How To Get To Heaven When You Die. Read The First Post. Then Q&A Discussion. Ask Questions Here! (4 Viewers)

[Paddington]

Happy Sunday everybody. Find a good Bible believing Church in attend.

A preview for tomorrow for those that go to one of the "boring churches" on the traditional calendar and three year plan. Like me!

Spoiler: Fifth Sunday after Epiphany

The focus this week is more or less on following, or getting a call, and several themes around these ideas.

The first reading Isaiah 6:1-13 is Isiah's call. The last half or so is one of those troubling passages if read literally, even figuratively. But in context it offers hope that even in the most desolate of places, after the longest of time a seed will emerge. Immediately before this though is one of Christianity's most popular passages "Here I am". During the early service, this is one of the favorites.

The Psalm is Psalm 138 which continues the theme along with the one mentioned below for the epistle. It ends with "You will make good your purpose for me; O Lord, your steadfast love endures forever; do not abandon the works of your hands."

The second reading 1 Corinthians 15:1-11 starts with the salvation message of this thread and how that message spread from Jesus' first post resurrection appearances through Paul's calling and beyond. It ends with Paul channeling an Avis commercial "we try harder", but the main take away is that Paul's success at following the call is not due to Paul, but due to God. A theme that runs through all of these.

Finally, the Gospel is about Jesus picking up one of his forgotten followers and the forgotten story behind it with Luke 5:1-11. Joking aside I don't connect that much with Peter's impulsive nature, but a pastor that left about a year ago from my church certainly did (per him) and it led to very some interesting sermons from a very different perspective.

Okay, learned today that "Here I am" is a favorite of the late service also. And as such it is one of those moments at a Sunday service that can power one, me in this case through a week. I left out a theme yesterday of the three readings all three Isiah, Paul, and Simon one way or another express "I ain't worthy", but the message is "sure you are". A message that doesn't so much as contradict "we all fall short", but maybe the answer from a loving God full of grace for us is just the same as for these three, has just always been "so what"?

The truth is that none of us are worthy, but God forgives us anyway and uses those who are faithful to Him to bring others to Him, that they also might be saved. Those who are saved are not saved because of their own works or goodness, but because of God’s work and goodness. When Christ died on the cross, He took all of the sins of the world upon Himself & when a person places their faith in Christ, His righteousness is applied to their account. It is a process called 'Substitution'

 

[Paddington]

He literally posts this on dozens if not 100's of forums. Doesn't make for good conversation.

Yea I guess that's true. But I don't know a lot of real Christians just a bunch of the Sunday morning types. So my questions were something I was interested in. Especially the one about the gay folks. I mean how could a child molester go to heaven ? But two loving God fearing people who had led extremely good lives not just because they are gay.

Also a little interested in the hypocritical aspect of someone who is really sick suddenly getting religion.

The bible is very ambiguous about this. In one passage it says 'man will not lie with man', but it another passage Jesus says to Lucifer 'get thee behind me'.

So who knows?

Are you being serious? 'Lucifer, get thee behind me' is not a sexual reference. It's Blasphemy to suggest thta it is. It would gmbe a kin to saying 'Get out of here'.

 

[Zow]

He literally posts this on dozens if not 100's of forums. Doesn't make for good conversation.

Yea I guess that's true. But I don't know a lot of real Christians just a bunch of the Sunday morning types. So my questions were something I was interested in. Especially the one about the gay folks. I mean how could a child molester go to heaven ? But two loving God fearing people who had led extremely good lives not just because they are gay.

Also a little interested in the hypocritical aspect of someone who is really sick suddenly getting religion.

The bible is very ambiguous about this. In one passage it says 'man will not lie with man', but it another passage Jesus says to Lucifer 'get thee behind me'.

So who knows?

Are you being serious? 'Lucifer, get thee behind me' is not a sexual reference. It's Blasphemy to suggest thta it is. It would gmbe a kin to saying 'Get out of here'.

I assume you agree that the Bible pretty clearly states that homosexuality is a sin and homosexuals cannot get into heaven?

 

[BobbyLayne]

Thoughts on prayer

---

Prayer is simply having an honest conversation with God.

Sometimes, you may have a lot to say. At other times, you may need to just sit in silence.

---

Revelation 4:11

“Worthy are you, our Lord and God,
to receive glory and honor and power,
for you created all things,

and by your will they existed and were created.”​

Read this verse again, and imagine God creating you.

As you reflect on His greatness, give him whatever honor and worship come to mind.

---

2 Corinthians 4:17

For this light momentary affliction is preparing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison,​

You are not alone in your struggles.

Talk to God honestly about what you need, and how you are feeling.

Make your requests known to Him.

---

guided prayer

God, thank you for being my help in times of trouble.

Right now there are things going on around me which are outside of my control.

Please protect me, help me, and strengthen me.

Show me how to cling to you, and give me the rest that my soul desperately needs.

In Jesus name, Amen.

---

Nothing is impossible for God.

As you process today’s prayer time, give yourself permission to sit with questions you may not have answers for yet.

Talking with God is an ongoing journey - and this is only the beginning.

=

 

[Mister CIA]

 

[Captain Cranks]

But, you know, I get it, you all have just as much of a right to say that you don't like it or that it's annoying. Just feel bad for someone who is trying his best to help people in what is the most critical way anyone can be helped -- if it is in fact true -- only to be shot down and criticized for it.

Let's turn this on its head a bit. Let's say it's not true. Let's say he spends most of his adult life believing in something that doesn't exist. All the energy he's spending trying to convince others to have a relationship with God could be spent having better relationships and doing more with people on this earth. In other words, it will all be for nothing and will have cost him a lot.

That's what I believe to be the Truth. Should I pepper him and other Christians to convince them of this Truth? Wouldn't that be the most critical way to help him get the most out of our short time here on earth? Or would he and others be justified in shooting me down and criticizing me for my efforts to preach the Truth to them?

 

[eighsse2]

But, you know, I get it, you all have just as much of a right to say that you don't like it or that it's annoying. Just feel bad for someone who is trying his best to help people in what is the most critical way anyone can be helped -- if it is in fact true -- only to be shot down and criticized for it.

Let's turn this on its head a bit. Let's say it's not true. Let's say he spends most of his adult life believing in something that doesn't exist. All the energy he's spending trying to convince others to have a relationship with God could be spent having better relationships and doing more with people on this earth. In other words, it will all be for nothing and will have cost him a lot.

That's what I believe to be the Truth. Should I pepper him and other Christians to convince them of this Truth? Wouldn't that be the most critical way to help him get the most out of our short time here on earth? Or would he and others be justified in shooting me down and criticizing me for my efforts to preach the Truth to them?

That's a fair point. Now I will say, I may only agree with that where someone has their own belief in what reality is, that involves an eternal fate. On the other hand, if we're assuming that there is no afterlife, everyone is just gone after death ... then nothing -- nothing -- matters. Literally destroying all life quickly and painlessly would be a totally neutral act. Some disagree with that, but to me anyway it seems very obvious.

 

[Zow]

But, you know, I get it, you all have just as much of a right to say that you don't like it or that it's annoying. Just feel bad for someone who is trying his best to help people in what is the most critical way anyone can be helped -- if it is in fact true -- only to be shot down and criticized for it.

Let's turn this on its head a bit. Let's say it's not true. Let's say he spends most of his adult life believing in something that doesn't exist. All the energy he's spending trying to convince others to have a relationship with God could be spent having better relationships and doing more with people on this earth. In other words, it will all be for nothing and will have cost him a lot.

That's what I believe to be the Truth. Should I pepper him and other Christians to convince them of this Truth? Wouldn't that be the most critical way to help him get the most out of our short time here on earth? Or would he and others be justified in shooting me down and criticizing me for my efforts to preach the Truth to them?

That's a fair point. Now I will say, I may only agree with that where someone has their own belief in what reality is, that involves an eternal fate. On the other hand, if we're assuming that there is no afterlife, everyone is just gone after death ... then nothing -- nothing -- matters. Literally destroying all life quickly and painlessly would be a totally neutral act. Some disagree with that, but to me anyway it seems very obvious.

Well, if we are here for only a short time (which I believe is the case) before we cede to nothing, I'd prefer that short time not be taken up by some evangelist telling me some things that aren't the case (even if I understand why he's doing it).

 

[eighsse2]

But, you know, I get it, you all have just as much of a right to say that you don't like it or that it's annoying. Just feel bad for someone who is trying his best to help people in what is the most critical way anyone can be helped -- if it is in fact true -- only to be shot down and criticized for it.

Let's turn this on its head a bit. Let's say it's not true. Let's say he spends most of his adult life believing in something that doesn't exist. All the energy he's spending trying to convince others to have a relationship with God could be spent having better relationships and doing more with people on this earth. In other words, it will all be for nothing and will have cost him a lot.

That's what I believe to be the Truth. Should I pepper him and other Christians to convince them of this Truth? Wouldn't that be the most critical way to help him get the most out of our short time here on earth? Or would he and others be justified in shooting me down and criticizing me for my efforts to preach the Truth to them?

That's a fair point. Now I will say, I may only agree with that where someone has their own belief in what reality is, that involves an eternal fate. On the other hand, if we're assuming that there is no afterlife, everyone is just gone after death ... then nothing -- nothing -- matters. Literally destroying all life quickly and painlessly would be a totally neutral act. Some disagree with that, but to me anyway it seems very obvious.

