MonCapitan2002

I don't want eternal life of any kind no matter how comfortable it is. While I would certainly like more time on Earth than I ultimately will get, I do not nor ever will want immortality. I think a life span of a few hundred years would be ideal (something like 400-600 years of life).

seebs

Sorry, I know that and I actually agree, I was just playing around with the argument.

Johnny Skeptic

We had the following exchange in another post:

Where did you get your information from? In his ‘Believer’s Bible Commentary,’ William MacDonald says the following:

“21:1. There is a question whether chapters 21 and 22 deal with the Eternal State alone or whether they alternate between the Millennium and the Eternal State. Since the Millennium and eternity are similar in many ways, it is not surprising if they seem to merge at times in the writings of the Apostle John.

“Here the Eternal State is called ‘a new heaven and a new earth.’ These are not to be confused with the new heaven and earth described in Isaiah 65:17-25. There the Millennium is in view, because sin and death are still present. These will be completely excluded from the Eternal State.

“21:2 John sees ‘the Holy City, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.’ The facat that it is never said to land on the earth leads some to see it as hovering over the new earth. The fact that the names of the tribes of Israel are on the gates indicates that redeemed Israel will have access ot the city, even if they are not part of the church itself. The distinction between the church (the Bride, the Lamb’s Wide, v. 9), Israel (v. 12), and the Gentile nations (v. 24) is maintained throughout.

“21:3 John hears and announcement ‘from heaven’ that ‘the tabernacle of God is with men and’ that ‘He will dwell with them.’ As ‘His people’ they will enjoy communion with Him closer than ever dreamed of. ‘God Himself will be them and be their God’ in a nearer and dearer relationship.

“21:4, 5. The expression ‘God will wipe away every tear from their eyes’ does not mean that there will be tears in heaven. It is a poetic way of saying that there will ‘not’ be! Neither will there be ‘death, nor sorrow, nor crying.’ For God’s people, these will be forever ended.�

Now, do you still claim that the book of Revelation “is essentially an encrypted message to the early church about things that happened in the first century or so?� If so, I have three more Bible commentaries. Would you like for me to quote them as well? If you wish, I can also contact the seminary at the campus of Liberty University, which I have done in the past, and ask one of the professors for his opinion on Revelation in general and chapter 21 in particular. I enjoy doing this kind of research.

I frequently debate at the Biblical Criticism and History Forum. In general, the Christians and skeptics there are quite scholarly. Would you like for me to start a new thread there titled ‘Do Revelation 21:1-4 promise an eventual, literal, comfortable eternal life for believers?’ If so, part of my opening post will read as follows: In the General Religious Discussions Forum, moderator Seebs said “So far as I know, Revelation is essentially an encrypted message to the early church about things that happened in the first century or so. Am I supposed to be attaching special meaning to it?� I am correct that he is wrong and that a sizeable majority of Christians look forward to obtaining an eventual, literal, comfortable eternal life?

We are not discussing “why� Christians believe what they believe. We are discussing “what� they believe, and your position is that I don’t know what they believe. Fortunately, that is quite easy to find out. Some of the available means are consulting Bible commentaries, Christians and skeptics at this forum and the Biblical Criticism and History forum, professors at Christian colleges and seminaries, pastors of Christian churches, and Christians who we personally know.

Again, that is quite easy to find out.

Well, please make up your mind before I post what your opinion is in the Biblical Criticism and History Forum and contact some Christian colleges and seminaries. If I posted what you just said, the results would no doubt be an embarrassment for you. Your indecision on this matter puts you in a distinct minority among Christians who attend mainline churches.

1 Corinthians 15:14 says “And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.� A sizeable majority of Christians believe that the verse is literal, or will you contest that too? If you will contest it, I will be happy to prove that you are wrong, and by exclusively using Christian sources.

Do you believe in a literal Devil?

I assure you that you will soon be convinced.

Does that go for terminally ill Christians as well, some of whom are quite young and will miss out on many of the pleasures in life, and some of whom are suffering and want to die? Paul said that he had a vision of heaven, that it was wonderful, and that the only reason that he wanted to stay on earth was to help people.

What Christians do is not the issue here. The issue here is what they look forward to the most, comfort in this life, or a comfortable eternity in the next life. I choose the latter, and I can prove that the majority of Christians agree with me by doing the research that I mentioned previously.

