NOGO

Polycarp,

I have a question for you.

Do you believe that Jesus said that He would return at the end of the world to raise people from the dead and judge them?

If your answer is yes then please explain why do the dead need to stay dead for thousands of years waiting for the end of the world?

I will make a point after you answer these question. Thank you.

[ June 20, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]</p>

Polycarp

Quote:

Originally posted by NOGO: Do you believe that Jesus said that He would return at the end of the world to raise people from the dead and judge them? If your answer is yes then please explain why do the dead need to stay dead for thousands of years waiting for the end of the world?

These are theological questions. I normally make it a habit not to discuss theology in this forum unless I'm asked a direct question. Since you've done so, I'll glady respond.

Yes, I believe in a final judgement of the dead. However, I believe in the traditional Christian doctrine of temporary disembodiment. Humans have a physical component and a spiritual component. At the time of death, our spirit is separated from our body. Those whom God deems saved are present with Him in a disembodied state (spirit only, not a bodily existence). Our bodies are raised at the final judgement to be reunited with our spirits. Therefore, there is no "waiting for the end of the world" except to undergo the resurrection and glorification of our bodies.

You may be thinking of something like "soul-sleep". Some Christians believe that upon death they remain in a sleep-like state until the final judgement. However, this is not the traditional position.

[ June 20, 2002: Message edited by: Polycarp ]</p>

madmax2976

There are too many unknowns in order to answer this question. Would I have been inclined and in a position to investigate the supposed miracles to make as sure as possible no slight of hand was at work? Would I have had sufficient tools to carry out the investigation to rule out any deviousness? Would I have been in a position to verify his actual death? Would I have been in a position to verify his appearances and identity after he supposedly died?

I suppose the easy answer is: If I had witnessed and had been able to verify the supernatural events concerning Jesus, then yes, I would change my position. Of course, it would be my intention to be as critical of myself as I would be of others. I have no delusions that I could not be tricked or fooled just someone else could.

But the question you ask is also a presumptuous one. It assumes that if I had been there, there would have actually been something to witness.

Vorkosigan

Let's take it that your major point is that the 'evidence' does not convince one way or another....for Christianity, I can agree. Most Xtians are Xtians because they were indoctrinated from birth, or because they had conversion experiences (90% of which they revert from within a year, according to a preacher I heard on tape once) that appear to be largely social and psychological in nature.

But evidence plays a role in giving up Xtianity, I would argue. Otherwise how would you explain the "assymetry of deconversion" -- few educated, committed atheists become Christians, while many educated, committed Christians become atheists. Steven Carr has an <a href="http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/decon.html" target="_blank">excellent website on this</a>.

Evidential arguments are important. Belief or disbelief does not occur for one reason, but many. Evidence can take many forms, from the ridiculous stories in the OT to the obvious failure of god to prevent evil, to the findings of modern science, to the lack of evidence for historicity of Jesus. I think by defining evidence narrowly as "evidence for the historicity of the Jesus legend" you miss the broader tyes, implications and uses of evidence against Christianity.

Vorkosigan

Jayhawker Soule

When properly parsed, even Polycarp ...

[ June 21, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]</p>

NOGO

Thank you for your answer. Actually I was not asking a theological question. I asked if you believed that Jesus actually said that there would be raising of the dead and final judgement.
The second question may be seen as theological but actually it isn't or at least it was not intented to be.

Daniel 12:13
"But as for you, go your way to the end; then you will enter into rest and rise again for your allotted portion at the end of the age."


This sounds to me like waiting for the end of the world. Paul also says that the dead will rise first incorruptible and we will be changed. Then together they would all join Jesus in the clouds.
Paul spoke of an incorruptible body and the fact that those who would be living at the final times would instantaneously change from one kind of body to the other.

This also sounds like waiting for the end.

The point is this. The living would change from a corruptible body to an incorruptible body while the dead will rise incorruptible. If they exist in an incorruptible body already then why "rise" and join Jesus in the clouds.

Can you make a case for your belief that the dead are currently in some form or another elsewhere but in sheol waiting for the end of the world?