Well, if we are here for only a short time (which I believe is the case) before we cede to nothing, I'd prefer that short time not be taken up by some evangelist telling me some things that aren't the case (even if I understand why he's doing it).

Currently, fair, it is your life while it lasts. After you're gone (in the atheist view), I don't think anything that you did or that anyone did to you will be an issue to you. And your lifetime, however good or bad, will be dwarfed to 0 relative to your neutralized time.

 

[BlackCrowes]

But, you know, I get it, you all have just as much of a right to say that you don't like it or that it's annoying. Just feel bad for someone who is trying his best to help people in what is the most critical way anyone can be helped -- if it is in fact true -- only to be shot down and criticized for it.

Let's turn this on its head a bit. Let's say it's not true. Let's say he spends most of his adult life believing in something that doesn't exist. All the energy he's spending trying to convince others to have a relationship with God could be spent having better relationships and doing more with people on this earth. In other words, it will all be for nothing and will have cost him a lot.

That's what I believe to be the Truth. Should I pepper him and other Christians to convince them of this Truth? Wouldn't that be the most critical way to help him get the most out of our short time here on earth? Or would he and others be justified in shooting me down and criticizing me for my efforts to preach the Truth to them?

That's a fair point. Now I will say, I may only agree with that where someone has their own belief in what reality is, that involves an eternal fate. On the other hand, if we're assuming that there is no afterlife, everyone is just gone after death ... then nothing -- nothing -- matters. Literally destroying all life quickly and painlessly would be a totally neutral act. Some disagree with that, but to me anyway it seems very obvious.

i'll never understand this line of thinking. never.

 

[Mister CIA]

But, you know, I get it, you all have just as much of a right to say that you don't like it or that it's annoying. Just feel bad for someone who is trying his best to help people in what is the most critical way anyone can be helped -- if it is in fact true -- only to be shot down and criticized for it.

Let's turn this on its head a bit. Let's say it's not true. Let's say he spends most of his adult life believing in something that doesn't exist. All the energy he's spending trying to convince others to have a relationship with God could be spent having better relationships and doing more with people on this earth. In other words, it will all be for nothing and will have cost him a lot.

That's what I believe to be the Truth. Should I pepper him and other Christians to convince them of this Truth? Wouldn't that be the most critical way to help him get the most out of our short time here on earth? Or would he and others be justified in shooting me down and criticizing me for my efforts to preach the Truth to them?

That's a fair point. Now I will say, I may only agree with that where someone has their own belief in what reality is, that involves an eternal fate. On the other hand, if we're assuming that there is no afterlife, everyone is just gone after death ... then nothing -- nothing -- matters. Literally destroying all life quickly and painlessly would be a totally neutral act. Some disagree with that, but to me anyway it seems very obvious.

My children matter.

 

[Zow]

But, you know, I get it, you all have just as much of a right to say that you don't like it or that it's annoying. Just feel bad for someone who is trying his best to help people in what is the most critical way anyone can be helped -- if it is in fact true -- only to be shot down and criticized for it.

Let's turn this on its head a bit. Let's say it's not true. Let's say he spends most of his adult life believing in something that doesn't exist. All the energy he's spending trying to convince others to have a relationship with God could be spent having better relationships and doing more with people on this earth. In other words, it will all be for nothing and will have cost him a lot.

That's what I believe to be the Truth. Should I pepper him and other Christians to convince them of this Truth? Wouldn't that be the most critical way to help him get the most out of our short time here on earth? Or would he and others be justified in shooting me down and criticizing me for my efforts to preach the Truth to them?

That's a fair point. Now I will say, I may only agree with that where someone has their own belief in what reality is, that involves an eternal fate. On the other hand, if we're assuming that there is no afterlife, everyone is just gone after death ... then nothing -- nothing -- matters. Literally destroying all life quickly and painlessly would be a totally neutral act. Some disagree with that, but to me anyway it seems very obvious.

Well, if we are here for only a short time (which I believe is the case) before we cede to nothing, I'd prefer that short time not be taken up by some evangelist telling me some things that aren't the case (even if I understand why he's doing it).

Currently, fair, it is your life while it lasts. After you're gone (in the atheist view), I don't think anything that you did or that anyone did to you will be an issue to you. And your lifetime, however good or bad, will be dwarfed to 0 relative to your neutralized time.

That's a pretty pessimistic approach. I am on my deathbed I can find some solace in knowing I did have some significant impact for the good, regardless of how insignificant such impact may be over the course of the billions of years the universe will exist.

At the very least, I don't want go out with a reputation like Hitler, Pol Pot, or Vlad the Impaler.

 

[eighsse2]

But, you know, I get it, you all have just as much of a right to say that you don't like it or that it's annoying. Just feel bad for someone who is trying his best to help people in what is the most critical way anyone can be helped -- if it is in fact true -- only to be shot down and criticized for it.

Let's turn this on its head a bit. Let's say it's not true. Let's say he spends most of his adult life believing in something that doesn't exist. All the energy he's spending trying to convince others to have a relationship with God could be spent having better relationships and doing more with people on this earth. In other words, it will all be for nothing and will have cost him a lot.

That's what I believe to be the Truth. Should I pepper him and other Christians to convince them of this Truth? Wouldn't that be the most critical way to help him get the most out of our short time here on earth? Or would he and others be justified in shooting me down and criticizing me for my efforts to preach the Truth to them?

That's a fair point. Now I will say, I may only agree with that where someone has their own belief in what reality is, that involves an eternal fate. On the other hand, if we're assuming that there is no afterlife, everyone is just gone after death ... then nothing -- nothing -- matters. Literally destroying all life quickly and painlessly would be a totally neutral act. Some disagree with that, but to me anyway it seems very obvious.

i'll never understand this line of thinking. never.

But, you know, I get it, you all have just as much of a right to say that you don't like it or that it's annoying. Just feel bad for someone who is trying his best to help people in what is the most critical way anyone can be helped -- if it is in fact true -- only to be shot down and criticized for it.

Let's turn this on its head a bit. Let's say it's not true. Let's say he spends most of his adult life believing in something that doesn't exist. All the energy he's spending trying to convince others to have a relationship with God could be spent having better relationships and doing more with people on this earth. In other words, it will all be for nothing and will have cost him a lot.

That's what I believe to be the Truth. Should I pepper him and other Christians to convince them of this Truth? Wouldn't that be the most critical way to help him get the most out of our short time here on earth? Or would he and others be justified in shooting me down and criticizing me for my efforts to preach the Truth to them?

That's a fair point. Now I will say, I may only agree with that where someone has their own belief in what reality is, that involves an eternal fate. On the other hand, if we're assuming that there is no afterlife, everyone is just gone after death ... then nothing -- nothing -- matters. Literally destroying all life quickly and painlessly would be a totally neutral act. Some disagree with that, but to me anyway it seems very obvious.

My children matter.

But, you know, I get it, you all have just as much of a right to say that you don't like it or that it's annoying. Just feel bad for someone who is trying his best to help people in what is the most critical way anyone can be helped -- if it is in fact true -- only to be shot down and criticized for it.

Let's turn this on its head a bit. Let's say it's not true. Let's say he spends most of his adult life believing in something that doesn't exist. All the energy he's spending trying to convince others to have a relationship with God could be spent having better relationships and doing more with people on this earth. In other words, it will all be for nothing and will have cost him a lot.

That's what I believe to be the Truth. Should I pepper him and other Christians to convince them of this Truth? Wouldn't that be the most critical way to help him get the most out of our short time here on earth? Or would he and others be justified in shooting me down and criticizing me for my efforts to preach the Truth to them?

That's a fair point. Now I will say, I may only agree with that where someone has their own belief in what reality is, that involves an eternal fate. On the other hand, if we're assuming that there is no afterlife, everyone is just gone after death ... then nothing -- nothing -- matters. Literally destroying all life quickly and painlessly would be a totally neutral act. Some disagree with that, but to me anyway it seems very obvious.

Well, if we are here for only a short time (which I believe is the case) before we cede to nothing, I'd prefer that short time not be taken up by some evangelist telling me some things that aren't the case (even if I understand why he's doing it).

Currently, fair, it is your life while it lasts. After you're gone (in the atheist view), I don't think anything that you did or that anyone did to you will be an issue to you. And your lifetime, however good or bad, will be dwarfed to 0 relative to your neutralized time.

That's a pretty pessimistic approach. I am on my deathbed I can find some solace in knowing I did have some significant impact for the good, regardless of how insignificant such impact may be over the course of the billions of years the universe will exist.

At the very least, I don't want go out with a reputation like Hitler, Pol Pot, or Vlad the Impaler.

I find it very intriguing that people can think these things in an atheistic worldview. Very difficult for me to wrap my head around. You think some neural synapses matter in a purely physical world that is just over when it's over?
My opinion is that "nothing matters" is not a pessimistic take on atheism; it's neutral. Because atheism is ultimately a neutral, meaningless universe, which is very sad indeed. No pessimism required to make it sad.

 

[Mister CIA]

I find it very intriguing that people can think these things in an atheistic worldview. Very difficult for me to wrap my head around. You think some neural synapses matter in a purely physical world that is just over when it's over?
My opinion is that "nothing matters" is not a pessimistic take on atheism; it's neutral. Because atheism is ultimately a neutral, meaningless universe, which is very sad indeed. No pessimism required to make it sad.

