Life after death

branie

According to some Christians, we don't go to heaven after we die. Rather we stay dead until Rapture or the second coming. Does anyone here agree with this?

Onesimus

Branie, all it takes is one post from you to start world war III on these boards lol.

PDN

branie wrote: »

According to some Christians, we don't go to heaven after we die. Rather we stay dead until Rapture or the second coming. Does anyone here agree with this?

Nope.

Doc Farrell

I agree with pdn as usual. The real question is what kind of life do you want to live before death. Find a way to live with heart and you won't have to worry about your soul.

dvae

branie wrote: »

According to some Christians, we don't go to heaven after we die. Rather we stay dead until Rapture or the second coming. Does anyone here agree with this?

despite be my catholic upbringing this is something Ive always questioned.
my belief is when we die we go into the ground, and await in death,
judgment day.
the bible calls this period of time "sleep".
for me it would not make sense to die now, go to heaven, and be taken
out and judged again at Armageddon

Gumbi

Onesimus wrote: »

Branie, all it takes is one post from you to start world war III on these boards lol.

Such is the nature of religion.

georgieporgy

dvae wrote: »

despite be my catholic upbringing this is something Ive always questioned.
my belief is when we die we go into the ground, and await in death,
judgment day.
the bible calls this period of time "sleep".
for me it would not make sense to die now, go to heaven, and be taken
out and judged again at Armageddon

I hope you're not suggesting that that is the teaching of the catholic church?

dvae

georgieporgy wrote: »

I hope you're not suggesting that that is the teaching of the catholic church?

no far from it. like myself, my beliefs don't belong to the catholic religion.

Peregrinus

The promise of Christianity - the striking, astounding, extravagant promise - is the resurrection of the body. Our destiny, as redeemed people, is eternal life - eternal bodily life.

It’s a staggering claim, and a difficult one to fully comprehend. Our incomprehension is slightly eased (but only slightly) by the fact that, as a people, we have encountered the risen Christ, and his resurrection prefigures ours.

OK. So granted that the resurrection of the body is, for most of us, a future event to which we look forward in faith and hope, what happens between bodily death and the coming resurrection? What kind of existence do w have until we enjoy our promised resurrection?

As children we all absorb the popular notion of heaven as a place of air, clouds and white robes where we sort of float around in an ethereal way, waiting for bodily resurrection. The truth is, though, that never having experienced existence as a purely spiritual entity, we can’t meaningfully imagine what such an existence would be like.

We do know, though, that we were not created for this. We are body-and-soul creatures, and our destiny and calling is to be body-and-soul creatures. If we do pass through a stage of purely spiritual existence, that would by definition be an, incomplete, imperfect existence.

We kind of assume that we must pass through such a stage of existence, because from where we are now there is fairly clearly a gap between bodily death, which has already happened for many of us, and bodily resurrection, which so far has only happened for one of us.

But maybe we only perceive this need because of our own faulty perception. We wonder where we will be until the resurrection, but even to ask the question assumes that the word “until” has some meaning in this context.

It may have no meaning. We are bound by time. Events unfold in a historical order. What has happened in the past exists only in our memory; what will happen in the future exists only in our imagination.

But this is not the case for God, to whom all things are immediately present. There is no passage of time for God, no gaps between events, no process of growth, no coming to understanding, no forgetting. There is no time.

And, it seems to me, it need not be the case for resurrected, perfected, fulfilled humanity. We simply can’t know what it will be like to become who we are called to be, because we haven’t experienced it yet. We imagine passing through a phase of purely spiritual existence because, given the limitations of our experience, we cannot understand the process of “becoming” in any other way. But the reality that awaits us is not limited by our imagination. In the course of becoming who we are created to be, time will cease to constrain us in the way that it currently does, and “until” will cease to have any meaning.

Benny_Cake

georgieporgy wrote: »

I hope you're not suggesting that that is the teaching of the catholic church?

It would be the position held by the Seventh Day Adventist church and it's offshoots as far as I know.

tayloraustin

If that so where will be the place for the dead? I mean if where not going in heaven yet then probably neither on hell...so where is the place actually?