My purpose is not to confront one theological position against another. I am not a believer. I am not looking for a theological answer here but one based on textual evidence.

My goal is to expain why the early Christian views were earthbound. Your question about going back to 35 CE made me think about this. The first questions that I would ask Jesus' followers would be about their beliefs concerning the sun, moon, stars, earth etc. (ie the cosmos)

Perhaps you can asnwer this. What do you think their beliefs were about the universe?

Ted Hoffman

Skeptical
I suppose if someone were to perform truly astounding "miracles" like accurately telling the future, growing new arms and legs for people, levitating into the sky and flying around, creating peace and harmony in the middle east (don't ask me how, I have no idea) and this individual seemed to be very moral and genuinely deeply concerned about the welfare of all people, I might conclude that this person was at least worthy of my being a follower/supporter and see what that had to say about life and death. No doubt other opinions will vary.
You bet they will
Why would you want to be anyones follower? follow him to where?
Support him against what? One can support people they share common ideals with, what common ideals would you share with someone who grows peoples limbs?

Polycarp

I don't think we disagree. You see... I don't think Christianity can be proven to be true. It's not such a big deal. Everyone (Christian and skeptic) believes all sorts of things that can't be proven. Can I prove to you that I ate Cocoa Pebbles for breakfast this morning? No. Am I justified in believing that I ate Cocoa Pebbles this morning? Yes. Why?
Assuming cocoa Peebles exist, Yes because you are capable of eating cocoa Peebles. And you are capable of getting cocoa Peebles.

But if you told me you ate two lorries, No because...

And if you told me Mary gave birth to Jesus without being impregnated by a man No because...

You get the drill...

80-90% of the world doesn't think it's an extraordinary claim to say that some type of god exists
And billions years ago believed in a round earth when Galileo Galilei said the earth was flat.
Most humans are mentally lazy and critical thinking is not inborn. Thats why very few question the existence of God.
Even you, I am unhappy to say, can commit the logical fallacy of argumentum ad numerum. I thought you knew better than that.
They returned to Europe describing an animal about the size of a human that had a head like a deer, hopped like a rabbit, and had a pouch on its belly. Many of the people who heard this didn't believe them. Both groups of people were justified in their beliefs: those who saw the kangaroos had the necessary justification for believing in the existence of kangaroos, and those who didn't see the kangaroos were justified in their unbelief. However, the kangaroos existed whether anyone believed in them or not. Would you have believed in kangaroos had you been one of the people listening to the witnesses?
The maasai in Kenya called the train (steam locomotive) "the iron snake". Did that mean an iron snake existed?
You are shifting the argument to semantics and the inaccuracy of language as a mechanism for transmitting information.
Are you trying to tell us that we should believe that probably Jesus existed because well, maybe the story just wasnt narrated correctly?
If not, whats your point?

I think you missed the point of my story. What I was trying to say is that we're all wasting our time (Christians and skeptics) debating history IF our motive is to try to convert the other side to our belief system (Christians converting skeptics, and vice versa).
This is incorrect. Personally, I know of one Rainbow Walking, who was an avowed christian, well-versed in philosophy, logic and science but was still a christian. With the help of Baloo and his own personal honesty, he later converted. Seek him out. He can easily be found in Existence of Gods forum.
So, NO, its never a waste of time. Of course even for you, if your mind was as closed as you claim, you wouldn't be here. Cognitive dissonance manifests itself in all sorts of forms.

Personally, even if Christ were to come to my room and tell me he loved me and took me to heaven and hell, I still would not worship him.

Because its simply not in me to abase myself in order to gain favours. He would also have to explain to me why my worshiping him is so important to him. And what it represents to him.

Are you saying that if you lived at the time of Jesus, and heard his teachings about God and how we should treat our fellow humans, saw him raise dead people, heal people who you knew had been blind from birth, saw him get crucified, and then had him appear to you after his death, then you would be a follower of him? I don't want to make assumptions, but that's what I'm hearing. Curious to know if I'm on target.
Follow him to where? For what? So that?

Please Polycarp, cite one reason among the ones you have listed, that would justify worshiping any sort of being?

