Yes, Virginia There is a Hell -- Jesus Said So

Then why on earth would you require empirical evidence when it makes no sense to require it??

No matter. As said, it's pretty darn clear why.

 

I would sooner fear for the eternal fate of the American Left. Jesus never taught us to set up bureaucracies and reach into other people's pockets to "help" the poor. Ultimately the liberal entitlement society is a vast exercise in most impious expressions of human nature, greed, envy, and coveteousness. To desire the wealth of others, that which you did not earn or toil for, is itself a sin. Seeking to acquire the wealth of others using the extortion of public policy, tort, or outright theft or robbery can only result in further condemnation. Nothing that the Left stands for can find a correlation in the teachings of Christ. Nothing.

 

For the same 'reason' that non-theists use in demanding proof (objective empirical evidence) for such as God, the Holy Spirit, the ability to commune with the Holy Spirit, healing by the Holy Spirit, etc. If the non-theists can make such demands on so-called 'claims', then the theists can also make such demands of the non-theists. It is like a door that swings both ways.

 

1) There is empirical evidence to support "some" historical claims
2) There are other kinds of evidence
3) You do not use the term properly.

There are many kinds of evidence that support much of history. Some of it is empirical !

Unfortunately there is little that supports your claims about the Trinity and the Holy Ghost.

On the other hand there is much evidence that supports the idea that the Trinity was considered heresy by the early Church. The balance of evidence from the words of Jesus does not support the Trinity doctrine either.

LOL There is plenty of evidence for Aristotle and Socrates .. some of it is empirical.

There is also plenty of empirical evidence for Darwin and his Theory.

You have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.

I realize that you are not a pure scientist and may not be directly familiar with the term "empiricle evidence", but this is no excuse not to learn what it is considering you use this term daily.

 

Repeating your claim of the existence of such objective empirical evidence, why not provide that objective empirical evidence? Not opinions.

But how much of that evidence is "objective empirical evidence"?

More is available to support my belief in the existence of the Trinity and the Holy Ghost (Spirit) than what you have to refute such a belief. I have my own personal experience and the knowledge derived from such experience.

There you go, falling back on opinions again. Don't you KNOW anything that is not dependent upon the opinions of others?

Then bring forth the body or remains of Socrates. Opinions are not allowed as evidence, remember?

Again, only opinion. Did Darwin witness the morphing of those birds or did Darwin simply find a specie of birds that no-one had seen before?

You are the one making all the claims about the existence of objective empirical evidence and not providing any objective empirical evidence. You are just running off at the mouth like a bad case of diarrhea.

Gee now. Talk about projecting. You have suddenly become a "pure scientist"? What credentials do you have that can be verified that would show that you are a 'pure scientist'? None? Duh?????

BTW: Check your spelling... it is "empirical" NOT 'empiricle'.

 

But there is NO empirical evidence involved in logical propositions. Such propositions only require the rules of logic for evaluation.

However, as you just said yourself, people can commune with divine entities or be healed by them. So, in effect, it is you and me that you are claiming something about. And such claims actually require empirical evidence.

This is not about a door that swings both ways, but about entirely different doors.

 

To answer your first question: it depends on whether you use the term as a literarily or a derogatory one. While you may have used it in the former sense you should be all too well aware that there are many overly touchy participants in this forum who will probably understand it as the latter. Thus it‘s likely to stir the kind of flamebate that makes this religious subforum so tedious to read. Not much effort to avoid it by using a slightly different term that basically says the same, wouldn‘t you agree? Unless that is, if you enjoy flame wars with such users.

Actually it was you who infered that my belief in God unduly affects my observations whereas you depicted yours as neutral which is impossible.
My point is that our observations of a given natural phenomenon may be pretty much the same, but our emotional response to this observation may differ. While we probably both feel joy when observing the very same stars we express this joy differently.
A Balinese astronomer may well thank Barong for the beauty of what he observes just like I‘d give praise to my religious concept of God . How you‘d vent your joy I don‘t know, but you‘d probably vent it somehow. Yet all three of us would probably draw the same chart of the stars and may agree on the same astronomic theories.