Peregrinus

tayloraustin wrote: »

If that so where will be the place for the dead? I mean if where not going in heaven yet then probably neither on hell...so where is the place actually?

It isn't anywhere, I think, would be the view of the Seventh Day Adventists and others. It is suspended, uncomprehending, has no consciousness or experience. The term "soul sleep" is occasionally used to describe this. Souls, not being material entities, don't actually require a "place".

georgieporgy

dvae wrote: »

no far from it. like myself, my beliefs don't belong to the catholic religion.

I wasn't criticising your statement or beliefs Dvae. I just wanted to clarify the bit I highlighted in bold in post 7.

"for me it would not make sense to die now, go to heaven, and be taken
out and judged again at Armageddon"

I got the impression from your post that you thought that was the position of the RC. It isn't of course.
The RC position would be that after death is Judgement (then off you go to heaven or hell ). Then at the end of the world , "when heaven and earth shall pass away", our bodies are resurrected and reunited with our souls. Often referred to as the General Judgement because it's public. But this won't change your condition or be a get out of jail free situation. It just means your soul is reunited with your body to share in your future life. And as Perigrinus says, we don't know anything about that. Or as Scripture says "eye has not seen , nor ear heard, nor has it entered into the heart of man what things God has in store for him that loves Him)

And I think we can deduce from this that we don't know what God has in store for him that hates Him either!

damiendar

According to the Gospel of Peter when we die we go somewhere to be taught, since not all people that have lived and died on earth have heard of God It could be safe to say that they are taught about Jesus Christ and the Resurrection and given a chance to accept or reject Him as The Christ

Verse 19 teaches that we have the ability to think to feel and to make choices that effect our final resting place, if not why would Jesus have preached to the dead.

This is my understanding of what happens when we die before the final judgement, as men cannot be saved in ignorance and God is a just God , all men must be judged equal and have the same chance to reject or accept Jesus and recieve Eternal Happiness

Peter Chap 3
18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit
19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison

PDN

damiendar wrote: »

According to the Gospel of Peter when we die we go somewhere to be taught, since not all people that have lived and died on earth have heard of God It could be safe to say that they are taught about Jesus Christ and the Resurrection and given a chance to accept or reject Him as The Christ

Verse 19 teaches that we have the ability to think to feel and to make choices that effect our final resting place, if not why would Jesus have preached to the dead.

This is my understanding of what happens when we die before the final judgement, as men cannot be saved in ignorance and God is a just God , all men must be judged equal and have the same chance to reject or accept Jesus and recieve Eternal Happiness

Peter Chap 3
18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit
19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison

I think this is a fundamental misunderstanding caused by our conception of the word 'preach'. We tend to think of preaching as a method of teaching, or of persuasion to make people change their mind about something.

The verses you cite are from the First Epistle of Peter (not the Gospel of Peter - which is a non-canonical book dating from the late 2nd Century). The word translated 'preached' is the verb kerysso (the related noun is kerygma).

It literally means to proclaim, or to cry aloud as a herald. The picture in 1 Peter 3, then, appears to be that Christ, following His death, entered the spirit-world and proclaimed judgment to the spirits of those that had lived and died before His coming.

I think it would be a huge mistake to take our modern conception of 'preaching' and to read this back two thousand years so as to have Christ doing a Billy Graham in Hell and thus giving people after death a second chance to repent.

Zombrex

I want to be annihilated after I die? I assume all I do is just keep not believing in the teachings of Christianity, right? Or is there something extra I need to do?

PDN

Zombrex wrote: »

I want to be annihilated after I die? I assume all I do is just keep not believing in the teachings of Christianity, right? Or is there something extra I need to do?

Keep on wishing. Cross your fingers and trust in Santa.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Keep on wishing. Cross your fingers and trust in Santa.

That post seems to imply you believe I won't be?

antiskeptic

Zombrex wrote: »

I want to be annihilated after I die?