The nugget you are ignoring is that no one knows what happens after death. Well, I don't, nor can I pretend to.

 

[eighsse2]

I find it very intriguing that people can think these things in an atheistic worldview. Very difficult for me to wrap my head around. You think some neural synapses matter in a purely physical world ithat is just over when it's over?
My opinion is that "nothing matters" is not a pessimistic take on atheism; it's neutral. Because atheism is ultimately a neutral, meaningless universe, which is very sad indeed. No pessimism required to make it sad.

The nugget you are ignoring is that no one knows what happens after death. Well, I don't, nor can I pretend to.

Oh, no sir. I am not ignoring that. I thought this portion of the conversation was within an "assume: no god, no afterlife" mode. Things definitely matter when open to all possibilities.

 

[Zow]

But, you know, I get it, you all have just as much of a right to say that you don't like it or that it's annoying. Just feel bad for someone who is trying his best to help people in what is the most critical way anyone can be helped -- if it is in fact true -- only to be shot down and criticized for it.

Let's turn this on its head a bit. Let's say it's not true. Let's say he spends most of his adult life believing in something that doesn't exist. All the energy he's spending trying to convince others to have a relationship with God could be spent having better relationships and doing more with people on this earth. In other words, it will all be for nothing and will have cost him a lot.

That's what I believe to be the Truth. Should I pepper him and other Christians to convince them of this Truth? Wouldn't that be the most critical way to help him get the most out of our short time here on earth? Or would he and others be justified in shooting me down and criticizing me for my efforts to preach the Truth to them?

That's a fair point. Now I will say, I may only agree with that where someone has their own belief in what reality is, that involves an eternal fate. On the other hand, if we're assuming that there is no afterlife, everyone is just gone after death ... then nothing -- nothing -- matters. Literally destroying all life quickly and painlessly would be a totally neutral act. Some disagree with that, but to me anyway it seems very obvious.

i'll never understand this line of thinking. never.

But, you know, I get it, you all have just as much of a right to say that you don't like it or that it's annoying. Just feel bad for someone who is trying his best to help people in what is the most critical way anyone can be helped -- if it is in fact true -- only to be shot down and criticized for it.

Let's turn this on its head a bit. Let's say it's not true. Let's say he spends most of his adult life believing in something that doesn't exist. All the energy he's spending trying to convince others to have a relationship with God could be spent having better relationships and doing more with people on this earth. In other words, it will all be for nothing and will have cost him a lot.

That's what I believe to be the Truth. Should I pepper him and other Christians to convince them of this Truth? Wouldn't that be the most critical way to help him get the most out of our short time here on earth? Or would he and others be justified in shooting me down and criticizing me for my efforts to preach the Truth to them?

That's a fair point. Now I will say, I may only agree with that where someone has their own belief in what reality is, that involves an eternal fate. On the other hand, if we're assuming that there is no afterlife, everyone is just gone after death ... then nothing -- nothing -- matters. Literally destroying all life quickly and painlessly would be a totally neutral act. Some disagree with that, but to me anyway it seems very obvious.

My children matter.

But, you know, I get it, you all have just as much of a right to say that you don't like it or that it's annoying. Just feel bad for someone who is trying his best to help people in what is the most critical way anyone can be helped -- if it is in fact true -- only to be shot down and criticized for it.

Let's turn this on its head a bit. Let's say it's not true. Let's say he spends most of his adult life believing in something that doesn't exist. All the energy he's spending trying to convince others to have a relationship with God could be spent having better relationships and doing more with people on this earth. In other words, it will all be for nothing and will have cost him a lot.

That's what I believe to be the Truth. Should I pepper him and other Christians to convince them of this Truth? Wouldn't that be the most critical way to help him get the most out of our short time here on earth? Or would he and others be justified in shooting me down and criticizing me for my efforts to preach the Truth to them?

That's a fair point. Now I will say, I may only agree with that where someone has their own belief in what reality is, that involves an eternal fate. On the other hand, if we're assuming that there is no afterlife, everyone is just gone after death ... then nothing -- nothing -- matters. Literally destroying all life quickly and painlessly would be a totally neutral act. Some disagree with that, but to me anyway it seems very obvious.

Well, if we are here for only a short time (which I believe is the case) before we cede to nothing, I'd prefer that short time not be taken up by some evangelist telling me some things that aren't the case (even if I understand why he's doing it).

Currently, fair, it is your life while it lasts. After you're gone (in the atheist view), I don't think anything that you did or that anyone did to you will be an issue to you. And your lifetime, however good or bad, will be dwarfed to 0 relative to your neutralized time.

That's a pretty pessimistic approach. I am on my deathbed I can find some solace in knowing I did have some significant impact for the good, regardless of how insignificant such impact may be over the course of the billions of years the universe will exist.

At the very least, I don't want go out with a reputation like Hitler, Pol Pot, or Vlad the Impaler.

I find it very intriguing that people can think these things in an atheistic worldview. Very difficult for me to wrap my head around. You think some neural synapses matter in a purely physical world that is just over when it's over?
My opinion is that "nothing matters" is not a pessimistic take on atheism; it's neutral. Because atheism is ultimately a neutral, meaningless universe, which is very sad indeed. No pessimism required to make it sad.

I think the universe is beautiful. That matters. I'd like the human race to continue on as long as possible and I take solace in knowing that I may be helping that through raising my kids and through work. That matters.

Atheism just means that there is no belief in some supreme, omniscient creator that will take us to another dimension when we die. It's not nihilism which, respectfully, you seem to be conflating it with..

To me, the desire to believe in an afterlife is a part of the natural human condition because finality is a scary thing. It also helps those who feel overwhelming guilt from past choices. Further, it helps us feel more important than we probably are considering there are millions of galaxies and we are basically a grain of sand on some monstrous beach. While these thoughts are generally irrational, I nonetheless find them understandably and predictably irrational. They help people cope with this life and that's fine to me.

But, a non-belief in and afterlife doesn't have to be sad or scary. Frankly, I find the notion that if I just slip up even a little bit or rationally choose to believe in the wrong thing that it means I burn in a pit of fire forever to be far more scary and sad.

 

[eighsse2]

But, you know, I get it, you all have just as much of a right to say that you don't like it or that it's annoying. Just feel bad for someone who is trying his best to help people in what is the most critical way anyone can be helped -- if it is in fact true -- only to be shot down and criticized for it.

Let's turn this on its head a bit. Let's say it's not true. Let's say he spends most of his adult life believing in something that doesn't exist. All the energy he's spending trying to convince others to have a relationship with God could be spent having better relationships and doing more with people on this earth. In other words, it will all be for nothing and will have cost him a lot.

That's what I believe to be the Truth. Should I pepper him and other Christians to convince them of this Truth? Wouldn't that be the most critical way to help him get the most out of our short time here on earth? Or would he and others be justified in shooting me down and criticizing me for my efforts to preach the Truth to them?

That's a fair point. Now I will say, I may only agree with that where someone has their own belief in what reality is, that involves an eternal fate. On the other hand, if we're assuming that there is no afterlife, everyone is just gone after death ... then nothing -- nothing -- matters. Literally destroying all life quickly and painlessly would be a totally neutral act. Some disagree with that, but to me anyway it seems very obvious.

i'll never understand this line of thinking. never.

But, you know, I get it, you all have just as much of a right to say that you don't like it or that it's annoying. Just feel bad for someone who is trying his best to help people in what is the most critical way anyone can be helped -- if it is in fact true -- only to be shot down and criticized for it.

Let's turn this on its head a bit. Let's say it's not true. Let's say he spends most of his adult life believing in something that doesn't exist. All the energy he's spending trying to convince others to have a relationship with God could be spent having better relationships and doing more with people on this earth. In other words, it will all be for nothing and will have cost him a lot.

That's what I believe to be the Truth. Should I pepper him and other Christians to convince them of this Truth? Wouldn't that be the most critical way to help him get the most out of our short time here on earth? Or would he and others be justified in shooting me down and criticizing me for my efforts to preach the Truth to them?

That's a fair point. Now I will say, I may only agree with that where someone has their own belief in what reality is, that involves an eternal fate. On the other hand, if we're assuming that there is no afterlife, everyone is just gone after death ... then nothing -- nothing -- matters. Literally destroying all life quickly and painlessly would be a totally neutral act. Some disagree with that, but to me anyway it seems very obvious.

My children matter.

But, you know, I get it, you all have just as much of a right to say that you don't like it or that it's annoying. Just feel bad for someone who is trying his best to help people in what is the most critical way anyone can be helped -- if it is in fact true -- only to be shot down and criticized for it.

Let's turn this on its head a bit. Let's say it's not true. Let's say he spends most of his adult life believing in something that doesn't exist. All the energy he's spending trying to convince others to have a relationship with God could be spent having better relationships and doing more with people on this earth. In other words, it will all be for nothing and will have cost him a lot.

That's what I believe to be the Truth. Should I pepper him and other Christians to convince them of this Truth? Wouldn't that be the most critical way to help him get the most out of our short time here on earth? Or would he and others be justified in shooting me down and criticizing me for my efforts to preach the Truth to them?

That's a fair point. Now I will say, I may only agree with that where someone has their own belief in what reality is, that involves an eternal fate. On the other hand, if we're assuming that there is no afterlife, everyone is just gone after death ... then nothing -- nothing -- matters. Literally destroying all life quickly and painlessly would be a totally neutral act. Some disagree with that, but to me anyway it seems very obvious.