You will soon have the evidence.

If belief is not a choice, what is it? Whether or not people become Christians because of the promise of eternal comfort, the majority of Christians look forward to obtaining it.

What I said is better stated “If most people did not have access to a tangibly comfortable life, they would be much more interested in obtaining a comfortable eternal life than they already are.�

The Bible commentary that I quoted proves otherwise. The hope for a comfortable eternal life free from wars, sickness, hunger, the Devil etc., and being in the presence of God, provide emotional hope for the majority of Christians.

What church do you attend, or do you attend church?

I most certainly will demonstrate it by means of conducting the research that I previously mentioned. If you had cancer, and if a cure were available, would you care who provides it? Of course not. The same goes for the provider of a comfortable heaven. Christians would accept such a gift from anyone.

Quite frankly, you don’t know what you are talking about.

It does not fail to do any such thing. In another thread, I said “I still stand by my opening statements. There is a lot of documented research that proves that the major factors that account for religious beliefs are family, geography, race, ethnicity, gender and age, not the Holy Spirit. A loving God would never be limited by such factors.�

You replied “This is an excellent argument against naive exclusivism, and I pretty much endorse it. If God cares that much which particular religious beliefs people hold, He's doing a poor job of making the case for His own beliefs.�

You agreed with me, and yet now you are saying “Furthermore, I think it entirely fails to take into account the practical realities of religious belief, which seems to mostly be a function of upbringing.� Are you actually making a case that heaven is accessible to people of many religions who know about Christianity and have rejected it? Do you believe that heaven is an actual place that offers tangible benefits?

The title of this thread is ‘Christians want eternal comfort, and they don’t really care who they get it from.’ I still stand by this. A better way of stating the title would have been ‘Christians want eternal comfort, and ultimately they wouldn’t care who they got it from as long as it is available.’ I just went back and reread my opening statement, and I never discussed why people become Christians. I only discussed what they are hoping for.

You previously said “Your argument depends on assuming people who are brilliantly analytic and capable of long-term thinking in a way that most people aren't some of the time, so they can "correctly" value eternal comfort over temporal comfort (which almost no one really does), and yet, who are so absolutely vapid that they have no actual interest in the questions that they spend all their time debating, and would jump ship if anything else came along.�

Regarding your claim that almost no one values eternal comfort over temporal comfort, that does not seem to favorable correlate with “Furthermore, even if you did establish this, it wouldn't exactly change anything; after all, that's how a lot of religions are pitched.� Now which is it? Are you claiming that most people buy the
Pitch or reject it.?

Are you saying that all of the Christian and other religious martyrs in history, including the Japanese kamikaze pilots in WWII, who believed in an eternal reward, and the terrorists who sacrificed their lives on 9/11/01, who also believed in an eternal reward, valued temporal comfort over eternal comfort?

If a Muslim terrorist threatened to kill you if you refused to publicly renounce Christianity in front of thousands of other Christians (that is, if you really are a Christian, which I am not at all sure of), what would you do?

seebs

Millennialism itself is not universal among Christians, many of whom are amillenialists. In fact, the belief of a kingdom of finite duration is specifically ruled out by the Nicene Creed.

Liberty University is a "university" only in a very broad sense of the term.

Bible commentaries generally reflect a specific point of view, and most overlook the question of whether there are alternatives.

The question is not whether you can find people who agree with that interpretation; the question is whether you are aware of, and understand, the other interpretations.

Cool. If you wanna start a thread there on how people understand Revelation, go ahead.

Here's a review of a book discussing some of the alternatives. It's hardly complete.
http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1627

More specifically, that many Christians hold beliefs you are unfamiliar with, or have not encountered before.

If Liberty University staff were to disagree with me, I'd probably take it as a complement. I know someone who did seminary there. She deconverted.

(To clarify, it's not that I disagree with her; I know what kinds of beliefs she was looking at, and arguments she was seeing, and I think she made a very rational choice to get the fuck out of a bad situation. Her beliefs and actions as an atheist have been, IMHO, a credit to her character.)

Er, yeah. It turns out that, for the most part, serious consideration of hypotheticals, trying to understand the boundaries of the faith, and other such things are very much minority activities. So?