Why would you want that?

damiendar

PDN wrote: »

I think this is a fundamental misunderstanding caused by our conception of the word 'preach'. We tend to think of preaching as a method of teaching, or of persuasion to make people change their mind about something.

The verses you cite are from the First Epistle of Peter (not the Gospel of Peter - which is a non-canonical book dating from the late 2nd Century). The word translated 'preached' is the verb kerysso (the related noun is kerygma).

It literally means to proclaim, or to cry aloud as a herald. The picture in 1 Peter 3, then, appears to be that Christ, following His death, entered the spirit-world and proclaimed judgment to the spirits of those that had lived and died before His coming.

I think it would be a huge mistake to take our modern conception of 'preaching' and to read this back two thousand years so as to have Christ doing a Billy Graham in Hell and thus giving people after death a second chance to repent.

You are of course right its the First Epistle of Peter on the word preach. In the next chapter 4 VERSE 6 Peter made it quite clear in what context he was using the word " preach" it was used in the context of to proclaim, but not proclaim judgment , rather proclaim/preach/teach that Jesus is the Christ and that he has over - come death

How can people be judged when they were dead before he even lived, especially when the gospel at that time was for the Jews and not the Gentiles

Peter made it very clear that the Gospel is preached, proclaimed or in other words taught to those that have died in ignorance of Jesus Christ ,

There could be only one reason for this and it is that those that have not had the chance to accept the gospel here on earth will have the chance to accept it there in " Spirit World"

6 For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.

antiskeptic

damiendar wrote: »

You are of course right its the First Epistle of Peter on the word preach. In the next chapter 4 VERSE 6 Peter made it quite clear in what context he was using the word " preach" it was used in the context of to proclaim, but not proclaim judgment , rather proclaim/preach/teach that Jesus is the Christ and that he has over - come death

How can people be judged when they were dead before he even lived,

Paul's pointing to Abraham as a model for how one is declared righteous makes questionable the notion that the gospel of Jesus (as commonly understood) is required to be heard and believed in order that a person be saved.

I mean, if a person can be declared righteous before Jesus and his gospel, then why not judgement also?

PDN

damiendar wrote: »

You are of course right its the First Epistle of Peter on the word preach. In the next chapter 4 VERSE 6 Peter made it quite clear in what context he was using the word " preach" it was used in the context of to proclaim, but not proclaim judgment , rather proclaim/preach/teach that Jesus is the Christ and that he has over - come death

How can people be judged when they were dead before he even lived, especially when the gospel at that time was for the Jews and not the Gentiles

Peter made it very clear that the Gospel is preached, proclaimed or in other words taught to those that have died in ignorance of Jesus Christ ,

There could be only one reason for this and it is that those that have not had the chance to accept the gospel here on earth will have the chance to accept it there in " Spirit World"

6 For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.

Again, I think you are forcing your modern ideas into an ancient text. The word 'Gospel' simply means 'Good News'.

There were those who lived and died before the coming of Christ, yet trusted in the promises of God. Abraham is the obvious example. Their judgment was to hear the Good News proclaimed that Christ had now come, had died on the Cross and fulfilled the promises and the foreshadows of the Old Testament sacrifices, and so now they could enter into the presence of God on account of the faith that they displayed when they were alive.

damiendar

antiskeptic wrote: »

Paul's pointing to Abraham as a model for how one is declared righteous makes questionable the notion that the gospel of Jesus (as commonly understood) is required to be heard and believed in order that a person be saved.

I mean, if a person can be declared righteous before Jesus and his gospel, then why not judgement also?

The problem in the use of Abraham is that he was a Prophet and knew the teachings and was promised great blessings from God...

But I am speaking of those that did not have the blessings of Abraham or Noah or Adam.

Thats whom I think Peter was speaking of when he said that it was preached unto the dead, unless of course God did not want all His Children to be saved and was prepared to judge them in their ignorance ...which I think is not so.

I think when he spoke in Isaiah 43 and said ..I, even I, am the Lord; and beside me there is no saviour
That tells me that there must be an acceptance of Him as such which can only happen when one has a knowledge of Him...