Well, if we are here for only a short time (which I believe is the case) before we cede to nothing, I'd prefer that short time not be taken up by some evangelist telling me some things that aren't the case (even if I understand why he's doing it).

Currently, fair, it is your life while it lasts. After you're gone (in the atheist view), I don't think anything that you did or that anyone did to you will be an issue to you. And your lifetime, however good or bad, will be dwarfed to 0 relative to your neutralized time.

That's a pretty pessimistic approach. I am on my deathbed I can find some solace in knowing I did have some significant impact for the good, regardless of how insignificant such impact may be over the course of the billions of years the universe will exist.

At the very least, I don't want go out with a reputation like Hitler, Pol Pot, or Vlad the Impaler.

I find it very intriguing that people can think these things in an atheistic worldview. Very difficult for me to wrap my head around. You think some neural synapses matter in a purely physical world that is just over when it's over?
My opinion is that "nothing matters" is not a pessimistic take on atheism; it's neutral. Because atheism is ultimately a neutral, meaningless universe, which is very sad indeed. No pessimism required to make it sad.

I think the universe is beautiful. That matters. I'd like the human race to continue on as long as possible and I take solace in knowing that I may be helping that through raising my kids and through work. That matters.

Atheism just means that there is no belief in some supreme, omniscient creator that will take us to another dimension when we die. It's not nihilism which, respectfully, you seem to be conflating it with..

To me, the desire to believe in an afterlife is a part of the natural human condition because finality is a scary thing. It also helps those who feel overwhelming guilt from past choices. Further, it helps us feel more important than we probably are considering there are millions of galaxies and we are basically a grain of sand on some monstrous beach. While these thoughts are generally irrational, I nonetheless find them understandably and predictably irrational. They help people cope with this life and that's fine to me.

But, a non-belief in and afterlife doesn't have to be sad or scary. Frankly, I find the notion that if I just slip up even a little bit or rationally choose to believe in the wrong thing that it means I burn in a pit of fire forever to be far more scary and sad.

Ultimately, yeah, you're right, I would agree that the atheistic view is not actually sad. It's only sad from the "right now in my brain where I like to do things in life" viewpoint. Ultimately it is 100% neutral. But most everyone here on earth is thinking about the here-and-now, which typically makes the thought of the "nothing" seem sad.

 

[Captain Cranks]

Because atheism is ultimately a neutral, meaningless universe, which is very sad indeed. No pessimism required to make it sad.

What do you mean by "sad"? Do you mean it's sad to think our existence ends and therefore the theistic view is more hopeful?

 

[eighsse2]

Because atheism is ultimately a neutral, meaningless universe, which is very sad indeed. No pessimism required to make it sad.

What do you mean by "sad"? Do you mean it's sad to think our existence ends and therefore the theistic view is more hopeful?

See my post immediately above yours. It seems or feels sad according to the "here-and-now" that people tend to live in, and who can blame them. Ultimately not sad at all, completely neutral.

 

[Captain Cranks]

Because atheism is ultimately a neutral, meaningless universe, which is very sad indeed. No pessimism required to make it sad.

What do you mean by "sad"? Do you mean it's sad to think our existence ends and therefore the theistic view is more hopeful?

See my post immediately above yours. It seems or feels sad according to the "here-and-now" that people tend to live in, and who can blame them. Ultimately not sad at all, completely neutral.

I guess you'll have to explain what you mean by "the here and now that people tend to live in". Why wouldn't we want to be in the here and now? Aren't we missing out on life when our focus is on other things, either past or future?

Do you feel purpose and meaning can only come from an existence outside of this life?

 

[dkp993]

But, you know, I get it, you all have just as much of a right to say that you don't like it or that it's annoying. Just feel bad for someone who is trying his best to help people in what is the most critical way anyone can be helped -- if it is in fact true -- only to be shot down and criticized for it.

Let's turn this on its head a bit. Let's say it's not true. Let's say he spends most of his adult life believing in something that doesn't exist. All the energy he's spending trying to convince others to have a relationship with God could be spent having better relationships and doing more with people on this earth. In other words, it will all be for nothing and will have cost him a lot.

That's what I believe to be the Truth. Should I pepper him and other Christians to convince them of this Truth? Wouldn't that be the most critical way to help him get the most out of our short time here on earth? Or would he and others be justified in shooting me down and criticizing me for my efforts to preach the Truth to them?

That's a fair point. Now I will say, I may only agree with that where someone has their own belief in what reality is, that involves an eternal fate. On the other hand, if we're assuming that there is no afterlife, everyone is just gone after death ... then nothing -- nothing -- matters. Literally destroying all life quickly and painlessly would be a totally neutral act. Some disagree with that, but to me anyway it seems very obvious.

i'll never understand this line of thinking. never.

But, you know, I get it, you all have just as much of a right to say that you don't like it or that it's annoying. Just feel bad for someone who is trying his best to help people in what is the most critical way anyone can be helped -- if it is in fact true -- only to be shot down and criticized for it.

Let's turn this on its head a bit. Let's say it's not true. Let's say he spends most of his adult life believing in something that doesn't exist. All the energy he's spending trying to convince others to have a relationship with God could be spent having better relationships and doing more with people on this earth. In other words, it will all be for nothing and will have cost him a lot.

That's what I believe to be the Truth. Should I pepper him and other Christians to convince them of this Truth? Wouldn't that be the most critical way to help him get the most out of our short time here on earth? Or would he and others be justified in shooting me down and criticizing me for my efforts to preach the Truth to them?

That's a fair point. Now I will say, I may only agree with that where someone has their own belief in what reality is, that involves an eternal fate. On the other hand, if we're assuming that there is no afterlife, everyone is just gone after death ... then nothing -- nothing -- matters. Literally destroying all life quickly and painlessly would be a totally neutral act. Some disagree with that, but to me anyway it seems very obvious.

My children matter.

But, you know, I get it, you all have just as much of a right to say that you don't like it or that it's annoying. Just feel bad for someone who is trying his best to help people in what is the most critical way anyone can be helped -- if it is in fact true -- only to be shot down and criticized for it.

Let's turn this on its head a bit. Let's say it's not true. Let's say he spends most of his adult life believing in something that doesn't exist. All the energy he's spending trying to convince others to have a relationship with God could be spent having better relationships and doing more with people on this earth. In other words, it will all be for nothing and will have cost him a lot.

That's what I believe to be the Truth. Should I pepper him and other Christians to convince them of this Truth? Wouldn't that be the most critical way to help him get the most out of our short time here on earth? Or would he and others be justified in shooting me down and criticizing me for my efforts to preach the Truth to them?

That's a fair point. Now I will say, I may only agree with that where someone has their own belief in what reality is, that involves an eternal fate. On the other hand, if we're assuming that there is no afterlife, everyone is just gone after death ... then nothing -- nothing -- matters. Literally destroying all life quickly and painlessly would be a totally neutral act. Some disagree with that, but to me anyway it seems very obvious.

Well, if we are here for only a short time (which I believe is the case) before we cede to nothing, I'd prefer that short time not be taken up by some evangelist telling me some things that aren't the case (even if I understand why he's doing it).

Currently, fair, it is your life while it lasts. After you're gone (in the atheist view), I don't think anything that you did or that anyone did to you will be an issue to you. And your lifetime, however good or bad, will be dwarfed to 0 relative to your neutralized time.

That's a pretty pessimistic approach. I am on my deathbed I can find some solace in knowing I did have some significant impact for the good, regardless of how insignificant such impact may be over the course of the billions of years the universe will exist.

At the very least, I don't want go out with a reputation like Hitler, Pol Pot, or Vlad the Impaler.

I find it very intriguing that people can think these things in an atheistic worldview. Very difficult for me to wrap my head around. You think some neural synapses matter in a purely physical world that is just over when it's over?
My opinion is that "nothing matters" is not a pessimistic take on atheism; it's neutral. Because atheism is ultimately a neutral, meaningless universe, which is very sad indeed. No pessimism required to make it sad.

I guess I just don’t understand (like you in the reverse I suppose) the need for there to be some reward after we die for it to mean something. Being a good father to my daughter means something whether I’m rewarded after death or not. For every plant or animal (not human) does the same requirement hold firm with the need to have something after death for their life to have been worth more than nothing?

 

[dkp993]

But, a non-belief in and afterlife doesn't have to be sad or scary. Frankly, I find the notion that if I just slip up even a little bit or rationally choose to believe in the wrong thing that it means I burn in a pit of fire forever to be far more scary and sad.

Or even more scary, that it doesn’t matter who you were, an axe murderer or a saint, if you accept Jesus at the end you’re in. If not, off to torture for eternity. That’s frightening in it’s meaning quite frankly. It makes our actions here truly meaningless.

 

[ericttspikes]

This is heaven (and hell). You can find your path to either depending on how you live it. I prefer to concentrate on making this life as close to heaven as possible since anything beyond this is unknown. Live in the present and all that.

 

[BobbyLayne]

Should probably request a thread title change:

***Official FBGs Nihilism Thread*** (the real thread about nothing because it doesn’t matter)

 

[Sparky Polastri]

None of this makes any sense to me. God provided Jesus Christ as our ticket to eternal life with him VIA his GRACE so that we can focus on the here and now and live as examples. This is not, nor has ever been, an either/or choice so it's hard for me to follow a believer making it such. And now that I type this out, I have made an assumption that eighsse2 is a believer. Perhaps I shouldn't be doing that?