My belief that computers are fairly easy to use puts me in a distinct minority among writers; that's how I earn a living.

I don't mind being in a minority.

Quoting a single verse of Paul is just asking for trouble. As you are doubtless aware, Paul's writing is specifically asserted, in the Bible, to be hard to understand.

But hey; I personally believe it, but there are other Christians who disagree, and I think their positions are quite viable. Paul is, I think, right that our faith is in vain if Christ is not risen. However, since I think Christ is risen, I think our faith is not in vain. This extends to all of His followers, not just those who happen to hold to particular historical claims.

I am entirely undecided. I consider some things possible evidence of genuine supernatural evil, but for the most part, I consider the question simply unanswerable from the information available to me.

Ironically, I'm pretty sure that's about what the guy who wanted me to do confirmation even though I wasn't convinced said.

Actually, it seems to be quite true of many terminally ill people, although some, when they consider their own mortality, begin trying to "live better".

Well, this would be an interesting topic for research. How do you plan to deal with reporting bias? It is abundantly clear that most Christians would view looking forward to heaven as "better" than looking forward to comfort in this life. (In fact, I think such a position is theologically questionable.) How would you deal with such a bias in your research?

A necessary outcome of experience and theories about that experience.

Could you successfully believe that cats are biologically much more closely related to jellyfish than dogs? I doubt it. The brain rebells at such silliness.

I think they probably do. So what? It doesn't appear to be significant except in the boundary conditions.

Now, there might be a really interesting argument there; it could be that the threat of hell is a barrier to deconversion for many people (and I believe it is).

For extra amusement, try structuring your argument as "atheists want to avoid eternal torment, and don't care how they avoid it."

I don't think the criticism works there either.

This may be the case, and I believe that people whose lives are uncomfortable tend to place greater emphasis on the comforts and pleasures of eternal life.

Er, it proves that a particular commentator believed otherwise.

This may be. If it were, so what?

I go to a local Quaker meeting.

I disagree.

BTW, here I must ask again: Do you mean just "fundamentalist Christians", or do you mean something else? "All Christians"? "Most Christians"?

FWIW, I would not accept such a gift from a fairly broad range of hypothetical givers.

I see no rebuttal here.

Agreed. In that case, though, the promise of eternal comfort is apparently not a major factor, because you have listed a number of major factors, and it isn't on the list.

What I am arguing is that the possible interest in a tangible heaven is obviously not a major factor in religious belief, because you've already identified the major factors, and it isn't one.

FWIW, it seems obvious to me that Heaven is accessible to many people who have formally rejected the institution of Christianity, who do not believe in God, and so on and so forth. Jesus described the judgment, and the question of belief was raised only to emphasize that calling Jesus "Lord" does not save you.

However, I still haven't seen any evidence at all in favor of that second clause. Furthermore, I still can't tell whether you intend this to apply to only some Christians, or all, or whatever; you've qualified it in some cases, but you keep stating it without qualifications.

I am claiming that, so far as I can tell, the eternal comfort part of the pitch isn't what makes people accept it or reject it.

I was not aware that kamikazes expected an "eternal reward".

In fact, there is a long human history of willingness to die, not for an eternal reward, but for a perceived benefit to others. The Economist had an excellent article on suicide attacks arguing that they are economically sensible and coldly rational, and that it is quite reasonable to imagine people who are planning to fight and possibly die in a war choosing, without any hypothetical "eternal reward", to suicide in an exceptionally effective attack rather than risking dying for nothing.

Many martyrs act as they do, not because of an anticipated reward, but because of other factors. Some would rather die with honor than live with dishonor. Surely, you can appreciate someone concluding that a particular quality of life is not worth living?

I have no idea. I would probably die, because I am very close to constitutionally incapable of lying, and "change your mind or I'll kill you" is not an argument.