I guess at this point the OP can make up his own mind, But he should bear in mind that Im speaking of those that have not the chance to hear the good news of the gospel that Jesus is the Christ and took upon Himself the sins of the world and rose again on the thrid day. So that we can overcome death

antiskeptic

damiendar wrote: »

The problem in the use of Abraham is that he was a Prophet and knew the teachings and was promised great blessings from God...

When was Abraham a prophet (prior to his believing God and being declared righteous)? And which teachings was he aware of (and who thought him these teachings) before he believed God and was declared righteous?

Paul utilises the model of Abraham in a technical book, a core purpose of which is to lay out the mode of salvation. Those that would suppose there is only one means (i.e. the Gospel of Jesus Christ (as understood in this modern age) preached and accepted) need deal with the fact that Abrahams case begs to differ.

If more than one means (or rather, in my view, different shades of the same means) then how many more?

Thats whom I think Peter was speaking of when he said that it was preached unto the dead, unless of course God did not want all His Children to be saved and was prepared to judge them in their ignorance ...which I think is not so.

1) If people are given "the right to become children of God" then follows that not everyone need automatically be considered a child of God. A child of God is but another moniker of the saved. Everyone else (the lost) are described as children of the devil)

2) You point hinges on the assumption that folk before Jesus were ignorant of that which could save them. The evidence is to the contrary by way of Abraham

I think when he spoke in Isaiah 43 and said ..I, even I, am the Lord; and beside me there is no saviour

That tells me that there must be an acceptance of Him as such which can only happen when one has a knowledge of Him...

You're filling in things the verse doesn't say but I would agree a person must accept God. I disagree however with a too-rigorous stance on what constitutes 'accepting him'.

The mode of salvation given to us centers on a man believing God (and there are models aplenty in the OT and NT). God says something and I believe it. It follows too that it's not just any old thing that God says that is believed otherwise even the demons would be saved.

And so we arrive at the general case: something specific, communicated by God to a person, need be believed in order that they be saved

But God can communicate with anyone at anytime. And does communicate with everyone all the time. I mean, who do you think is the voice of conscience? We don't lick it off a stone!

I guess at this point the OP can make up his own mind, But he should bear in mind that Im speaking of those that have not the chance to hear the good news of the gospel that Jesus is the Christ and took upon Himself the sins of the world and rose again on the thrid day. So that we can overcome death

What about a sheepherder up a mountain in Tibet today who will never hear the gospel of Jesus Christ. Is Christ going to preach it to him too?

damiendar

When was Abraham a prophet (prior to his believing God and being declared righteous)? And which teachings was he aware of (and who thought him these teachings) before he believed God and was declared righteous?

Im not sure what you mean by this, I didnt say that he was a Prophet prior to believing in God. but he was an old test prophet was he not?

The next part of the question about who taught him , Are you saying that he was not taught anything?

I just want to be clear as to what you are saying

What about a sheepherder up a mountain in Tibet today who will never hear the gospel of Jesus Christ. Is Christ going to preach it to him too?

Im not sure if this is sarcasm or not.. but Ill answer it and say yes of course he will

antiskeptic

damiendar wrote: »

Im not sure what you mean by this, I didnt say that he was a Prophet prior to believing in God. but he was an old test prophet was he not?

The issue is the means of salvation.

You seem to plead Abraham a special case - his being a Prophet put him in a special position to be saved. If so, we have a means other than the gospel preached as a way to salvation. You just need God to make you a prophet.

This isn't something that Paul refers to when utilising Abraham's case in his illustrating the mechanism of salvation.

The next part of the question about who taught him , Are you saying that he was not taught anything? I just want to be clear as to what you are saying

You're supposing Abraham in possession of some 'special knowledge' that effectively puts him in possession of the gospel of Jesus Christ. There isn't any reference to such a thing and so it cannot at all be supposed to be the case.

All we do know is that Abraham was declared righteous on account of his believing God. Not on account of his being taught anything and not on account of his being a prophet.