 

[dkp993]

None of this makes any sense to me. God provided Jesus Christ as our ticket to eternal life with him VIA his GRACE so that we can focus on the here and now and live as examples.

Or another viewpoint (to the portion I quoted), as a get out of jail free card. Act how ever badly you like, literally, but be repentful in the end and accept Jesus and it’s all good.
That make no sense to me and from my viewpoint shows the massive flaw in the Christian faith.

 

[eighsse2]

But, you know, I get it, you all have just as much of a right to say that you don't like it or that it's annoying. Just feel bad for someone who is trying his best to help people in what is the most critical way anyone can be helped -- if it is in fact true -- only to be shot down and criticized for it.

Let's turn this on its head a bit. Let's say it's not true. Let's say he spends most of his adult life believing in something that doesn't exist. All the energy he's spending trying to convince others to have a relationship with God could be spent having better relationships and doing more with people on this earth. In other words, it will all be for nothing and will have cost him a lot.

That's what I believe to be the Truth. Should I pepper him and other Christians to convince them of this Truth? Wouldn't that be the most critical way to help him get the most out of our short time here on earth? Or would he and others be justified in shooting me down and criticizing me for my efforts to preach the Truth to them?

That's a fair point. Now I will say, I may only agree with that where someone has their own belief in what reality is, that involves an eternal fate. On the other hand, if we're assuming that there is no afterlife, everyone is just gone after death ... then nothing -- nothing -- matters. Literally destroying all life quickly and painlessly would be a totally neutral act. Some disagree with that, but to me anyway it seems very obvious.

i'll never understand this line of thinking. never.

But, you know, I get it, you all have just as much of a right to say that you don't like it or that it's annoying. Just feel bad for someone who is trying his best to help people in what is the most critical way anyone can be helped -- if it is in fact true -- only to be shot down and criticized for it.

Let's turn this on its head a bit. Let's say it's not true. Let's say he spends most of his adult life believing in something that doesn't exist. All the energy he's spending trying to convince others to have a relationship with God could be spent having better relationships and doing more with people on this earth. In other words, it will all be for nothing and will have cost him a lot.

That's what I believe to be the Truth. Should I pepper him and other Christians to convince them of this Truth? Wouldn't that be the most critical way to help him get the most out of our short time here on earth? Or would he and others be justified in shooting me down and criticizing me for my efforts to preach the Truth to them?

That's a fair point. Now I will say, I may only agree with that where someone has their own belief in what reality is, that involves an eternal fate. On the other hand, if we're assuming that there is no afterlife, everyone is just gone after death ... then nothing -- nothing -- matters. Literally destroying all life quickly and painlessly would be a totally neutral act. Some disagree with that, but to me anyway it seems very obvious.

My children matter.

But, you know, I get it, you all have just as much of a right to say that you don't like it or that it's annoying. Just feel bad for someone who is trying his best to help people in what is the most critical way anyone can be helped -- if it is in fact true -- only to be shot down and criticized for it.

Let's turn this on its head a bit. Let's say it's not true. Let's say he spends most of his adult life believing in something that doesn't exist. All the energy he's spending trying to convince others to have a relationship with God could be spent having better relationships and doing more with people on this earth. In other words, it will all be for nothing and will have cost him a lot.

That's what I believe to be the Truth. Should I pepper him and other Christians to convince them of this Truth? Wouldn't that be the most critical way to help him get the most out of our short time here on earth? Or would he and others be justified in shooting me down and criticizing me for my efforts to preach the Truth to them?

That's a fair point. Now I will say, I may only agree with that where someone has their own belief in what reality is, that involves an eternal fate. On the other hand, if we're assuming that there is no afterlife, everyone is just gone after death ... then nothing -- nothing -- matters. Literally destroying all life quickly and painlessly would be a totally neutral act. Some disagree with that, but to me anyway it seems very obvious.

Well, if we are here for only a short time (which I believe is the case) before we cede to nothing, I'd prefer that short time not be taken up by some evangelist telling me some things that aren't the case (even if I understand why he's doing it).

Currently, fair, it is your life while it lasts. After you're gone (in the atheist view), I don't think anything that you did or that anyone did to you will be an issue to you. And your lifetime, however good or bad, will be dwarfed to 0 relative to your neutralized time.

That's a pretty pessimistic approach. I am on my deathbed I can find some solace in knowing I did have some significant impact for the good, regardless of how insignificant such impact may be over the course of the billions of years the universe will exist.

At the very least, I don't want go out with a reputation like Hitler, Pol Pot, or Vlad the Impaler.

I find it very intriguing that people can think these things in an atheistic worldview. Very difficult for me to wrap my head around. You think some neural synapses matter in a purely physical world that is just over when it's over?
My opinion is that "nothing matters" is not a pessimistic take on atheism; it's neutral. Because atheism is ultimately a neutral, meaningless universe, which is very sad indeed. No pessimism required to make it sad.

I guess I just don’t understand (like you in the reverse I suppose) the need for there to be some reward after we die for it to mean something. Being a good father to my daughter means something whether I’m rewarded after death or not. For every plant or animal (not human) does the same requirement hold firm with the need to have something after death for their life to have been worth more than nothing?

"Lack of reward" is not the point. "Lack of anything, ever" is the point. Once all life dies out, who is concerned about what you did in your life? Sure you can be concerned about it now, and that's fine, but if we knew with certainty that all existence simply ends at death, it seems short-sighted (and infinitely so) to think that what happens has any significance. It's like ... I don't know, like writing a book, fully intending from the beginning, to shred it and forget about what you wrote, as soon as you're finished? Does it matter if it was a good book? Does it matter if it was historical fiction, or non-fiction, or an information book? Does it matter how many pages it was, etc ...?

 

[Captain Cranks]

Should probably request a thread title change:

***Official FBGs Nihilism Thread*** (the real thread about nothing because it doesn’t matter)

The only people saying nothing matters without an afterlife are theists.

 

[eighsse2]

The argument that I'm conflating atheism with nihilism, I don't agree with, if we're referring to the same nihilism. Nihilism as I know it, is the belief that nothing exists. A great step farther than nothing ultimately matters, which I believe atheism does imply.

 

[dkp993]

But, you know, I get it, you all have just as much of a right to say that you don't like it or that it's annoying. Just feel bad for someone who is trying his best to help people in what is the most critical way anyone can be helped -- if it is in fact true -- only to be shot down and criticized for it.

Let's turn this on its head a bit. Let's say it's not true. Let's say he spends most of his adult life believing in something that doesn't exist. All the energy he's spending trying to convince others to have a relationship with God could be spent having better relationships and doing more with people on this earth. In other words, it will all be for nothing and will have cost him a lot.

That's what I believe to be the Truth. Should I pepper him and other Christians to convince them of this Truth? Wouldn't that be the most critical way to help him get the most out of our short time here on earth? Or would he and others be justified in shooting me down and criticizing me for my efforts to preach the Truth to them?

That's a fair point. Now I will say, I may only agree with that where someone has their own belief in what reality is, that involves an eternal fate. On the other hand, if we're assuming that there is no afterlife, everyone is just gone after death ... then nothing -- nothing -- matters. Literally destroying all life quickly and painlessly would be a totally neutral act. Some disagree with that, but to me anyway it seems very obvious.

i'll never understand this line of thinking. never.

But, you know, I get it, you all have just as much of a right to say that you don't like it or that it's annoying. Just feel bad for someone who is trying his best to help people in what is the most critical way anyone can be helped -- if it is in fact true -- only to be shot down and criticized for it.

Let's turn this on its head a bit. Let's say it's not true. Let's say he spends most of his adult life believing in something that doesn't exist. All the energy he's spending trying to convince others to have a relationship with God could be spent having better relationships and doing more with people on this earth. In other words, it will all be for nothing and will have cost him a lot.

That's what I believe to be the Truth. Should I pepper him and other Christians to convince them of this Truth? Wouldn't that be the most critical way to help him get the most out of our short time here on earth? Or would he and others be justified in shooting me down and criticizing me for my efforts to preach the Truth to them?

That's a fair point. Now I will say, I may only agree with that where someone has their own belief in what reality is, that involves an eternal fate. On the other hand, if we're assuming that there is no afterlife, everyone is just gone after death ... then nothing -- nothing -- matters. Literally destroying all life quickly and painlessly would be a totally neutral act. Some disagree with that, but to me anyway it seems very obvious.

My children matter.

But, you know, I get it, you all have just as much of a right to say that you don't like it or that it's annoying. Just feel bad for someone who is trying his best to help people in what is the most critical way anyone can be helped -- if it is in fact true -- only to be shot down and criticized for it.

Let's turn this on its head a bit. Let's say it's not true. Let's say he spends most of his adult life believing in something that doesn't exist. All the energy he's spending trying to convince others to have a relationship with God could be spent having better relationships and doing more with people on this earth. In other words, it will all be for nothing and will have cost him a lot.

That's what I believe to be the Truth. Should I pepper him and other Christians to convince them of this Truth? Wouldn't that be the most critical way to help him get the most out of our short time here on earth? Or would he and others be justified in shooting me down and criticizing me for my efforts to preach the Truth to them?

