Although there are other examples of the afterlife in the Bible: Saul summoning Samuel's ghost, for example. This is one of my biggest problems with using the Bible as a basis for religious doctrine: it was written by different people over hundreds of years, and they didn't necessarily agree with each other on every point (or even on any points). There are contradictory views on certain subjects, each equally supportable with Biblical references; which one is the "word of God"? It basically comes down to which viewpoint you like better, so why bother with looking to the Bible for doctrine anyway?
Nope. The bible does not contradict itself. It's all a matter of interpretation. True, it was penned by many different men, but that doesn't negate the fact that God was the true author of each and every one of the books. Similar to how a lawyer might dictate a letter to his secretary. The secretary is the one actually typing/writing the letter, but the laywer is still the author. _________________ Operation Northwoods - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
Favorite languages = English/Spanish
Followed by Italian/French/Dutch
Are you telling me there's no beer in the afterlife?
Of course, there is - provided you manage to reserve a cosy room in Hotel Inferno. _________________ Az alvástól megéhezem. Az evéstől elálmosodom. Az élet szép.
Rather eccentric sort of God that you believe in then.
Are you intending to become a Jehovah's Witness, assuming you're not one already?
Perhaps. They seem to be the only ones who follow the bible and whose teachings are actually based on the bible.
But why would that make him eccentric? Who else could he have used to pen the words of the bible? Monkeys? _________________ Operation Northwoods - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
Favorite languages = English/Spanish
Followed by Italian/French/Dutch
Perhaps. They seem to be the only ones who follow the bible and whose teachings are actually based on the bible.
What you mean to say is that the Jehovah's Witnesses are the organisation which most closely share your view of what the Bible is and your interpretation of its contents.
Porthos wrote:
But why would that make him eccentric? Who else could he have used to pen the words of the bible? Monkeys?
If every word in the Bible was written by God, then I find God very eccentric.
I also find this view of God to be very narrow. Basically, it suggests that the main way by which God has revealed herself/himself is through an inerrant text, written between around 200 CE and 800 BCE (or 4000 BCE according to the traditional view) in a limited geographical area and in a very small number of languages. In other words, it is not sufficiently inclusive or accessible for all people in all times, and arguably borders on ethnocentricism. What's more, since this inerrant text is to be read by particularly 'errant' humans, which has resulted in such a wide range of interpretations, it's 'inerrancy' is rendered a bit redundant anyway.
If there's no time there then how do you get there in the first place? Perhaps one could think of it as sitting at a remote bus stop that's no longer in use and getting so high you don't know anything anymore.
Your dreams are timeless and you "get there"every night without much trouble. Dreams are only differentiated from reality in a titular sense. We choose to call our waking state reality and dreams only dreams, yet in an empirical sense they couldn't be more real when you experience them. People often have dreams so intense that they have physical reactions, they wake up sweating, with heart palpatations or if you happen to be a male of about 14 yrs old or so, other occurances
In fact, how do you know what you call your life isn't a dream? How do you know that when you die someone doesn't ask you "so what did you dream about this time?"
If there's no time there then how do you get there in the first place? Perhaps one could think of it as sitting at a remote bus stop that's no longer in use and getting so high you don't know anything anymore.
Your dreams are timeless and you "get there"every night without much trouble. Dreams are only differentiated from reality in a titular sense. We choose to call our waking state reality and dreams only dreams, yet in an empirical sense they couldn't be more real when you experience them. People often have dreams so intense that they have physical reactions, they wake up sweating, with heart palpatations or if you happen to be a male of about 14 yrs old or so, other occurances
In fact, how do you know what you call your life isn't a dream? How do you know that when you die someone doesn't ask you "so what did you dream about this time?"
Rather eccentric sort of God that you believe in then.
Are you intending to become a Jehovah's Witness, assuming you're not one already?
Perhaps. They seem to be the only ones who follow the bible and whose teachings are actually based on the bible.
Porthos,
You will never be a Jehovah Witness. I mean, you can of course join them but not for long. You ask too many questions - they don't like it. Especially when they can't find the answer. There is no room for individuals there.
Lastly, I can't imagine you going door-to-door and speaking about the Bible.
And please bear in mind that this is the preferable way of spending your free time, anything else is a waste of time.
Porthos,
You will never be a Jehovah Witness. I mean, you can of course join them but not for long. You ask too many questions - they don't like it. Especially when they can't find the answer. There is no room for individuals there.