And most Christians I know will confirm - even though they may choose more elegant terms than the rude one I‘m about to use, thus probably stepping into more than just the „myrh-trap„ of flamewar - that Hovind is an idiot, not only from the point of view of natural sciences but also from the point of view of academic theology.

Of course it does. I believe that the divine is the cause of all things that exist. A thought that doesn‘t contravene any scientific theory on the beginning of this universe or the evolution of life by the way, unless of course if one is a fundamentalist creationist who believes that God literally created the world in 6 days, formed Adam literally out of clay etc. pp. Just like me most Christians aren't creationists though.

Well, I was speaking of methodology, too. And of course faith has none, nor can we hope to find God under a microscope. ( IMHO that so called „God.particle“ they‘re looking for at CERN - as interesting as it is - is a huge misnomer.)
As for methodology in theology: of course theology follows certain methodologies, and spoken from the point of view of „Geistesgeschichte“ without theology modern science would not even know the term.

But as you've said: I think in principle we do indeed agree here.

A theologian running a nuclear power-plant would make me feel about as uneasy as a psychologist running one. While a pyisicist would be my preferred choice when it comes to running nuclear power plants, even a physicist is prone to human error. Thus I‘m pleased to see that our Chancellor, a physicist and pastor‘s daughter, has finally seen some sense and agreed to eventually close German nuclear plants down. Meanwhile praying to God to spare us a catastrophe won't do any harm as long as the opposition to nuclear plants within the churches join their secular counterparts in the public protests we had and still have here.

And again: Both Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath will certainly agree that guys like Hovind are a bad joke. While this forum seems to be dominated by discussions between creationist Christians and evolutionist atheists creationism plays no relevant role in mainstream churches outside the USA (where they do indeed seem to become increasingly troubling) and it is important to note that creationists are in no way representative of modern Christianity as such: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism#Christianity

 

You ought to read Matthew 23:23, where Jesus says:


"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices--mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law--justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former"

So Jesus did indeed approve of tithing, the paying of religious taxes of His day, some of which went towards the poor, but wanted His followers to do more than just that: "For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:20)

Also Jesus obviously did not disapprove of secular taxes:

Matthew 22:15-21:

"15Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words. 16They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians. “Teacher,” they said, “we know you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren’t swayed by men, because you pay no attention to who they are. 17Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?”

18But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, “You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? 19Show me the coin used for paying the tax.” They brought him a denarius, 20and he asked them, “Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?”

21“Caesar’s,” they replied.

Then he said to them, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”


What always struck me as astonishing about some American Christians though is that they are so avidly pro-life when it comes to unborn children, whilst at the same time being anti-life when they support the death penalty.
While I certainly can't find any explicit biblical reference for Jesus supporting the latter, I find strong indications that He would promote mercy and forgiveness.
And it's especially weird when professing Catholics support the death penalty, because the Pope does not. Should Christians - and especially Catholics with their concept of hell - not value any fellow-man's God-given right to live and to have his God-given time to repent his sins?

 

Therefore, because 'logic' can only be conducted in a subjective environment, there cannot be any reality involved in the use of logic. Logic is not reality: Logic is subjective. Therefore, Logic cannot be used to determine the validity of objective empirical evidence... they are unrelated.

When I refer to either you or me, I do not refer to that physical shell in which you reside at your end of the internet, nor do I refer to my physical shell in which I reside at this end of the internet. I view (consider) my being and your being, spiritual entities encased in physical shells. Spiritual entities are not classified as 'objective empirical evidence' .

It is about doors that swing both ways. When you or some other non-theist submit that non-corporeal things (such as God, spirits, angels, etc.) do not exist and still some demand evidence of such, then it is me on the other side of that door swinging it back the other way.

 

Your view on medical practices is a couple of centuries behind.