That's a fair point. Now I will say, I may only agree with that where someone has their own belief in what reality is, that involves an eternal fate. On the other hand, if we're assuming that there is no afterlife, everyone is just gone after death ... then nothing -- nothing -- matters. Literally destroying all life quickly and painlessly would be a totally neutral act. Some disagree with that, but to me anyway it seems very obvious.

Well, if we are here for only a short time (which I believe is the case) before we cede to nothing, I'd prefer that short time not be taken up by some evangelist telling me some things that aren't the case (even if I understand why he's doing it).

Currently, fair, it is your life while it lasts. After you're gone (in the atheist view), I don't think anything that you did or that anyone did to you will be an issue to you. And your lifetime, however good or bad, will be dwarfed to 0 relative to your neutralized time.

That's a pretty pessimistic approach. I am on my deathbed I can find some solace in knowing I did have some significant impact for the good, regardless of how insignificant such impact may be over the course of the billions of years the universe will exist.

At the very least, I don't want go out with a reputation like Hitler, Pol Pot, or Vlad the Impaler.

I find it very intriguing that people can think these things in an atheistic worldview. Very difficult for me to wrap my head around. You think some neural synapses matter in a purely physical world that is just over when it's over?
My opinion is that "nothing matters" is not a pessimistic take on atheism; it's neutral. Because atheism is ultimately a neutral, meaningless universe, which is very sad indeed. No pessimism required to make it sad.

I guess I just don’t understand (like you in the reverse I suppose) the need for there to be some reward after we die for it to mean something. Being a good father to my daughter means something whether I’m rewarded after death or not. For every plant or animal (not human) does the same requirement hold firm with the need to have something after death for their life to have been worth more than nothing?

"Lack of reward" is not the point. "Lack of anything, ever" is the point. Once all life dies out, who is concerned about what you did in your life? Sure you can be concerned about it now, and that's fine, but if we knew with certainty that all existence simply ends at death, it seems short-sighted (and infinitely so) to think that what happens has any significance. It's like ... I don't know, like writing a book, fully intending from the beginning, to shred it and forget about what you wrote, as soon as you're finished? Does it matter if it was a good book? Does it matter if it was historical fiction, or non-fiction, or an information book? Does it matter how many pages it was, etc ...?

It matters because it matters to me here and now. If fact that’s all that matters in my opinion. For example, whether I’m a good father matters nothing a 1000 years from now but that doesn’t stop it meaning something to me today.

And to follow your analogy of the book. One of the processes psychology teaches to help process a conflict or some anger is to write a letter to the person you have the conflict or anger with. Then tear it up and throw it away. It’s the process of writing the letter that helps deal with the pain or anger, it needing to be delivered or read often doesn’t matter. Therefore the letter had meaning even while ceasing to exist or be seen by others.

 

[eighsse2]

None of this makes any sense to me. God provided Jesus Christ as our ticket to eternal life with him VIA his GRACE so that we can focus on the here and now and live as examples. This is not, nor has ever been, an either/or choice so it's hard for me to follow a believer making it such. And now that I type this out, I have made an assumption that eighsse2 is a believer. Perhaps I shouldn't be doing that?

I am a skeptical believer or someone trying to be a believer. I don't know a word for what I am. I am choosing to believe, but I have many doubts about whether it is factually true. Most of my recent posts are in response to atheism (that is to say: "Suppose atheism to be factual ... In that case, [blah blah blah]). Sorry if it has become easy to take that out of context, as it could appear that I am stating the [blah blah blah] part as fact.

 

[Navin Johnson]

None of this makes any sense to me. God provided Jesus Christ as our ticket to eternal life with him VIA his GRACE so that we can focus on the here and now and live as examples. This is not, nor has ever been, an either/or choice so it's hard for me to follow a believer making it such. And now that I type this out, I have made an assumption that eighsse2 is a believer. Perhaps I shouldn't be doing that?

I am a skeptical believer or someone trying to be a believer. I don't know a word for what I am. I am choosing to believe, but I have many doubts about whether it is factually true. Most of my recent posts are in response to atheism (that is to say: "Suppose atheism to be factual ... In that case, [blah blah blah]). Sorry if it has become easy to take that out of context, as it could appear that I am stating the [blah blah blah] part as fact.

You seem to try and speak for atheists and their outlook. What makes you think you understand their perspective because it seems most of them take issue with what you are saying.

 

[eighsse2]

None of this makes any sense to me. God provided Jesus Christ as our ticket to eternal life with him VIA his GRACE so that we can focus on the here and now and live as examples. This is not, nor has ever been, an either/or choice so it's hard for me to follow a believer making it such. And now that I type this out, I have made an assumption that eighsse2 is a believer. Perhaps I shouldn't be doing that?

I am a skeptical believer or someone trying to be a believer. I don't know a word for what I am. I am choosing to believe, but I have many doubts about whether it is factually true. Most of my recent posts are in response to atheism (that is to say: "Suppose atheism to be factual ... In that case, [blah blah blah]). Sorry if it has become easy to take that out of context, as it could appear that I am stating the [blah blah blah] part as fact.

You seem to try and speak for atheists and their outlook. What makes you think you understand their perspective because it seems most of them take issue with what you are saying.

Their outlook is that there is no god, and, as I understand it, no afterlife, right? I suppose there may be some splitting of definitions whereby some atheists believe in an afterlife without a god. But I am presuming that when we say atheist, we generally mean someone who believes there is nothing beyond the physical, and nothing after death.

Beyond that, I am stating what logically follows (at least as seems clear to me?) from that belief.

 

[dkp993]

None of this makes any sense to me. God provided Jesus Christ as our ticket to eternal life with him VIA his GRACE so that we can focus on the here and now and live as examples. This is not, nor has ever been, an either/or choice so it's hard for me to follow a believer making it such. And now that I type this out, I have made an assumption that eighsse2 is a believer. Perhaps I shouldn't be doing that?

I am a skeptical believer or someone trying to be a believer. I don't know a word for what I am. I am choosing to believe, but I have many doubts about whether it is factually true. Most of my recent posts are in response to atheism (that is to say: "Suppose atheism to be factual ... In that case, [blah blah blah]). Sorry if it has become easy to take that out of context, as it could appear that I am stating the [blah blah blah] part as fact.

You seem to try and speak for atheists and their outlook. What makes you think you understand their perspective because it seems most of them take issue with what you are saying.

Their outlook is that there is no god, and, as I understand it, no afterlife, right? I suppose there may be some splitting of definitions whereby some atheists believe in an afterlife without a god. But I am presuming that when we say atheist, we generally mean someone who believes there is nothing beyond the physical, and nothing after death.

Beyond that, I am stating what logically follows (at least as seems clear to me?) from that belief.

That depends on what you define “afterlife” as. While I more associate with an agnostic viewpoint and don’t want to speak for every atheist, an afterlife doesn’t have to mean “heaven or hell”. It doesn’t even have to include conscious awareness

 

[Captain Cranks]

Beyond that, I am stating what logically follows (at least as seems clear to me?) from that belief.

I don't think your association of meaning with an afterlife is logically sound.

 

[Terminalxylem]

But, you know, I get it, you all have just as much of a right to say that you don't like it or that it's annoying. Just feel bad for someone who is trying his best to help people in what is the most critical way anyone can be helped -- if it is in fact true -- only to be shot down and criticized for it.

Let's turn this on its head a bit. Let's say it's not true. Let's say he spends most of his adult life believing in something that doesn't exist. All the energy he's spending trying to convince others to have a relationship with God could be spent having better relationships and doing more with people on this earth. In other words, it will all be for nothing and will have cost him a lot.

That's what I believe to be the Truth. Should I pepper him and other Christians to convince them of this Truth? Wouldn't that be the most critical way to help him get the most out of our short time here on earth? Or would he and others be justified in shooting me down and criticizing me for my efforts to preach the Truth to them?

That's a fair point. Now I will say, I may only agree with that where someone has their own belief in what reality is, that involves an eternal fate. On the other hand, if we're assuming that there is no afterlife, everyone is just gone after death ... then nothing -- nothing -- matters. Literally destroying all life quickly and painlessly would be a totally neutral act. Some disagree with that, but to me anyway it seems very obvious.

i'll never understand this line of thinking. never.

But, you know, I get it, you all have just as much of a right to say that you don't like it or that it's annoying. Just feel bad for someone who is trying his best to help people in what is the most critical way anyone can be helped -- if it is in fact true -- only to be shot down and criticized for it.

Let's turn this on its head a bit. Let's say it's not true. Let's say he spends most of his adult life believing in something that doesn't exist. All the energy he's spending trying to convince others to have a relationship with God could be spent having better relationships and doing more with people on this earth. In other words, it will all be for nothing and will have cost him a lot.

That's what I believe to be the Truth. Should I pepper him and other Christians to convince them of this Truth? Wouldn't that be the most critical way to help him get the most out of our short time here on earth? Or would he and others be justified in shooting me down and criticizing me for my efforts to preach the Truth to them?

That's a fair point. Now I will say, I may only agree with that where someone has their own belief in what reality is, that involves an eternal fate. On the other hand, if we're assuming that there is no afterlife, everyone is just gone after death ... then nothing -- nothing -- matters. Literally destroying all life quickly and painlessly would be a totally neutral act. Some disagree with that, but to me anyway it seems very obvious.

My children matter.