Lastly, I can't imagine you going door-to-door and speaking about the Bible.
And please bear in mind that this is the preferable way of spending your free time, anything else is a waste of time.
That's true. _________________ Az alvástól megéhezem. Az evéstől elálmosodom. Az élet szép.
The Universe is not only queerer than we thought; it is queerer than we can intuitively imagine. I am reminded of this famous speech in Hamlet:
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy
It stands to reason that an atheist's failure to understand the existence of a Creator does not in anyway disproves His existence.
Honestly, I don't understand quantum theory. Neither do I understand the multiverse theory of the Copenhagen interpretation. All of you here probably do not understand it either. The Copenhagen interpretation assaults our common sense: everything is up for speculation. Basically, the multiverse theory postulates that in one universe, I might be a moustachioed chap in a bowler hat a la Thomson and Thompson from Tintin. In another universe, I could have already kicked the bucket and am already lying six feet under.
This seems preposterous, but it is a conceivable scenario that is more real than imagined. It is the same for God. It takes a leap of faith to believe in Him, but once you do, everything begins to make sense.
PS: I am sure you are being humorous, Porthos. However, I frown upon Catholic bashing and I hope you would refrain from such tactless remarks in future. Such comments do nothing to promote a eucumenical spirit of co-operation at all. _________________ Hillary Clinton is an acquired taste which I have clearly yet to acquire.
Are you telling me there's no beer in the afterlife?
How and when did you come to believe in what you've described here? If you don't mind my asking... You're right about the concept of living beyond time being extremely difficult to understand, though I'd say it's frickin' impossible. Have you yourself any idea of what this state where there's only present would be like? No past to remember and no future to look forward to? If there's no time there then how do you get there in the first place? Perhaps one could think of it as sitting at a remote bus stop that's no longer in use and getting so high you don't know anything anymore.
Well, I remember my physics classes some 15 years ago and my attempt to understand infinity. I almost went crazy and decided not to think about it - just take it for granted. You know, no mathematician denies that infinity is something real, even if they are extreme atheists. So I decided that if I couldn't understand certain things from the real world it's useless trying to understand the concept of an afterlife, which consists of infinity+other things that even physic cannot describe.I don't really believe that our souls will raise from the dead embodied. At least not in the form of the body we are wrapped in in the "real" life.I'd rather believe that it will be like the Jesus' body after ressurection. His disciples were confused: it looked like a normal body but it was still different. He could for example go through the walls, walk on the water, it was not vulnerable any more. Sort of "spiritual body". Still, as I said it may turn out completely different. Our limited mind cannot understand many things even from the "real" life. So that's why I try not to bother about the"afterlife" too much.
As for beer, I'm afraid we will not have it any more in the afterlife. So let's not waste our time! Cheers!!!!
I don't believe in a literal afterlife either — when I die, that'll be the end of it for me. And to be honest, I wouldn't like to think that I'd continue to exist for all eternity anyway — and I don't think that many people would be prepared to put up with me for all eternity either.
I would ! At least because it would mean I too would be eternal ! J'adorerais ne jamais quitter cette Terre (ou du moins ne pas y retourner, littéralement) pourvu que le vieillissement, ou du moins ses conséquences, soit jugulé.
Liz wrote:
Although it isn't necessary for human thinking per se, it is an indisputable fact that religion has always had a great impact on almost everyone, including atheists - if not religion/religious faith itself but its cultural background.
True. But this influence is declining, at least in France. What may be declining in perhaps slower motion are indeed some die-hard cultural patterns.
Liz wrote:
greg in noord-frankrijk wrote:
Certes, la religion, la cuisine et les mathématiques peuvent ętre des objets d'études, mais aucune des trois n'englobe l'esprit humain. Les trois, pour importantes qu'elles soient, ne sont ontologiquement que des objets de réflexion.
Certainly, but you can't deny its presence even in a life of an atheist, nevertheless, only formally and culturally. As opposed to you, I think religion does have ontological relevance.
I'm cooking & doing maths everyday as I need to eat food & work out my budget on a daily basis. However, I do not practice religion nor have to think about it except when I come across ostensibly (even ostentatiously) religious people.
Everything has ontological relevance : your house, your car, your dog, your cat, your coat, your shoes, your job, your loans, your age, your sex, your values, your beliefs, your experience & your thoughts. Since religion is something only speculative, relative, subjective & contingent, it may be studied as such for there is a distance between the object of the study and the subject conducting the study. When the distance is abolished, it is your ontological self that is changing, not the ontological value of religion.