If I were exceptionally lucky, my last words would be funny or otherwise quoteable.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to Seebs: The topic of this thread is 'Christians want eternal comfort, and they don't really care who they get it from.' I stand by my claim, although I now revise it to read 'The majority of Christians look forward to obtaining tangible and emotional eternal comfort, and they don't really care who they get it from, and given a choice between being comfortable in this life for 90 years and becoming dust in the ground and being physically sick in this life for 90 years and obtaining a comfortable eternal life, most Christians would choose the latter.' Do you dispute this? If you do, I will make up a questionnaire that I will post on the Internet, including at some of other forums in the IIDB. In addition, I will e-mail the questionnaire to the headquarters of all mainline Christians churches. In the questionnaire I would state my revised topic and ask respondents if they agree or diagree with my claim. In addition, I would add some further comments in order to make sure that the respondents adequately understood my position. When I mentioned Liberty University, you were not impressed. However, is it the largest Christian college in the United States. What Christian colleges do impress you? I will be happy to contact them. The largest Protestant denomination if the the Southern Baptist Associtation. There are over 14 million Southern Baptists. I would send my questionnaire to the SBA headquaters. I would also send my questionnaire to all of the Roman Catholic archdioceses. I enjoy this kind of research, and I am quite certain that I will win this debate.

In my previous post I said:

Please reply to my comments.

seebs

I did reply to those comments, pointing out that there are widespread examples of people who had no belief in an afterlife dying for a cause they valued, and pointing you at references showing that this is apparently rational. That's the point; although you can claim that the kamikazes expected eternal life (which I was not aware of, and have seen no sources for), I can demonstrate that their behavior would be rational without such a belief, and that people with no such belief will do the same sorts of things. Dying for an important cause is not unique to people who expect an afterlife.

You have conflated a few very different questions; one is whether people would rather have eternal comfort or temporary comfort, if that choice were offered to them. Another is whether their actions are consistent with this choice, given their beliefs about the afterlife. Another is the claim that they don't care where they get this comfort. This last claim is simply sitting there as an assertion; I have yet to see the argumentation supporting it.

Liberty University is a very large college, but it's a parody of an actual seminary.

I, for one, would be very interested in seeing what various Catholic archbishops say in answer to the question "if you could get eternal comfort without being Christian, would you do so?"

Johnny Skeptic

Message to Seebs: What is your opinion of the following questionnaire that I plan to send to a good number of lay Christians, Christian pastors, professors at Christian colleges, and
the headquarters of all mainline Christian churches in the U.S.?

1 - Which would you prefer, a) enjoying physical and emotional comfort in this life and becoming dust is the ground, or b) being physically and emotionally uncomfortable in this life and obtaining a physically and emotionally comfortable eternal life?

2 - Does the hope of obtaining a physically and emotionally comfortable eternal life give you a good deal of emotional comfort?

3 - If it one day turns out that a comfortable eternal life is available from a being, whether a being who claimed to be a God or a being who claimed to be an advanced alien, would you simply conclude that you had made an error in judgment and happily begin to enjoy a comfortable eternal life?

Johnny Skeptic

Message to Seebs: Please reply to my previous post.

seebs

I don't know that they're likely to be particularly informative.

The first two fail to establish your key point. The third is interesting, because it is obviously impossible to verify such a claim. So how would you know this had "turned out" this way?

You also ignore the question of cost, and the nature of the entity.

Consider the difference between:

"Would you accept a comfortable eternal life?"
and
"If the cost of your comfortable eternal life was the eternal torment of another soul, would you accept a comfortable eternal life?"

"Don't care who they get it from" carries the implication that the answer to both questions is "yes".

(FWIW, I have met people who would answer both "yes".)

Johnny Skeptic

What is my key point? You have said that a lot of Christians are more interested in comfort in this life than in obtaining a comfortable eternal life. Questions 1 and 2 address this issue. Shall I quote what you said?

What is good for the goose is good for the gander. If I can’t use hypothetical possibilities, then neither can you. How can you know that Jesus will return to earth? How can you know that he is good? Let me put it another way. If you had cancer, and if a cure was available, and if you thought that only pharmaceutical company A could provide you with the cure, and it turned out that only pharmaceutical company B could provide you with the cure, you would gladly accept the cure from pharmaceutical company B. Only the cure would be important to you, not the source of the cure. The same goes for the possible provider of a comfortable eternal life.

Other souls are irrelevant. The Bible says that salvation is obtainable on an “individual� basis by having faith if Jesus Christ. That would apply even if only one person was on the earth. The Bible says that Jesus paid for our sins, so there is no cost. The price has already been paid.