the natural endpoint of your argument.

And yet, there is. Think of it as "advantageous to a social species" or not. Some non-human animals help others, even outside of their own species.

If your life only has meaning because you think there is some future supernatural world waiting for you...that's beyond sad.

And some animals bite each others heads off, literally. What’s your point?

How do you draw the line around your categories of good and bad — “advantageous to a social species” — ? Who says? How is it defined? A little old woman is crossing the street about to hit by a truck she cannot see. Is it “advantageous to a social species” to risk your life to save hers? What if she is very rich and you are very poor? What if she had a large family that relies on her and you have nobody?

Under a pure evolutionary perspective, your origin to life has no meaning — and your ending has no meaning because the sun will just burn up someday — so why does your actually life have any meaning? Why not simply live for yourself and not care too much about the rest of the world?

Your worldview has no moral answers for any of these questions beyond some vaguely defined idea about “how we should act.”

My worldview goes far beyond the supernatural after life — though that’s part of it. My view is that there is a supernatural creator, that we are made in his image, and there is a moral order to the universe that we innately understand as humans — the law of God is written on our hearts as the apostle Paul writes in the Book of Romans. But under this worldview, there are moral obligations, a clear definition of right and wrong, and a strong moral basis for everything that we hold important to us as humans — justice and love.

So this whole fabricated origin story is to fill some need you have for "meaningfulness"? And a set of rules? Seems like a cope for people who can't handle uncertainty.

Right/wrong can all be boiled down to what is advantageous to the survival for our species. It is advantageous for humans (and other species) to help each other; to save each other from harm. Pretty sad that you need some supernatural story to tell you right/wrong.

No, I believe the origin story is true because … it is true. It goes back to the first point I made in this thread — you must determine what you think is actually true.

But your second point is *incredibly* naive. First, again, says who? You? It sure sounds like you want people to be nice to each other, therefore, you have come with your own arbitrary rule saying people should be nice to each other. Why? If we all come from fish and there is no actual moral order, why is your rule superior to anyone else’s? Who made you God? What if people don’t want to help each other? Why is that not an equally valid choice under your theory of a complete denial of moral order since everything is simply a social construct?

Beyond that, many many, many times it is *not* advantageous for someone to help somebody else. In fact, many times it is advantageous not to help anyone at all — to eliminate your threats and exploit the weak. And that’s certainly the basis of how the animal kingdom works. I live on a small 5 acre farm. Yes, it all seems peaceful and tranquil out here with trees, and birds chirping, and a little peaceful creek. But I’ve personally observed incredible cruelty between animals. Animals that do bite each others heads off, quite literally. There is nothing — nothing — in the DNA of other species that says that they do what is helpful to each other.

Don’t so casually dismiss meaning in life. Christians believe that we have meaning in life in the cosmic sense because we were created by a creator in his image; that there is a moral difference between right and wrong that the creator had established; that the end matters because there is an afterlife and a final judgment by the same creator; and therefore what you do here matters too because people have a moral obligation to each other and God to abide by the created moral order. This then gives you meaning in life because your life and how you conduct yourself here absolutely matters.

If you are really no different than a fish at your core; and the world is just going to burn up anyway; if all moral rules are arbitrary — you have your “you must help people” rule that you made up but another human being can come with an equally valid rule since everything is a social construct and it might say completely the opposite; then nothing we do here really matters. People can be kind or people can be cruel but it doesn’t ultimately matter since we all rot in the ground in the end. If your beginning doesn’t have meaning, and your end doesn’t have meaning, then, your life doesn’t have meaning either.

The reality is — a lot of people don’t want to go there because they want to feel like life has meaning. So they come up with their own little social constructs that are every bit a religion as any organized religion — we can call the previous poster “the religion of helping each other” — and that’s how they live their life. No God, but a moral
rule that I come up with in my head to try to make sense of it all. People deny religion and then just invite their own to help them get up in the morning and live life every day.

There’s nothing wrong with that. Just be honest about what you are doing.

Agree. There are few people who can go past the ego and accept the fact that life has no meaning; it’s just an experience. But that’s all it is— An opportunity to experience life as a human.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You have to come to a conclusion about what you think is actually true. Otherwise, you are just making things up in your head.

For me, after exploring different religions and systems of belief, I came to the conclusion that Christianity was most likely to be true — not 100% convinced, but at the same confidence level that I make any other important life decision (which is always less than 100%).

Hell is one of the Christian doctrines that makes the most sense to me. If there is no hell at all, no final judgment, then there is really no basis for any moral obligation. We can just act however we want, no matter how terrible or cruel it is. The current occupant of the White House is exhibit A of the horrible place where this leads. That way of looking at the world doesn’t seem like any way to live.