Liz wrote:
I have only ever heard the opposite of your view (from religious people, of course). I have never heard that one but I basically agree. However, it is true the other way round as well. Both atheists and religious people tend not to acknowledge the fact that both ways of thinking have a profound impact on each other. That said, I don't think atheism as such would exist without the concept of religion, either. It would exist, but not as consciously as it does now - you wouldn't have to make a distinction between theism and atheism.
Agree. Enlightment atheism emerged in societies profoundly shaped by religion and temporal authorities (to the extent those were supposed to proceed from religion) and was therefore influenced by what it aimed at overturning. Would be interesting to find out what the views of earliest Antiquity's atheists were.
True. But this influence is declining, at least in France. What may be declining in perhaps slower motion are indeed some die-hard cultural patterns.
In Hungary, they seem to become stronger. After the change of the régime (1989-1990) lots of former fiercely ostentatious atheists have mysteriously become devotedly pious. Well, it isn't too hard to find out why. Atheism is rather fallaciously associated with Marxism and communism here. If you are overtly religious, you certainly aren't a communist, therefore you must be virtuous. Do not even dream about faith being a private matter.
greg in noord-frankrijk wrote:
I'm cooking & doing maths everyday as I need to eat food & work out my budget on a daily basis. However, I do not practice religion nor have to think about it except when I come across ostensibly (even ostentatiously) religious people.
Don't you ever think about religion? You must have decided somehow to become an atheist - provided you weren't raised as such. As far as ostentatiously religious people are concerned, it's pointless to get into an argument with them. The same applies to ostentatious atheists, too. Faith debates are usually inane discussions as atheists and religious people can't and shouldn't convince each other - you cannot prove either of the theories. Faith is a private matter and not others' business.
greg in noord-frankrijk wrote:
Since religion is something only speculative, relative, subjective & contingent, it may be studied as such for there is a distance between the object of the study and the subject conducting the study. When the distance is abolished, it is your ontological self that is changing, not the ontological value of religion.
I agree.
greg in noord-frankrijk wrote:
Would be interesting to find out what the views of earliest Antiquity's atheists were.
Me, too. As I metioned above, many people here seem to think that atheism as such hadn't existed before the rise of Marxism and communism. What a misconception.
Porthos wrote:
But why would that make him eccentric? Who else could he have used to pen the words of the bible? Monkeys?
I can vaguely recall some mammals that are somewhere between God and monkeys in the Great Chain of Being. I assume they are called human beings. _________________ Az alvástól megéhezem. Az evéstől elálmosodom. Az élet szép.
I can vaguely recall some mammals that are somewhere between God and monkeys in the Great Chain of Being. I assume they are called human beings.
Which is why he chose them.
Quote:
PS: I am sure you are being humorous, Porthos. However, I frown upon Catholic bashing and I hope you would refrain from such tactless remarks in future. Such comments do nothing to promote a eucumenical spirit of co-operation at all.
It was meant to be humorous, but I was making a valid point. Your argument is that you feel it is more beneficial to follow the example or advice given by the modern Roman Catholic clergy than to follow the words of a some 'fictional ancient book' like the bible. And I was merely showing how faulty such a course would be, consideriding how time and time again, the church and its leaders have proved to be corrupt, and have commited some of the greatest atrocities in human history. Wishing to emulate their path would be tantamount to lunacy.
Quote:
As far as ostentatiously religious people are concerned, it's pointless to get into an argument with them. The same applies to ostentatious atheists, too. Faith debates are usually inane discussions as atheists and religious people can't and shouldn't convince each other - you cannot prove either of the theories. Faith is a private matter and not others' business.
I agree. Such an argument would be pure vanity.
Quote:
You ask too many questions - they don't like it.
How would you know? Is this based on hearsay?
Quote:
Especially when they can't find the answer.
Which questions can they not find the answer to, that other denominations could?
Quote:
Lastly, I can't imagine you going door-to-door and speaking about the Bible.
Incidentally, they're the only ones who adhere to the commision set forth by Jesus to " to preach from house to house, and door to door", other than the mormons.
Quote:
And please bear in mind that this is the preferable way of spending your free time, anything else is a waste of time
I'm obviously not Benjamin and I don't know how he knows, but I do have lots of acquiantances who happen to be Jehova's Witnesses. They have a tendency to to accept everything at face value and, as Benjamin put it quite rightly, they don't want you to ask questions - provided your questions back up their arguments. Most of them are really ostentatious and think that their religion is the only "true" religion and thus other religious ways of thinking are inherently flawed. I can't really stand their way of bashing Jews all the time.