What kind of reasoning can justify worship? Is there any logic to worshipping or "following" someone because he performs miracles? Is there a rule that says "If he can perform miracles, and is wise, and is immortal, then worship him?"

How do you arrive at the decision to "follow" him - does he ask you to? What about the life you are leading currently? What about your family? Isnt "cult mentality" written all over this argument?

If you created an intelligent Robot, how happy would you be if all he did was kneel at your feet and do as you tell it? What if he went away and created a "life" of his own, would you feel angry? If so why? Why would a creator hanker so much for the attention of his creation to the point of destroying it if the creation did not worship it?

And what would that say about the creator? And what would it say about the creation?

Polycarp

Quote:

Originally posted by NOGO: The second question may be seen as theological but actually it isn't or at least it was not intented to be. Daniel 12:13 "But as for you, go your way to the end; then you will enter into rest and rise again for your allotted portion at the end of the age." This sounds to me like waiting for the end of the world. Paul also says that the dead will rise first incorruptible and we will be changed. Then together they would all join Jesus in the clouds. Paul spoke of an incorruptible body and the fact that those who would be living at the final times would instantaneously change from one kind of body to the other. This also sounds like waiting for the end. The point is this. The living would change from a corruptible body to an incorruptible body while the dead will rise incorruptible. If they exist in an incorruptible body already then why "rise" and join Jesus in the clouds.

I’m missing your point. The incorruptible body of which Paul speaks will be the state of every believer. Why “rise” and join Jesus in the clouds? Look earlier in the passage at 1 Corinthians 15:50. Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God (heaven?). Paul says human bodies are transformed in order to exist in the heavenly place or state. Later in verses 53-54, he talks about this transformation leading to a state of immortality (replacing a mortal body).

Quote:

Can you make a case for your belief that the dead are currently in some form or another elsewhere but in sheol waiting for the end of the world?

Are you speaking of biblical support? If so, then I’d refer you to passages such as Luke 23:39-43. It’s the story of the “thief on the cross”. Never mind that it doesn’t say the guy is a thief. Jesus tells this man that he (the criminal) will be with Jesus in paradise TODAY. It is clear that Luke thinks something happens to dead people before the end of the world.

Another passage would be something like Philippians 1:20-24 (esp 22-23). Paul seems to be saying that if he dies, he will be with Christ (similar to the Luke 23 passage).

Quote:

My purpose is not to confront one theological position against another. I am not a believer. I am not looking for a theological answer here but one based on textual evidence. My goal is to expain why the early Christian views were earthbound. Your question about going back to 35 CE made me think about this. The first questions that I would ask Jesus' followers would be about their beliefs concerning the sun, moon, stars, earth etc. (ie the cosmos) Perhaps you can asnwer this. What do you think their beliefs were about the universe?

Well, I don’t think most of them would have a clue about astronomy. I’m not sure what you mean by “their beliefs about the universe”. Maybe you could clarify before I answer the wrong question.

Skeptical

IF I could examine the people who were supposedly dead, IF I could examine the body of Jesus after it was brought down from the cross and IF the healings were of illnesses that were not psychosomatic, I would seriously consider being a follower. However, I would have a lot of questions for Jesus about some of the things he is reported to have said. A lot more questions than are asked or answered in the NT stories.

I should point out that I am not a physician nor have I received medical training, so it would still be possible for me to be mislead or deceived, but if the above occured right in front of me, I believe I would conclude that "there's something here" in the words of Carl Sagan.

However, I would not expect another skeptic to simply take my word for any of these facts after returning to the present time.

Polycarp

Quote:

Originally posted by IntenSity: Assuming cocoa Peebles exist, Yes because you are capable of eating cocoa Peebles. And you are capable of getting cocoa Peebles. But if you told me you ate two lorries, No because... And if you told me Mary gave birth to Jesus without being impregnated by a man No because... You get the drill...