 

Did I mention "medical practices"???? Where??? Oh I get it now. . . You have been sniffing glue again and it has affected your vision as well as your perception. Got it.

 

If a person thinks that his or her mythology is somehow raised above the literal term of mythology to a degree that it cannot be deemed as mythology then it is that person that is creating a derogatory meaning of the term.

In fact, by continuing to use the term mythology as a valid descriptor of religions, past or present, other than his or her own, then he or she has not only created a derogatory meaning but is also actively using the term in a derogatory way.

I can do nothing in this. Mythology is mythology and no one gets treated as if it isn't. I neither can nor will help if someone treats him- or herself otherwise.

I depicted my what as neutral?

You're not getting off this easily, Junobet Do you or do you not claim that your lack of belief in Barong affects your observations? And if so, in what way?

PS: Please have in mind that I can continue to pose this kind of question as I will never run out of gods, the lack of belief in which will allegedly affect your observations since, as you allege, a lack of belief in your god affects the observations of others.

Even a die hard creationist theologian knows that a nuclear power plant can't run on prayer. So I bet you would be in safe hands, regardlessly (or, rather, as safe as a nuclear power plant can be).

This is what I meant when I said that not even a person who's brought up by the Kent Hovinds of the world will actually USE their religion as science. They do not do it simply because it cannot be done.

But not being able to DO something doesn't prevent us humans from IMAGINING it, especially if we've been indoctrinated with such imaginations from an early age.

A guy like Michael Behe, for example, used to do science before his imaginations got the better of him, - then he stopped doing science and started to talk about his imaginations instead.

Indeed.

 

Quoting:

Emphasis mine.

 

It's a truly sick thing when the scriptures are twisted to support coveteousness and redistribution schemes. Jesus was addressing the hypocricy of the pharisees. It's a stretch to suggest that he was proposing public policy, but there's no length that Leftists won't go to queer the holy scriptures to justify their greed.

Roman taxes were used in wars of conquest, political imprisonments, and many other atrocities. Your interpretation suggests that people paying taxes translates into a justification of everything government does with those taxes. You are wrong.

It's the anti-death penalty crowd that perverts the meaning of mercy. Mercy is the withholding of just punishment. While we hope our justice system is always inclined toward mercy, it is never wrong to give a criminal exactly what he deserves.

The Catholic Church is not a cult and does not require its members to turn off their brains and perfunctorily agree with every opinion published in a papal encyclical. And nobody has a "god given right to live" when they've denied that that right to another, unless you think that God has multiple personalities and that the God who instituted the death penalty with Noah is somehow a sinister ego to the one who abhors the death penalty. The God I worship is consistant and unchanging. The penalty for taking somebody's life is death and that will never change.

 

The question to be considered regarding your sentiments above is this:

When do we have the authority to take the life of another human? Even as judges and jurors, there is the ultimate Law of God which states "thou shalt not kill". That law does not say "Thou shalt not kill unless you are a judge in a court of law."

 

What then about spiritual "healing". Is that also within the realm of 'medicine'? Must you always be so presumptuous?

 

Hello Freeware: I am still waiting for your answers. I asked the questions for a specific purpose.

 

LOL why do you think I said your view on medical practices is a couple of centuries behind.

It kinda reminds me of the new movie about the history of the vibrator. Spiritual healing indeed.

 

Ahh yes. That old spirit of sensuality, a seductive spirit, one that works hand in hand with the spirit of carnal lusts. As you can see from my previous sentence, I was not referring to 'medical' practices when I mentioned healing. So presumptuous you are. Will you ever get over your dependence on what you physically feel?

 

Typo nazi on the loose !

I do have credentials that can be verified .. having published numerous papers, a number of which are in peer reviewed journals.

This is not required to know that there is empirical evidence for Socrates and Aristotle.

Clearly you have not even taken to time to understand the definition of empirical evidence. Further evidence of this lack of understanding is that you claim a distinction between "objective empirical evidence" and empirical evidence".

Empirical Evidence "is" objective, by definition.