Becoming an acknowledged Witness is not an easy-peasy, lemon-squeezy job. You have to prove that you are truly eager to become a member of the congregation, you are able to devote your life to the community and to Jehova of course, and last but least you are impeccable as a person. I know a girl who really wants to become a Jehova's Witness but she isn't accepted by the congregation on account of her alleged "attitude towards boys" (i.e. she loves flirting and having sex with them - based on hearsay, of course). What I find somewhat appalling in their doctrines is this aspect. She would probably be able to become a "better" person with the help of religion, but she isn't given the chance. _________________ Az alvástól megéhezem. Az evéstől elálmosodom. Az élet szép.
Jehovah's Witnesses and other denominations which expect members to give such a high level of commitment to the organisation do not encourage their members to question their established beliefs, because the established beliefs are considered 'correct' whilst anything else is considered 'incorrect'. This is the total opposite of groups such as Unitarians and Quakers.
I'm usually happy to talk to Jehovah's Witnesses when they come to my door. When they find that I appear to know more about the Bible than they do, which often seems to be the case, they don't like it. (I never attempt to challenge their beliefs, by the way).
Porthos wrote:
Quote:
Especially when they can't find the answer.
Which questions can they not find the answer to, that other denominations could?
Lot's of questions. The point is that Jehovah's Witnesses are focused on providing clear answers to questions, and when they can't find the answer, they don't like it.
I'm not really interested in whether or not they can provide answers, because I'm not so interested in having 'answers anyway; I find questions much more interesting.
Porthos wrote:
Quote:
And please bear in mind that this is the preferable way of spending your free time, anything else is a waste of time
I don't understand this sentence. What is a preferable way of spending your time?
He's saying that Jehovah's Witnesses consider going out and trying to persuade people to become Jehovah's Witnesses as the preferable way of spending one's free time.
I'm obviously not Benjamin and I don't know how he knows, but I do have lots of acquiantances who happen to be Jehova's Witnesses. They have a tendency to to accept everything at face value and, as Benjamin put it quite rightly, they don't want you to ask questions - provided your questions back up their arguments.
Liz — it was actually KSa who said that, not me. But I agree with what he's said, so I don't mind.
It wasn't Benjamin who wrote those things, but KSA.
Quote:
They have a tendency to to accept everything at face value and, as Benjamin put it quite rightly, they don't want you to ask questions - provided your questions back up their arguments.
I have found it to be quite the contrary. The witnesses seem to be the only ones comfortable with you questioning their beliefs, or asking to prove their beliefs, because they're the only ones who actually can back up what they say with the scriptures. Because of my very inquisitive nature, I would ask questions of priests, and they would become furious if I spoke of the bible, or when they couldn't harmonize their teachings and traditions with scripture.
Quote:
Most of them are really ostentatious and think that their religion is the only "true" religion and thus other religious ways of thinking are inherently flawed.
I don't think ostentatious is the right word, but they are very public about their faith, yes. And once again, this is found in the bible, where the apostles admonish Christians to be "illimunators of light in a world of darkness". This would no doubt require attracting a lot of attention from most people, because they stand out as being so different from the rest of the world.
Quote:
I can't really stand their way of bashing Jews all the time.
I don't know what you mean by this. I've never heard them bash Jews, and I know several witnesses who are of Jewish ethnicity.
Quote:
Becoming an acknowledged Witness is not an easy-peasy, lemon-squeezy job. You have to prove that you are truly eager to become a member of the congregation, you are able to devote your life to the community and to Jehova of course, and last but least you are impeccable as a person. I know a girl who really wants to become a Jehova's Witness but she isn't accepted by the congregation on account of her alleged "attitude towards boys" (i.e. she loves flirting and having sex with them - based on hearsay, of course). What I find somewhat appalling in their doctrines is this aspect. She would probably be able to become a "better" person with the help of religion, but she isn't given the chance.