-

Things we can extract from Abraham's (by way of constructing the general means of salvation) is that two things need occur in order that a person be declared righteous:

a) God need to communicate something to the person which, if believed, produces a declaration of righteousness. That something is open to question since the gospel of Jesus Christ isn't mentioned in the case of Abraham

b) the person believes what it is God says. In Abraham's case it was a promise that God would provide an heir. Clearly that isn't what need be believed by everyone since folk have been saved believing something quite different (e.g. the thief on the cross). And so we can suppose perhaps, Abraham's case and the thief's case pointing to a general principle

Since God can communicate with anyone at any time and anyone is in a position to believe or not what God says, it follows that those 'preached' to in Hell need not have had the gospel preached to them. Since the means of salvation was open to them when they were alive.

if this is sarcasm or not.. but Ill answer it and say yes of course he will

Where in the Bible does it say he will. IIRC it says he did preach .. not that he will preach

maguffin

antiskeptic wrote: »

What about a sheepherder up a mountain in Tibet today who will never hear the gospel of Jesus Christ. Is Christ going to preach it to him too?

A sheepherder in Tibet will, without doubt be a Buddhist and fortunately in no need for christianity or christ. The Tibetan people are totally immersed in Buddhism that permeates all areas of life, and as such, will have a totally different outlook and belief in life after death.

antiskeptic

maguffin wrote: »

A sheepherder in Tibet will, without doubt be a Buddhist and fortunately in no need for christianity or christ. The Tibetan people are totally immersed in Buddhism that permeates all areas of life, and as such, will have a totally different outlook and belief in life after death.

IF God exists AND IF the conscience is installed in all men by Him AND IF the conscience is an element in God's mechanism of salvation of men THEN it matters not a whit whether a person is a Buddhist, an atheist, a Hindu a Christian or...

All would have opportunity for His salvation, whether born and raised in a 'Christiain' country or not. And all would be without excuse if failing to avail of it.

IF..

maguffin

antiskeptic wrote: »

IF God exists AND IF the conscience is installed in all men by Him AND IF the conscience is an element in God's mechanism of salvation of men THEN it matters not a whit whether a person is a Buddhist, an atheist, a Hindu a Christian or...

All would have opportunity for His salvation, whether born and raised in a 'Christiain' country or not. And all would be without excuse if failing to avail of it.

IF..

Salvation from what, exactly???

antiskeptic

maguffin wrote: »

Salvation from what, exactly???

In this life? The fruitlessness that comes from living a directionless life (even if you only fully realise how fruitless and directionless it was after the fact)

In the next? Salvation from the consequences of choosing to reject God. There's are two sides to this:

- missing the opportunity to reside with the most splendid person (God) and not occupying the environment he has created for us and Him to share. That place will be free from all suffering and all unrighteousness. It's place where doors won't need locks.

t-having to face the consequences of our wrong doing and living (or should I say, existing) in an environment in which the wrath of God is exercised for eternity. There are various views on what the wrath of God entails. Some suppose the occupants will burn in a literal hell. I suppose Hell to be the absence of all that is godly (good) and a place in which the blindfold which a person can apply so as to mask their own ugliness will be fully pulled away. The extent of that would be inconceivable to us now.

Either way, it's a fate worse than death.

Gumbi

What about those who find find the concept of heaven less than appealing? Automatically committed to hell? Surely eternal torture is an unjust punishment for such an action?

Peregrinus

Gumbi wrote: »

What about those who find find the concept of heaven less than appealing? Automatically committed to hell? Surely eternal torture is an unjust punishment for such an action?

There's a wide variety of Christian beliefs about the afterlife but, to be honest, I don't think any Christian group suggests that a condition for getting into heaven is that you should find the concept of heaven appealing. So, no, nobody teaches that thse who think the idea unattractive are "automatically committed to hell".

areyawell

my only fear of death is reincarnation, busting at my adversaries like a mental patient

maguffin

antiskeptic wrote: »

In this life? The fruitlessness that comes from living a directionless life (even if you only fully realise how fruitless and directionless it was after the fact)

So, you (and presumably all other christians) think that not being a christian and following the so alled word of god are leading a fruitless and directionless life???.......dream on!!
My life is anything but directionless and fruitless....in fact, it is rich and full of direction, always has been and continues to to so, without following your christian ideal.