For example " a statue of Socrates" A statue is "objective" because anyone different observers can conduct the same studies and come to the same conclusion. Look at the statue and say "yes, that is a beard" or his hair is curly.

For the same reason it is empirical evidence.

The thousands of creatures that Darwin collected are stored in the London Museum. The conclusions that Darwin made can be, and have been, independently verified and in some cases refuted. Evolution has come a long way since Darwin and it is hilarious that creationists even talk about him.

As such, your claims below are absolute hogwash and a testiment to your ignorance of the terminology you are so fond of using.

There is indeed objective empirical evidence for Darwin and Socrates.

 

Wow. And I am one of the astronauts and I have papers to prove that point. Whoopie for you and also, see how easy it is to "publish" something in a peer reviewed environment?

Where is the evidence? It is an accepted fact that Socrates never wrote anything with his name on it. As for Aristotle... I still maintain that Aristotle is nothing more than the fanciful imaginations of people of old who had nothing better to do than write stories about fictional characters to bolster their own position within their community. Prove that Aristotle and Socrates actually were in existence and I will change my views. But until such time as you can prove their former existence, then they are a fairy tale.

"The dictionary definition of empirical evidence is evidence relating to or based on experience or observation. This type of evidence is necessary for a theory to be confirmed. "

Have you observed Aristotle or Socrates? Have you had the pleasure in your many experiences of meeting Aristotle and Socrates? No? Well, guess you don't have any empirical evidence. All you have is the opinions of others.

Not true! See my paragraph above.

Ah! so what you are saying is that there is also empirical evidence for Jesus and for God. Having paintings and statues. That also means then that Zeus, Minerva, Pan, and a thousand other gods also exist, because there is empirical evidence (renderings of their alleged image) which says so.

Well, thank yo for that clarification and admission that the Bible is true, based on the empirical evidence that you have defined.

So What? Does that validate 'evolution'? No. It only validates the fact that Darwin found a specie that had not yet been documented. No big deal.

What "claims below"? There are no "claims below". That should serve as a testimony of your ignorance of what you are even putting in print.

Like I said above, according to your definition and your explanation, there is also empirical evidence of Jesus, God, and even creation (as found in the Bible), there is even empirical evidence of a talking snake. I just love your definition and explanation. You should be awarded the Nobel Prize for clearing all that confusion up. Now everyone should be able to get on the same page.

 

Dictionary definition .. LOL You have zero idea what you are talking about. One does not go to a dictionary to get an in depth understanding of the contextual meaning of words and complex concepts.

An idiot sevant that knows how to spell each word in the dictionary is still an idiot. Being able to spell a word does not grant one knowledge of the meaning of concepts.

A statue is empirical evidence. There is much other evidence for the existence of Socrates and Aristotle. Having one piece of empirical evidence "in of itself" does not constitute proof that Aristotle was a real person. One has to look at the body of historical evidence to make such a determination.

There was a school of Philosophy, a state institution for 700 years, and numerous historical records by various "objective" sources.

There is no statue of the likeness of Jesus made during his time and in his image. There are body of historical records by objective sources detailing the life and teachings of Jesus as we have for Socrates and Aristotle.

There is some evidence for Jesus, but it is not nearly as solid as that for Aristotle and Socrates. Historians do not doubt that Aristotle and Socrates existed.

Your claim that the body of empirical evidence supports the creation account given in Bible is preposterous. The "objective empirical evidence" refutes the creation account.

The created account is not only refuted just basis of one scientific discipline numerous disciplines which come to the same conclusion independently.

Dating the earth for example "ice cores" can be dated 3 or different ways and all come up with the same date. Coral reefs, geological evidence, archaeological evidence and so on all show that the earth is much older than 6000 years.