Well, that's the way it should be. Unlike most so called "Christian" religions today, the early Christian congregation established by Jesus and the apostles was not one tolerant of dissenting lifestyles and immorality. Tolerating such conduct among members would pollute and corrupt the congregation, so in order to keep it clean, they would have to abstain from wrong conduct. Wouldn't it be rather hypocritical if people went around knocking on doors encouraging people to abstain from things condemned in the bible such as sexual immorality, while they themselves were openly practicing it? I wouldn't want to listen to someone like that. What's the alternative? Should they instead tolerate outright hyprocrisy and shameful conduct such as the Catholic church does, and simply ship one child-molesting priest to another church in a remote location, and try to cover up his actions, while doing nothing to reprimand him?
As far as "devoting their lives to the community", again, this is something required for true Christians. Jesus said "a slave cannot slave for two masters". In other words, one cannot devote much of his resources and energy in the service of one pursuit (such as excessive recreation or materalism), while still giving God their best. Christians are instructed to "put the kingdom first", and to keep that at the forefront of their lives. This does not mean that they should shun all recreation, and devote all of their free time to preaching 24-7, but maintain a healthy balance, with their primary focus being their worship and ministry. All the witnesses I know go to school, or work, and live normal lives. They just volunteer some of their free time to studying the bible and the ministry work. And unlike many religions who are only "Sunday christians", a Christian way of life pervades their daily actions. For them, their religion is not just part of their life. It is their life.
I have found that there are two kinds of people in this world. There are those who are content with the status quo, who believe what is convinient and easy, and would rather live a life and in a world based on lies, so long as it's the easy route. They believe what's pleasant, and ignore the reality behind the facade. The other group is the one interested in truth, even if that truth may be painful, or hard to bear, or in the case of religion, hard to follow. I'm one of the latter. The vast majority of the world belongs to the former group. They value traditions and believe what they want to believe. They like getting their ears tickled. Were they in the Matrix, they would opt for the pill that returns them to the bliss of ignorance, and they would rather live in a dream, so long as it was the route of least resistance. I on the other hand, am only interested in truth, whether it be politics or religion. _________________ Operation Northwoods - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
Favorite languages = English/Spanish
Followed by Italian/French/Dutch
I don't think ostentatious is the right word, but they are very public about their faith, yes. And once again, this is found in the bible, where the apostles admonish Christians to be "illimunators of light in a world of darkness". This would no doubt require attracting a lot of attention from most people, because they stand out as being so different from the rest of the world.
I think Jehovah's Witnesses attract a lot of attention because they come to people's doors a lot. I don't see them doing a huge lot of other things though.
Porthos wrote:
Well, that's the way it should be. Unlike most so called "Christian" religions today, the early Christian congregation established by Jesus and the apostles was not one tolerant of dissenting lifestyles and immorality. Tolerating such conduct among members would pollute and corrupt the congregation, so in order to keep it clean, they would have to abstain from wrong conduct.
Am I to assume that you are planning a drastic change of lifestyle before becoming a Jehovah's Witness?
Porthos wrote:
As far as "devoting their lives to the community", again, this is something required for true Christians. Jesus said "a slave cannot slave for two masters". In other words, one cannot devote much of his resources and energy in the service of one pursuit (such as excessive recreation or materalism), while still giving God their best. Christians are instructed to "put the kingdom first", and to keep that at the forefront of their lives. This does not mean that they should shun all recreation, and devote all of their free time to preaching 24-7, but maintain a healthy balance, with their primary focus being their worship and ministry. All the witnesses I know go to school, or work, and live normal lives. They just volunteer some of their free time to studying the bible and the ministry work. And unlike many religions who are only "Sunday christians", a Christian way of life pervades their daily actions. For them, their religion is not just part of their life. It is their life.
Their idea of 'devoting their lives to the community' is trying to convert as many people as possible to their religion. This is not my view of what 'devoting your life to the community' is about.
Porthos wrote:
I have found that there are two kinds of people in this world. There are those who are content with the status quo, who believe what is convinient and easy, and would rather live a life and in a world based on lies, so long as it's the easy route. They believe what's pleasant, and ignore the reality behind the facade. The other group is the one interested in truth, even if that truth may be painful, or hard to bear, or in the case of religion, hard to follow. I'm one of the latter. The vast majority of the world belongs to the former group. They value traditions and believe what they want to believe. They like getting their ears tickled. Were they in the Matrix, they would opt for the pill that returns them to the bliss of ignorance, and they would rather live in a dream, so long as it was the route of least resistance. I on the other hand, am only interested in truth, whether it be politics or religion.
It's all about having the 'correct answer' for you, isn't it? Personally, I cannot accept that any one organisation or religious tradition can have a monopoly on 'truth'.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Join! (free) 
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