In other words, you only believe in things that have already happened at least once before. The fact that something hasn’t happened in the past, does not mean it won’t happen in the future. Surely you know this. Well, let’s move on…

Quote:

And billions years ago believed in a round earth when Galileo Galilei said the earth was flat. Most humans are mentally lazy and critical thinking is not inborn. Thats why very few question the existence of God. Even you, I am unhappy to say, can commit the logical fallacy of argumentum ad numerum. I thought you knew better than that.

You read into my statement what you wanted it to say, not what I actually said. I didn’t say that god probably exists because 80-90% of the people believe in god(s). I simply said that it is not extraordinary to claim something that is believed by 80-90% of the people. I was anticipating the oft-quoted mantra “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”.

Quote:

The maasai in Kenya called the train (steam locomotive) "the iron snake". Did that mean an iron snake existed? You are shifting the argument to semantics and the inaccuracy of language as a mechanism for transmitting information. Are you trying to tell us that we should believe that probably Jesus existed because well, maybe the story just wasnt narrated correctly? If not, whats your point?

No, I think you missed my point. My point was that many of the skeptics here would not have believed in the existence of kangaroos had they lived in 17th century Europe. I say this based on the criteria given by many of you for justification for belief in god(s). This would be the case even if some of your fellow Europeans returned from Australia telling you that kangaroos exist.

Quote:

This is incorrect. Personally, I know of one Rainbow Walking, who was an avowed christian, well-versed in philosophy, logic and science but was still a christian. With the help of Baloo and his own personal honesty, he later converted. Seek him out. He can easily be found in Existence of Gods forum. So, NO, its never a waste of time. Of course even for you, if your mind was as closed as you claim, you wouldn't be here. Cognitive dissonance manifests itself in all sorts of forms.

I’ve dialogued with Rainbow Walking. I don’t think he converted based on historical argumentation, it was more philosophically driven. I don’t post here to convert people. I enjoy discussing these topics. If someone happens to convert to Christianity, would I complain? No.

Quote:

Follow him to where? For what? So that? Please Polycarp, cite one reason among the ones you have listed, that would justify worshiping any sort of being? What kind of reasoning can justify worship? Is there any logic to worshipping or "following" someone because he performs miracles? Is there a rule that says "If he can perform miracles, and is wise, and is immortal, then worship him?" How do you arrive at the decision to "follow" him - does he ask you to? What about the life you are leading currently? What about your family? Isnt "cult mentality" written all over this argument? If you created an intelligent Robot, how happy would you be if all he did was kneel at your feet and do as you tell it? What if he went away and created a "life" of his own, would you feel angry? If so why? Why would a creator hanker so much for the attention of his creation to the point of destroying it if the creation did not worship it? And what would that say about the creator? And what would it say about the creation?

Well, I count about 16 questions in this section and I don’t have the time to answer all of them in detail, so I’ll try to address what I see as your main objections.

If I created an intelligent robot and all it did was kneel at my feet and worshipped me, I’d be quite bored. But what if the robot was thankful to me for creating it? What if the robot appreciated the fact that I brought it into existence? What if it was so thankful for being created that it went out and tried to improve the world and make it a better place for all of the other robots (even the ones who didn’t believe they were created, but believed they just popped into existence as a cosmic accident)? Why would it do this? Because it loved the other robots and wanted their lives to be better. Me, as creator, knows the best way for a robot to live its life, so I tell the robot how they should live if they want robot society to be beneficial to all.

What about the robots who don’t even think I exist? They live their lives thinking they know the best way to live as a robot. I see no reason to treat them the same as the robots who acknowledged my presence. How do you treat people who act like you’re not even in the same room as them?

You want a creator that lets you do whatever you want and then rewards you for your behavior, even when the creator made you and knows exactly what is best for you. Hell isn’t for punishment. It’s to give people what they want – a life without a meddling god who interferes with all of humanity’s best laid plans. That’s what hell will be – everyone doing what they want without god anywhere to be found. No justice for wrongs committed, fighting for our own rights without regard for those of another, ahhh it will be such a wonderful place.

God doesn’t want to be worshipped to stroke his ego. He wants to be acknowledged as the one who is responsible for our existence, and then he wants us to go out and help all the other robots who need help.