The flood story has numerous other issues such as:

- there is not enough water on the earth to accomplish such a flood
- there is no way Noah could have rounded up 2 of every species his lifetime (how long would it have taken him to round up 2 Polar Bears from the North Pole or the Spectacled bear from South America)
- there is no way for many of these species to get to Noah, nevermind get home after the flood
- there is no way for many species to survive without starving because there are no other creatures to eat except fish.
-the dimensions of the Noah's ark are far to small to house two of every species
- The Genetic and racial and cultural diversity present on the earth two hundred years after the flood is not possible from 4 men and thier wives.
(Continuous cultures in China, Europe, South America, Africa, Egypt, Mesopotamia, and in many other places exists before and after the supposed flood)

The list goes on and on ..

 

While most religions contain mythological narratives - religion does not equal mythology. If you engage in oversimplifications you should not be surprised if people take your posts as mere flame bait.

Your observations - at least to begin with. I think we already established that there’s no such thing as neutrality in observing.

I’ve already answered your question, but seemingly my answer needs more claryfying:
Of course my and your lack of belief in Barong affects the way we observe things, just as our belief or disbelief in any other deities you may want to come up with does. Somebody who does believe in Barong may notice/pay attention/give cultural/religious reference to things that completely pass us by. We cannot free our observations, our conclusions , the meanings we give to things etc. from being influenced in some way or another by our historical, cultural, religious, ideological, philosophical back-round. There many well be such a thing as objective truth but it is inaccessible to us, because none of us is outside the previously mentioned spheres that shape our way of thinking.
What shapes my way of thinking in this answer is the poststructuralist philosophy that was en vogue when I studied and Lyotard's criticism of grand meta-narratives (including religion and the modernist belief in scientific progress opening up universal knowledgability of all things). Interesting stuff, but like any other philosophy not the only possible one.

Well, I don't know very much about Behe other than what the wikipedia-article says and my knowledge about biology is certainly too sparse to judge what he'd probably rather see described as a hypothesis than the product of his imagination. But apparently most of his colleagues regard his hypothesises on irreducible complexity and intelligent design as scientifically unsustainable, just as most scientists will regard Dawkins' hypothesis on "Memetics" as pseudoscientific.

Assuming that you're American I certainly feel for you when you're worried about the raising influence of fundamentalist evangelicals trying to sneak their religious convictions into your nation's science classes. I actually am very worried about right wing American Christian fundamentalists sneaking their weird interpretation of "Armageddon" into politics.
But again I‘d like to remind you must not confuse fundamentalists with Christians in general. None of the major Christian churches wants to blow up the Middle East or refutes evolution as it is taught as scientific consensus these days. They follow the model of "theist evolution" and will probably mention it in classes on religion, but don't want the notion of God to be part of the school-curriculum in lessons on biology, physics, geology etc.

So my advice to you would be to chill and differentiate instead of putting all religious people into one convenient bag and bash it, just because you have legitimate concerns about some.

 

You said: "Nothing that the Left stands for can find a correlation in the teachings of Christ. Nothing.", specifically in regard to your assumption that the Left stands for taxing people. So I gave you some bible quotes on what Jesus said regarding taxes. How is quoting the bible twisting it? How is quoting the bible twisting it? Can you come up with any other coherent interpretation of the verses I quoted than that Jesus neither objected to tithing nor to paying taxes to the government in power?


As for "redistributinon schemes":

I suggest you have a look at Acts 2 :44-45 in which the first Christian communities are described, that are likely to have had members who still met Jesus in the flesh and heard him preaching::

Sounds as if the first Christians put any commie hippie commune to shame in their eagerness to redistribute wealth. It seems reasonable to think that they got the idea for organizing their communities like that from the teachings of their Master. Teachings as the one given in Mark 10:17-25, where Jesus tells a young rich man : "sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.".



Personally I can’t see any greed involved in the willingness to pay taxes. It seems to be rather the rich tax evaders who are greedy, who try to amass material wealth on earth rather than riches in heaven and who according to Christ will thus find it harder to enter the Kingdom of God than a camel finds it to go through the eye of a needle.
As for the willingness to collect taxes: I come from a country which is unique in that the state’s finance offices collect so called church-taxes from church-members and passes them over to the Churches. Now you may want to call the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Cologne greedy for raising about 65 % of its income via these church taxes and to ask for almsgiving on top, but over here both the churches and its members just find it practical for being able to roughly calculate in the financing of church work. It‘s not as if the Archbishop takes this money to go on holidays on the Bermudas with it (I hope).