But, you know, I get it, you all have just as much of a right to say that you don't like it or that it's annoying. Just feel bad for someone who is trying his best to help people in what is the most critical way anyone can be helped -- if it is in fact true -- only to be shot down and criticized for it.

Let's turn this on its head a bit. Let's say it's not true. Let's say he spends most of his adult life believing in something that doesn't exist. All the energy he's spending trying to convince others to have a relationship with God could be spent having better relationships and doing more with people on this earth. In other words, it will all be for nothing and will have cost him a lot.

That's what I believe to be the Truth. Should I pepper him and other Christians to convince them of this Truth? Wouldn't that be the most critical way to help him get the most out of our short time here on earth? Or would he and others be justified in shooting me down and criticizing me for my efforts to preach the Truth to them?

That's a fair point. Now I will say, I may only agree with that where someone has their own belief in what reality is, that involves an eternal fate. On the other hand, if we're assuming that there is no afterlife, everyone is just gone after death ... then nothing -- nothing -- matters. Literally destroying all life quickly and painlessly would be a totally neutral act. Some disagree with that, but to me anyway it seems very obvious.

Well, if we are here for only a short time (which I believe is the case) before we cede to nothing, I'd prefer that short time not be taken up by some evangelist telling me some things that aren't the case (even if I understand why he's doing it).

Currently, fair, it is your life while it lasts. After you're gone (in the atheist view), I don't think anything that you did or that anyone did to you will be an issue to you. And your lifetime, however good or bad, will be dwarfed to 0 relative to your neutralized time.

That's a pretty pessimistic approach. I am on my deathbed I can find some solace in knowing I did have some significant impact for the good, regardless of how insignificant such impact may be over the course of the billions of years the universe will exist.

At the very least, I don't want go out with a reputation like Hitler, Pol Pot, or Vlad the Impaler.

I find it very intriguing that people can think these things in an atheistic worldview. Very difficult for me to wrap my head around. You think some neural synapses matter in a purely physical world that is just over when it's over?
My opinion is that "nothing matters" is not a pessimistic take on atheism; it's neutral. Because atheism is ultimately a neutral, meaningless universe, which is very sad indeed. No pessimism required to make it sad.

I guess I just don’t understand (like you in the reverse I suppose) the need for there to be some reward after we die for it to mean something. Being a good father to my daughter means something whether I’m rewarded after death or not. For every plant or animal (not human) does the same requirement hold firm with the need to have something after death for their life to have been worth more than nothing?

"Lack of reward" is not the point. "Lack of anything, ever" is the point. Once all life dies out, who is concerned about what you did in your life? Sure you can be concerned about it now, and that's fine, but if we knew with certainty that all existence simply ends at death, it seems short-sighted (and infinitely so) to think that what happens has any significance. It's like ... I don't know, like writing a book, fully intending from the beginning, to shred it and forget about what you wrote, as soon as you're finished? Does it matter if it was a good book? Does it matter if it was historical fiction, or non-fiction, or an information book? Does it matter how many pages it was, etc ...?

It matters because it matters to me here and now. If fact that’s all that matters in my opinion. For example, whether I’m a good father matters nothing a 1000 years from now but that doesn’t stop it meaning something to me today.

And to follow your analogy of the book. One of the processes psychology teaches to help process a conflict or some anger is to write a letter to the person you have the conflict or anger with. Then tear it up and throw it away. It’s the process of writing the letter that helps deal with the pain or anger, it needing to be delivered or read often doesn’t matter. Therefore the letter had meaning even while ceasing to exist or be seen by others.

Yeah, it seems to me life matters more to a non-believer, as there’s no eternal afterlife. Time is exceedingly precious when existence is limited. On the flip side, why should a theist care much about 80 some-odd living years, when an eternity of bliss follows?

What we do is not only important to ourselves, but also our loved ones, and likely many others, whose lives we influence through our mortal actions. All that legacy doesn’t just evaporate when we die. Being a good father today matters now and in the future (maybe even 1000 years from now), if it influences you children to become kind, productive human beings, for example.

 

[Terminalxylem]

Also, why must our lives have some greater meaning? What’s inherently wrong with seeking happiness/love, even if it's transient, and inconsequential in the cosmic picture?

 

[Sparky Polastri]

None of this makes any sense to me. God provided Jesus Christ as our ticket to eternal life with him VIA his GRACE so that we can focus on the here and now and live as examples.

Or another viewpoint (to the portion I quoted), as a get out of jail free card. Act how ever badly you like, literally, but be repentful in the end and accept Jesus and it’s all good.
That make no sense to me and from my viewpoint shows the massive flaw in the Christian faith.

How would it make sense to you? You have very little to no insight into a person's heart or what their relationship with God is. None of us do. This is where grace comes in. We don't see it a lot among each other as humans, but we do see it. I do have to confess I get confused by why this is a "flaw". The faith is centered around grace, sacrifice and forgiveness. It's hard for me to understand why a blatant example of that would be a flaw.

 

[dkp993]

None of this makes any sense to me. God provided Jesus Christ as our ticket to eternal life with him VIA his GRACE so that we can focus on the here and now and live as examples.

Or another viewpoint (to the portion I quoted), as a get out of jail free card. Act how ever badly you like, literally, but be repentful in the end and accept Jesus and it’s all good.
That make no sense to me and from my viewpoint shows the massive flaw in the Christian faith.

How would it make sense to you? You have very little to no insight into a person's heart or what their relationship with God is. None of us do. This is where grace comes in. We don't see it a lot among each other as humans, but we do see it. I do have to confess I get confused by why this is a "flaw". The faith is centered around grace, sacrifice and forgiveness. It's hard for me to understand why a blatant example of that would be a flaw.

I call it a flaw because…. On one hand you can have Hilter, someone who brutally oversees the torture and murder of millions of people, but in his day realizes he was wrong and accepts Jesus. Boom. Heaven and eternal reward. On the other hand a person who has lived a righteous life, caring for others and by every definition we know is a good person. But for whatever reason (lack of knowledge, belief, etc etc) doesn’t accept Jesus as lord a savior. Off to eternal damnation and torture you go. If that’s not a flaw in the belief system of a loving God, I don’t know what is.

 

[dgreen]

None of this makes any sense to me. God provided Jesus Christ as our ticket to eternal life with him VIA his GRACE so that we can focus on the here and now and live as examples.

Or another viewpoint (to the portion I quoted), as a get out of jail free card. Act how ever badly you like, literally, but be repentful in the end and accept Jesus and it’s all good.
That make no sense to me and from my viewpoint shows the massive flaw in the Christian faith.

How would it make sense to you? You have very little to no insight into a person's heart or what their relationship with God is. None of us do. This is where grace comes in. We don't see it a lot among each other as humans, but we do see it. I do have to confess I get confused by why this is a "flaw". The faith is centered around grace, sacrifice and forgiveness. It's hard for me to understand why a blatant example of that would be a flaw.

I call it a flaw because…. On one hand you can have Hilter, someone who brutally oversees the torture and murder of millions of people, but in his day realizes he was wrong and accepts Jesus. Boom. Heaven and eternal reward. On the other hand a person who has lived a righteous life, caring for others and by every definition we know is a good person. But for whatever reason (lack of knowledge, belief, etc etc) doesn’t accept Jesus as lord a savior. Off to eternal damnation and torture you go. If that’s not a flaw in the belief system of a loving God, I don’t know what is.

Does one bother you more than the other?

 

[dkp993]

None of this makes any sense to me. God provided Jesus Christ as our ticket to eternal life with him VIA his GRACE so that we can focus on the here and now and live as examples.

Or another viewpoint (to the portion I quoted), as a get out of jail free card. Act how ever badly you like, literally, but be repentful in the end and accept Jesus and it’s all good.
That make no sense to me and from my viewpoint shows the massive flaw in the Christian faith.

How would it make sense to you? You have very little to no insight into a person's heart or what their relationship with God is. None of us do. This is where grace comes in. We don't see it a lot among each other as humans, but we do see it. I do have to confess I get confused by why this is a "flaw". The faith is centered around grace, sacrifice and forgiveness. It's hard for me to understand why a blatant example of that would be a flaw.

I call it a flaw because…. On one hand you can have Hilter, someone who brutally oversees the torture and murder of millions of people, but in his day realizes he was wrong and accepts Jesus. Boom. Heaven and eternal reward. On the other hand a person who has lived a righteous life, caring for others and by every definition we know is a good person. But for whatever reason (lack of knowledge, belief, etc etc) doesn’t accept Jesus as lord a savior. Off to eternal damnation and torture you go. If that’s not a flaw in the belief system of a loving God, I don’t know what is.

Does one bother you more than the other?

Fantastic question. Yes. As my nature isn’t one focused on retribution, the good righteous person who doesn’t believe, again for a multitude of reasons, but gets punished for eternity bothers me far more than

 

[eighsse2]

Beyond that, I am stating what logically follows (at least as seems clear to me?) from that belief.

I don't think your association of meaning with an afterlife is logically sound.

Heck, I don't know, man. Not sure what else to say. Ultimate, final meaning ... ultimate, final significance, I don't see how there is any such thing, once everything is all said and done. (Again, make no mistake, this is all within the context that we are assuming nothing exists beyond the physical.) The final result is the same no matter how many good things or bad things happened while things with brains existed.

 

[Zow]

Beyond that, I am stating what logically follows (at least as seems clear to me?) from that belief.