Also, trying to “delete” hell from Christianity is a very western way of looking at the world. People living in oppressive regimes care a lot more about a God of justice making things right in the end than a God who just loves everyone.

Trump is an atheist. A bad atheist. He knows very well he’s not going anywhere after death so he’s not concerned about whatever evil he does here on earth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You have to come to a conclusion about what you think is actually true. Otherwise, you are just making things up in your head.

For me, after exploring different religions and systems of belief, I came to the conclusion that Christianity was most likely to be true — not 100% convinced, but at the same confidence level that I make any other important life decision (which is always less than 100%).

Hell is one of the Christian doctrines that makes the most sense to me. If there is no hell at all, no final judgment, then there is really no basis for any moral obligation. We can just act however we want, no matter how terrible or cruel it is. The current occupant of the White House is exhibit A of the horrible place where this leads. That way of looking at the world doesn’t seem like any way to live.

Also, trying to “delete” hell from Christianity is a very western way of looking at the world. People living in oppressive regimes care a lot more about a God of justice making things right in the end than a God who just loves everyone.

Trump is an atheist. A bad atheist. He knows very well he’s not going anywhere after death so he’s not concerned about whatever evil he does here on earth.

He has said multiple times that he believes in god and is obsessed with getting into heaven. He thinks he can negotiate his way in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, sitting on purgatory dreading hell must he hell itself.

if enough people pray for you, maybe you can go to heaven. The nuns at my catholic school had us praying for aborted fetuses to get to heaven. weird.

What about the souls of the fetuses that died because of a miscarriage?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You have to come to a conclusion about what you think is actually true. Otherwise, you are just making things up in your head.

For me, after exploring different religions and systems of belief, I came to the conclusion that Christianity was most likely to be true — not 100% convinced, but at the same confidence level that I make any other important life decision (which is always less than 100%).

Hell is one of the Christian doctrines that makes the most sense to me. If there is no hell at all, no final judgment, then there is really no basis for any moral obligation. We can just act however we want, no matter how terrible or cruel it is. The current occupant of the White House is exhibit A of the horrible place where this leads. That way of looking at the world doesn’t seem like any way to live.

Also, trying to “delete” hell from Christianity is a very western way of looking at the world. People living in oppressive regimes care a lot more about a God of justice making things right in the end than a God who just loves everyone.

Religion makes much more sense when you see it as a way to control people.

Is the only reason you don't harm your friend because of God? Or because you are intelligent enough to recognize harm and decided it was bad?

Why is it “bad”? How you even define “harm”? There can be plenty of things that you might do to your friend that they may consider “harmful,” but you may not. Where do you even begin to draw these lines?

The entire premise of your answer is based on a moral value judgment. If there is no God, then there really cannot be these categories of “good” and “bad.” If all that ever happened was one day millions of years ago a fish got on the land and we have been evolving ever since — then there really isn’t any moral obligation at all not to “harm your friend.” It is simply a strong eats the weak world - just like the animal kingdom. And all of life is completely and utterly meaningless.

You are free to use this as a reason not to believe in God. But then own the natural endpoint of your argument.

And yet, there is. Think of it as "advantageous to a social species" or not. Some non-human animals help others, even outside of their own species.

If your life only has meaning because you think there is some future supernatural world waiting for you...that's beyond sad.

And some animals bite each others heads off, literally. What’s your point?

How do you draw the line around your categories of good and bad — “advantageous to a social species” — ? Who says? How is it defined? A little old woman is crossing the street about to hit by a truck she cannot see. Is it “advantageous to a social species” to risk your life to save hers? What if she is very rich and you are very poor? What if she had a large family that relies on her and you have nobody?

Under a pure evolutionary perspective, your origin to life has no meaning — and your ending has no meaning because the sun will just burn up someday — so why does your actually life have any meaning? Why not simply live for yourself and not care too much about the rest of the world?

Your worldview has no moral answers for any of these questions beyond some vaguely defined idea about “how we should act.”

My worldview goes far beyond the supernatural after life — though that’s part of it. My view is that there is a supernatural creator, that we are made in his image, and there is a moral order to the universe that we innately understand as humans — the law of God is written on our hearts as the apostle Paul writes in the Book of Romans. But under this worldview, there are moral obligations, a clear definition of right and wrong, and a strong moral basis for everything that we hold important to us as humans — justice and love.

So this whole fabricated origin story is to fill some need you have for "meaningfulness"? And a set of rules? Seems like a cope for people who can't handle uncertainty.

Right/wrong can all be boiled down to what is advantageous to the survival for our species. It is advantageous for humans (and other species) to help each other; to save each other from harm. Pretty sad that you need some supernatural story to tell you right/wrong.

No, I believe the origin story is true because … it is true. It goes back to the first point I made in this thread — you must determine what you think is actually true.