Actually you are twisting my words. Now you may want to criticize Christ who’s described as seeing Himself as a religious leader rather than as a social revolutionary raising up against Roman occupation and the evils of the Empire. I won’t.

And let’s have an entertaining look at the other things the Roman Empire did with taxes:[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExWfh6sGyso"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExWfh6sGyso[/ame]
Yes, that’s the hint: taxes are nothing but money given into a public pool to pay for a societies common interests: public roads without potholes, schools, judges, police services, firefighters, universal healthcare, social security etc. etc. If you abolish taxes you plainly ask for anarchy in the negative sense of the word and the survival of the fittest. Not the kind of society I fancy living in.
Of course as a political citizen you should always insist that your government spends your tax money wisely for the common good rather than on evil things like wars and torture prisons like Guantanamo. I totally agree!

Well, as a Protestant I shall be first in line when it comes to questioning papal authority and of course even Catholics are entitled to their own opinions to an extend without being excommunicated.

I this case however the current Pope, his predecessor and others in the "anti-death penalty crowd" IMHO don't "pervert the meaning of mercy" and have a better crack at what the Bible tells us about the value of human life and the death penalty than you do.

If you think God never changes His mind the story of Noah is probably not the best one to come up with: Right at the beginning it describes God as regretting that He's ever created men in the first place and wanting to destroy his "wicked" creation that he formerly saw as "good".
While I do not think that God has multiple personalities it is quite obvious that His face as shown in Jesus Christ is very different from the wrathful God described in the OT in many ways. Jesus shows us how to interprete the often conflicting statements of the OT and Jesus obviously wasn't an "eye for and eye"-kind of guy (Mt 5: 38-4. And Paul tells us in Romans 12:19: "Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay, says the Lord." Given cross references from the OT are Leviticus 19:18, Deuteronomy 32:35, Proverbs 24:29 ...

Accordingly modern Western justice systems - based not only on Roman law but also on a judaeo-christian cultural back-round that brought this law into our cultural spheres and later inspired enlightenment - don‘t aim for revenge but for the rehabilitation of the offender and the safety of society, that even when an offender can't be rehabilitated can be guaranteed by locking him up. Except for in weird countires with bad human-rights records such as Iran, North Korea, China and the USA nobody ever loses their right to live whatever crime they have done.

 

When dealing with religious issues, no such reaction ever takes me by surprise.

Oh good, I was worried you tried to refer to a belief.

It is true that my observations are influenced by my beliefs and experiences but, and THIS is the issue, my observations are completely neutral as far as influence from YOUR beliefs is concerned.

Junobet, you have a sum of experiences, ideas and beliefs, all of which will influence your ways of thinking. We seem to agree on that much.

However, you're saying that anything that is not part of that sum is equally going to affect your ways of thinking. I'm saying that's flawed simply because what is not part of the sum that affects your thoughts cannot affect your thoughts; it's simply not there to affect anything.

In other words: If a belief is an influence then a lack of belief is a lack of influence. If you notice that I come to a different conclusion than you because I do not share your beliefs then it is not the absence of your beliefs that has affected me but the presence of your beliefs that has affected you!

Oh, I have no doubt that the world will not revert to former states of religious organisation forms. But only because of centuries' gain of intellectual freedom.

To this I want to add that, previously, I specifically said that I do not depict every religious person as a second Kent Hovind. Only those who are in the habit of fitting the world to their ideas.

However, I do appear to have a more strict way than you of distinguishing when it comes to methods of fitting the world to ideas rather than fitting ideas to the world. Now you could say that this is influenced by my lack of religious beliefs, but I will at any time assert that it is your looser distinction that is influenced by your own religious beliefs.


PS. I'm European, not American.