In the next? Salvation from the consequences of choosing to reject God.

You cannot choose to reject something that is not shown to exist!!

Peregrinus

maguffin wrote: »

You cannot choose to reject something that is not shown to exist!!

Certainly you can. Just trot on over to the Atheist and Agnostic board, and you'll find any number of people who will assure that (a) God is not shown to exist, and (b) they reject God. Indeed, for many of them these two facts are intimately linked; they reject God because he is not shown to exist.

antiskeptic

maguffin wrote: »

So, you (and presumably all other christians) think that not being a christian and following the so alled word of god are leading a fruitless and directionless life???.......dream on!!

My life is anything but directionless and fruitless....in fact, it is rich and full of direction, always has been and continues to to so, without following your christian ideal.

The status of the IF question will determine that. IF God and you end up without God then you will (retrospectively) view your life a directionless, fruitless. The outcome will see to that. That you don't think so now isn't relevant (I mean, the fact a person thinks they are perfectly healthy doesn't mean they aren't having cancer spread throughout their internals)

You cannot choose to reject something that is not shown to exist!!

Au cointreau..

If the IF condition mentioned earlier is true and you reject salvation (via the means suggested as being employed by God) then you will have, in effect, rejected him and his salvation. Without either him or his salvation being shown to exist.

God doesn't have to ask your permission to enquire into your position wrt him. As I say, the fact a person is an atheist, Hindu, Buddhist, etc doesn't have to have anything to do with the answer they're giving him. I fully expect there will be folk who've been all of the above persuasions 'in heaven'.

maguffin

antiskeptic wrote: »

The status of the IF question will determine that. IF God and you end up without God then you will (retrospectively) view your life a directionless, fruitless. The outcome will see to that. That you don't think so now isn't relevant (I mean, the fact a person thinks they are perfectly healthy doesn't mean they aren't having cancer spread throughout their internals)
Au cointreau..

If the IF condition mentioned earlier is true and you reject salvation (via the means suggested as being employed by God) then you will have, in effect, rejected him and his salvation. Without either him or his salvation being shown to exist.

God doesn't have to ask your permission to enquire into your position wrt him. As I say, the fact a person is an atheist, Hindu, Buddhist, etc doesn't have to have anything to do with the answer they're giving him. I fully expect there will be folk who've been all of the above persuasions 'in heaven'.

Your computer program style IF THEN ELSE statements don't really impress....I suspect you have entered an 'Infinite Loop' of wishful thinking and mis-direction that you cannot GOTO, GOSUB or JUMPTO out of.

I stand by what I have said...and leave it at that simply because I know that no matter what I say, you will not be open to change.

antiskeptic

maguffin wrote: »

Your computer program style IF THEN ELSE statements don't really impress

It's not designed to impress. It's designed to make the argument that it doesn't matter a rat's ass what you believe or disbelieve, if there is a God then deal with you on the matter of salvation he can and shall.

In such a way that no one's excuses ("I lived before CHrist" or "I was a Tibetan sheep herder") will stand

....I suspect you have entered an 'Infinite Loop' of wishful thinking and mis-direction that you cannot GOTO, GOSUB or JUMPTO out of.

I stand by what I have said...and leave it at that simply because I know that no matter what I say, you will not be open to change.

In order to be open to change, an argument inducing change need be presented. So it does matter what you say.

The discussion at present has to do Tibetan monks and their salvation .. in the light of their being Tibetan and not hearing of Christ.

If you want to argue against the point being made .. then argue.

If you want to drift off topic and argue against belief in God generally then open another thread on the subject.

Suffice to say, there isn't much interest in 'opposing' argument-less rhetoric.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

Why would you want that?

Because the Christian description of the after life sounds horrible.

Gumbi

Zombrex wrote: »

Because the Christian description of the after life sounds horrible.

It really doesn't. And Christians say I have a choice. Not really. If I don't like heaven I can burn in hell for eternity. Justice at it's finest!