But your second point is *incredibly* naive. First, again, says who? You? It sure sounds like you want people to be nice to each other, therefore, you have come with your own arbitrary rule saying people should be nice to each other. Why? If we all come from fish and there is no actual moral order, why is your rule superior to anyone else’s? Who made you God? What if people don’t want to help each other? Why is that not an equally valid choice under your theory of a complete denial of moral order since everything is simply a social construct?

Beyond that, many many, many times it is *not* advantageous for someone to help somebody else. In fact, many times it is advantageous not to help anyone at all — to eliminate your threats and exploit the weak. And that’s certainly the basis of how the animal kingdom works. I live on a small 5 acre farm. Yes, it all seems peaceful and tranquil out here with trees, and birds chirping, and a little peaceful creek. But I’ve personally observed incredible cruelty between animals. Animals that do bite each others heads off, quite literally. There is nothing — nothing — in the DNA of other species that says that they do what is helpful to each other.

Don’t so casually dismiss meaning in life. Christians believe that we have meaning in life in the cosmic sense because we were created by a creator in his image; that there is a moral difference between right and wrong that the creator had established; that the end matters because there is an afterlife and a final judgment by the same creator; and therefore what you do here matters too because people have a moral obligation to each other and God to abide by the created moral order. This then gives you meaning in life because your life and how you conduct yourself here absolutely matters.

If you are really no different than a fish at your core; and the world is just going to burn up anyway; if all moral rules are arbitrary — you have your “you must help people” rule that you made up but another human being can come with an equally valid rule since everything is a social construct and it might say completely the opposite; then nothing we do here really matters. People can be kind or people can be cruel but it doesn’t ultimately matter since we all rot in the ground in the end. If your beginning doesn’t have meaning, and your end doesn’t have meaning, then, your life doesn’t have meaning either.

The reality is — a lot of people don’t want to go there because they want to feel like life has meaning. So they come up with their own little social constructs that are every bit a religion as any organized religion — we can call the previous poster “the religion of helping each other” — and that’s how they live their life. No God, but a moral
rule that I come up with in my head to try to make sense of it all. People deny religion and then just invite their own to help them get up in the morning and live life every day.

There’s nothing wrong with that. Just be honest about what you are doing.

You think it’s true. There is a difference.

It sounds like you want your religious stories to be true because they provide your life with meaning and guidelines. OK. Not everyone needs that.

“Moral order” was formed by humans over thousands of generations of people figuring out how societies work best. It’s not arbitrary, it’s been tested and evolved over thousands of years.

It’s advantageous on the whole to help others. Some people don’t help others. Some people hurt others. It happens. Over time, those people are less likely to reproduce so it tends to be a self-limiting issue.

You’ve referred to “coming from fish” multiple times. Do you not believe in evolution? People are obviously different than fish. And different than the organisms that first left the oceans billions of years ago. And even different from humans 20,000 years ago. It’s called evolution.

Other species do help each other. There are also many examples of symbiotic behavior.

Life matters here and now, even if there isn’t some supernatural end game. People find meaning in all sorts of ways that don’t involve supernatural beings.

People have been making stuff up, like religion, to explain the unknown forever. Nothing new about that.

[Anonymous]

Religion exists because people need to make sense of the world. If you are comfortable with the idea that the world does not have to make sense, then you don't need religion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You have to come to a conclusion about what you think is actually true. Otherwise, you are just making things up in your head.

For me, after exploring different religions and systems of belief, I came to the conclusion that Christianity was most likely to be true — not 100% convinced, but at the same confidence level that I make any other important life decision (which is always less than 100%).

Hell is one of the Christian doctrines that makes the most sense to me. If there is no hell at all, no final judgment, then there is really no basis for any moral obligation. We can just act however we want, no matter how terrible or cruel it is. The current occupant of the White House is exhibit A of the horrible place where this leads. That way of looking at the world doesn’t seem like any way to live.

Also, trying to “delete” hell from Christianity is a very western way of looking at the world. People living in oppressive regimes care a lot more about a God of justice making things right in the end than a God who just loves everyone.

Religion makes much more sense when you see it as a way to control people.

Is the only reason you don't harm your friend because of God? Or because you are intelligent enough to recognize harm and decided it was bad?

Why is it “bad”? How you even define “harm”? There can be plenty of things that you might do to your friend that they may consider “harmful,” but you may not. Where do you even begin to draw these lines?

The entire premise of your answer is based on a moral value judgment. If there is no God, then there really cannot be these categories of “good” and “bad.” If all that ever happened was one day millions of years ago a fish got on the land and we have been evolving ever since — then there really isn’t any moral obligation at all not to “harm your friend.” It is simply a strong eats the weak world - just like the animal kingdom. And all of life is completely and utterly meaningless.