I don't think your association of meaning with an afterlife is logically sound.

Heck, I don't know, man. Not sure what else to say. Ultimate, final meaning ... ultimate, final significance, I don't see how there is any such thing, once everything is all said and done. (Again, make no mistake, this is all within the context that we are assuming nothing exists beyond the physical.) The final result is the same no matter how many good things or bad things happened while things with brains existed.

So... take this as having no pressure then to go live your best life!

 

[Navin Johnson]

None of this makes any sense to me. God provided Jesus Christ as our ticket to eternal life with him VIA his GRACE so that we can focus on the here and now and live as examples. This is not, nor has ever been, an either/or choice so it's hard for me to follow a believer making it such. And now that I type this out, I have made an assumption that eighsse2 is a believer. Perhaps I shouldn't be doing that?

I am a skeptical believer or someone trying to be a believer. I don't know a word for what I am. I am choosing to believe, but I have many doubts about whether it is factually true. Most of my recent posts are in response to atheism (that is to say: "Suppose atheism to be factual ... In that case, [blah blah blah]). Sorry if it has become easy to take that out of context, as it could appear that I am stating the [blah blah blah] part as fact.

You seem to try and speak for atheists and their outlook. What makes you think you understand their perspective because it seems most of them take issue with what you are saying.

Their outlook is that there is no god, and, as I understand it, no afterlife, right? I suppose there may be some splitting of definitions whereby some atheists believe in an afterlife without a god. But I am presuming that when we say atheist, we generally mean someone who believes there is nothing beyond the physical, and nothing after death.

Beyond that, I am stating what logically follows (at least as seems clear to me?) from that belief.

Maybe the fear of not knowing scares people into believing. I don't know many atheists/agnostics that are worried about it.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

None of this makes any sense to me. God provided Jesus Christ as our ticket to eternal life with him VIA his GRACE so that we can focus on the here and now and live as examples.

Or another viewpoint (to the portion I quoted), as a get out of jail free card. Act how ever badly you like, literally, but be repentful in the end and accept Jesus and it’s all good.
That make no sense to me and from my viewpoint shows the massive flaw in the Christian faith.

How would it make sense to you? You have very little to no insight into a person's heart or what their relationship with God is. None of us do. This is where grace comes in. We don't see it a lot among each other as humans, but we do see it. I do have to confess I get confused by why this is a "flaw". The faith is centered around grace, sacrifice and forgiveness. It's hard for me to understand why a blatant example of that would be a flaw.

I call it a flaw because…. On one hand you can have Hilter, someone who brutally oversees the torture and murder of millions of people, but in his day realizes he was wrong and accepts Jesus. Boom. Heaven and eternal reward. On the other hand a person who has lived a righteous life, caring for others and by every definition we know is a good person. But for whatever reason (lack of knowledge, belief, etc etc) doesn’t accept Jesus as lord a savior. Off to eternal damnation and torture you go. If that’s not a flaw in the belief system of a loving God, I don’t know what is.

Of course. You're on the outside looking in. You have no way of knowing what the relationship between "person" and God or Hitler and God is. Those relationships and the grace within are what matters.

 

[dkp993]

None of this makes any sense to me. God provided Jesus Christ as our ticket to eternal life with him VIA his GRACE so that we can focus on the here and now and live as examples.

Or another viewpoint (to the portion I quoted), as a get out of jail free card. Act how ever badly you like, literally, but be repentful in the end and accept Jesus and it’s all good.
That make no sense to me and from my viewpoint shows the massive flaw in the Christian faith.

How would it make sense to you? You have very little to no insight into a person's heart or what their relationship with God is. None of us do. This is where grace comes in. We don't see it a lot among each other as humans, but we do see it. I do have to confess I get confused by why this is a "flaw". The faith is centered around grace, sacrifice and forgiveness. It's hard for me to understand why a blatant example of that would be a flaw.

I call it a flaw because…. On one hand you can have Hilter, someone who brutally oversees the torture and murder of millions of people, but in his day realizes he was wrong and accepts Jesus. Boom. Heaven and eternal reward. On the other hand a person who has lived a righteous life, caring for others and by every definition we know is a good person. But for whatever reason (lack of knowledge, belief, etc etc) doesn’t accept Jesus as lord a savior. Off to eternal damnation and torture you go. If that’s not a flaw in the belief system of a loving God, I don’t know what is.

Of course. You're on the outside looking in. You have no way of knowing what the relationship between "person" and God or Hitler and God is. Those relationships and the grace within are what matters.

So where is the “grace” and “love” for those of us unlucky enough to be on the “outside looking in”. We either have to choose to believe (even if we don’t) or be damned?

 

[Sparky Polastri]

None of this makes any sense to me. God provided Jesus Christ as our ticket to eternal life with him VIA his GRACE so that we can focus on the here and now and live as examples.

Or another viewpoint (to the portion I quoted), as a get out of jail free card. Act how ever badly you like, literally, but be repentful in the end and accept Jesus and it’s all good.
That make no sense to me and from my viewpoint shows the massive flaw in the Christian faith.

How would it make sense to you? You have very little to no insight into a person's heart or what their relationship with God is. None of us do. This is where grace comes in. We don't see it a lot among each other as humans, but we do see it. I do have to confess I get confused by why this is a "flaw". The faith is centered around grace, sacrifice and forgiveness. It's hard for me to understand why a blatant example of that would be a flaw.

I call it a flaw because…. On one hand you can have Hilter, someone who brutally oversees the torture and murder of millions of people, but in his day realizes he was wrong and accepts Jesus. Boom. Heaven and eternal reward. On the other hand a person who has lived a righteous life, caring for others and by every definition we know is a good person. But for whatever reason (lack of knowledge, belief, etc etc) doesn’t accept Jesus as lord a savior. Off to eternal damnation and torture you go. If that’s not a flaw in the belief system of a loving God, I don’t know what is.

Of course. You're on the outside looking in. You have no way of knowing what the relationship between "person" and God or Hitler and God is. Those relationships and the grace within are what matters.

So where is the “grace” and “love” for those of us unlucky enough to be on the “outside looking in”. We either have to choose to believe (even if we don’t) or be damned?

When people ask me this question, I don't know what to tell them outside of pointing out that it's a choice to reject that grace and love.

To the "damned" part, you're talking to a person who doesn't subscribe to the "the fireworks hell is an actual place " kind of person. Just need that out there to be clear. It's rather obvious to a great many that "hell" is anywhere God isn't present.

And to be clear, I too am on the outside looking in on either of those situations. All those not in the relationship are.

 

[Zow]

None of this makes any sense to me. God provided Jesus Christ as our ticket to eternal life with him VIA his GRACE so that we can focus on the here and now and live as examples.

Or another viewpoint (to the portion I quoted), as a get out of jail free card. Act how ever badly you like, literally, but be repentful in the end and accept Jesus and it’s all good.
That make no sense to me and from my viewpoint shows the massive flaw in the Christian faith.

How would it make sense to you? You have very little to no insight into a person's heart or what their relationship with God is. None of us do. This is where grace comes in. We don't see it a lot among each other as humans, but we do see it. I do have to confess I get confused by why this is a "flaw". The faith is centered around grace, sacrifice and forgiveness. It's hard for me to understand why a blatant example of that would be a flaw.

I call it a flaw because…. On one hand you can have Hilter, someone who brutally oversees the torture and murder of millions of people, but in his day realizes he was wrong and accepts Jesus. Boom. Heaven and eternal reward. On the other hand a person who has lived a righteous life, caring for others and by every definition we know is a good person. But for whatever reason (lack of knowledge, belief, etc etc) doesn’t accept Jesus as lord a savior. Off to eternal damnation and torture you go. If that’s not a flaw in the belief system of a loving God, I don’t know what is.

Of course. You're on the outside looking in. You have no way of knowing what the relationship between "person" and God or Hitler and God is. Those relationships and the grace within are what matters.

So where is the “grace” and “love” for those of us unlucky enough to be on the “outside looking in”. We either have to choose to believe (even if we don’t) or be damned?

When people ask me this question, I don't know what to tell them outside of pointing out that it's a choice to reject that grace and love.

So fair and loving.

 

[dkp993]

When people ask me this question, I don't know what to tell them outside of pointing out that it's a choice to reject that grace and love.

Thanks for the reply. And to be clear I’m not challenging you but…

How is it a choice if one doesn’t find the, frankly imo, questionable 2000 yr old evidence believable? How is it a choice if you have been convinced?*

*I ask because this is what I seek to understand. I get the Paddingtons of the world, he’s convinced. So and loopholes or gaps in the “logic” fall into the “faith” department. But if you haven’t been convinced, how can you truly have faith.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

When people ask me this question, I don't know what to tell them outside of pointing out that it's a choice to reject that grace and love.

Thanks for the reply. And to be clear I’m not challenging you but…

How is it a choice if one doesn’t find the, frankly imo, questionable 2000 yr old evidence believable? How is it a choice if you have been convinced?*

*I ask because this is what I seek to understand. I get the Paddingtons of the world, he’s convinced. So and loopholes or gaps in the “logic” fall into the “faith” department. But if you haven’t been convinced, how can you truly have faith.

If you're in the "I don't know" or "I'm not sure" kinds of places, your choice here is to keep trying to figure it out or you stop. That would be your choice in that situation. Am I making sense?