Zombrex

Peregrinus wrote: »

Certainly you can. Just trot on over to the Atheist and Agnostic board, and you'll find any number of people who will assure that (a) God is not shown to exist, and (b) they reject God. Indeed, for many of them these two facts are intimately linked; they reject God because he is not shown to exist.

A lot depends on what you mean by "reject"

I believe the Christian notion of God is imaginary, but if it wasn't I would still reject him in the sense of what he demands I accept, his requirement for worship, his status as master and his status as judge of all. I would still believe he exists, but that doesn't seem to be what "reject" means in this context".

This tends to be a difficult concept for some Christians to understand since there seems to be an automatic assumption in Christian circles that to believe God exists means to automatically accept (rather than reject) all of the things we are told to accept about him, that he is the source of morality, that he is the authority over all creation. This is just seen by many Christians as a given, and to argue otherwise, nonsensical. That though speaks more to the assumptions the Christians are making than to the nature of God.

Its a bit like saying I accept that the IRA exists, but I reject their notion that they are the legitimate army of this island. That doesn't require that I pretend the IRA doesn't exist at all, merely that I reject a claim they make.

Zombrex

Gumbi wrote: »

It really doesn't.

It kinda does, you appear to be transformed into some sort of uni-emotional automaton (ironic given how much some Christians go one about how terrible it would be if God removed our choices, even a little, here on Earth).

It sounds like overdosing on the drug in A Brave New World. You are "happy" in the sense that God simply makes you happy, the way heroine makes you happy.

Gumbi

Zombrex wrote: »

It kinda does, you appear to be transformed into some sort of uni-emotional automaton (ironic given how much some Christians go one about how terrible it would be if God removed our choices, even a little, here on Earth).

It sounds like overdosing on the drug in A Brave New World. You are "happy" in the sense that God simply makes you happy, the way heroine makes you happy.

I was agreeing with you :pac:

Zombrex

Gumbi wrote: »

I was agreeing with you :pac:

Lol, sorry. Read that wrong.

J C

Gumbi wrote: »

Such is the nature of religion.

... but not the Christian Faith.

J C

Zombrex wrote: »

This tends to be a difficult concept for some Christians to understand since there seems to be an automatic assumption in Christian circles that to believe God exists means to automatically accept (rather than reject) all of the things we are told to accept about him, that he is the source of morality, that he is the authority over all creation. This is just seen by many Christians as a given, and to argue otherwise, nonsensical. That though speaks more to the assumptions the Christians are making than to the nature of God.

It's not difficult at all for Christians to accept that there are people who believe in God ... but reject Him ... the Fallen Angels know that God exists ... but they reject Him.

Zombrex wrote: »

Its a bit like saying I accept that the IRA exists, but I reject their notion that they are the legitimate army of this island. That doesn't require that I pretend the IRA doesn't exist at all, merely that I reject a claim they make.

... so do you believe that God exists ... but you reject Him?

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

... so do you believe that God exists ... but you reject Him?

No, I believe the IRA exist, and reject them. The IRA aren't God (unless you are a die hard republican I guess)

J C

Zombrex wrote: »

No, I believe the IRA exist, and reject them. The IRA aren't God (unless you are a die hard republican I guess)

So why did you use this analogy about God ... if you don't believe that He exists ... but you reject Him?

Gumbi

J C wrote: »

So why did you use this analogy about God ... if you don't believe that He exists ... but you reject Him?

I suspect because he doesn't know God doesn't exist, and is operating under an "if" circumstance whereby God might exist.

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

So why did you use this analogy about God ... if you don't believe that He exists ... but you reject Him?

Because the analogy explains my position on the rejection of God if he existed. That should be perfectly clear to anyone with even a basic grasp of logic.

antiskeptic

Zombrex wrote: »

Because the Christian description of the after life sounds horrible.

No suffering, no pain, no depression, no addictions and all the opportunity to express your creativity, humour, love .. without the impediments of the selfishness which so often attach to our motivations.

One mans meat..