You are free to use this as a reason not to believe in God. But then own the natural endpoint of your argument.

And yet, there is. Think of it as "advantageous to a social species" or not. Some non-human animals help others, even outside of their own species.

If your life only has meaning because you think there is some future supernatural world waiting for you...that's beyond sad.

And some animals bite each others heads off, literally. What’s your point?

How do you draw the line around your categories of good and bad — “advantageous to a social species” — ? Who says? How is it defined? A little old woman is crossing the street about to hit by a truck she cannot see. Is it “advantageous to a social species” to risk your life to save hers? What if she is very rich and you are very poor? What if she had a large family that relies on her and you have nobody?

Under a pure evolutionary perspective, your origin to life has no meaning — and your ending has no meaning because the sun will just burn up someday — so why does your actually life have any meaning? Why not simply live for yourself and not care too much about the rest of the world?

Your worldview has no moral answers for any of these questions beyond some vaguely defined idea about “how we should act.”

My worldview goes far beyond the supernatural after life — though that’s part of it. My view is that there is a supernatural creator, that we are made in his image, and there is a moral order to the universe that we innately understand as humans — the law of God is written on our hearts as the apostle Paul writes in the Book of Romans. But under this worldview, there are moral obligations, a clear definition of right and wrong, and a strong moral basis for everything that we hold important to us as humans — justice and love.

Just curious...do you have any idea how the bible was written/assembled/translated/copied? The real history of that book? Do you know why Paul's words (someone who had never met Jesus) are being followed today as if they are the word of god?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You have to come to a conclusion about what you think is actually true. Otherwise, you are just making things up in your head.

For me, after exploring different religions and systems of belief, I came to the conclusion that Christianity was most likely to be true — not 100% convinced, but at the same confidence level that I make any other important life decision (which is always less than 100%).

Hell is one of the Christian doctrines that makes the most sense to me. If there is no hell at all, no final judgment, then there is really no basis for any moral obligation. We can just act however we want, no matter how terrible or cruel it is. The current occupant of the White House is exhibit A of the horrible place where this leads. That way of looking at the world doesn’t seem like any way to live.

Also, trying to “delete” hell from Christianity is a very western way of looking at the world. People living in oppressive regimes care a lot more about a God of justice making things right in the end than a God who just loves everyone.

Religion makes much more sense when you see it as a way to control people.

Is the only reason you don't harm your friend because of God? Or because you are intelligent enough to recognize harm and decided it was bad?

Why is it “bad”? How you even define “harm”? There can be plenty of things that you might do to your friend that they may consider “harmful,” but you may not. Where do you even begin to draw these lines?

The entire premise of your answer is based on a moral value judgment. If there is no God, then there really cannot be these categories of “good” and “bad.” If all that ever happened was one day millions of years ago a fish got on the land and we have been evolving ever since — then there really isn’t any moral obligation at all not to “harm your friend.” It is simply a strong eats the weak world - just like the animal kingdom. And all of life is completely and utterly meaningless.

You are free to use this as a reason not to believe in God. But then own the natural endpoint of your argument.

And yet, there is. Think of it as "advantageous to a social species" or not. Some non-human animals help others, even outside of their own species.

If your life only has meaning because you think there is some future supernatural world waiting for you...that's beyond sad.

And some animals bite each others heads off, literally. What’s your point?

How do you draw the line around your categories of good and bad — “advantageous to a social species” — ? Who says? How is it defined? A little old woman is crossing the street about to hit by a truck she cannot see. Is it “advantageous to a social species” to risk your life to save hers? What if she is very rich and you are very poor? What if she had a large family that relies on her and you have nobody?

Under a pure evolutionary perspective, your origin to life has no meaning — and your ending has no meaning because the sun will just burn up someday — so why does your actually life have any meaning? Why not simply live for yourself and not care too much about the rest of the world?

Your worldview has no moral answers for any of these questions beyond some vaguely defined idea about “how we should act.”

My worldview goes far beyond the supernatural after life — though that’s part of it. My view is that there is a supernatural creator, that we are made in his image, and there is a moral order to the universe that we innately understand as humans — the law of God is written on our hearts as the apostle Paul writes in the Book of Romans. But under this worldview, there are moral obligations, a clear definition of right and wrong, and a strong moral basis for everything that we hold important to us as humans — justice and love.

Just curious...do you have any idea how the bible was written/assembled/translated/copied? The real history of that book? Do you know why Paul's words (someone who had never met Jesus) are being followed today as if they are the word of god?

DP, but his always cracks me up. As if Christians are oh-so-ignorant about the recognition of the canon that we'll be shocked, just shocked to find that Paul never met the incarnate Christ.

Therefore what? You don't believe Paul is authoritative, but you DO believe that the Gospels are? No? Didn't think so.