Wiil I Go To The Hell If I...

[Literary]

Not believe in jesus?

[DanielBenoit]

If you don't believe in Jesus then how do you believe in hell?

Personally, I think that it is self-contradictary that such a compassionate and forgiving figure in the Bible would send those who refused to believe in him to hell. Damn it, it's fustrating when I can't get people to believe me, but not enough to make me want to send them to hell :lol:

[Literary]

If you don't believe in Jesus then how do you believe in hell?

Personally, I think that it is self-contradictary that such a compassionate and forgiving figure in the Bible would send those who refused to believe in him to hell. Damn it, it's fustrating when I can't get people to believe me, but not enough to make me want to send them to hell :lol:

I believe about hell, but will I go to hell if don't believe in jesus while I always do good.

[blazeofglory]

Believing or unbelieving in Jesus has nothing to do with going to hell or ascending to heaven; for if you do not pray or believe in God and still engage in works of charity, generosity of spirit, benevolence I do believe that yo9u do something more than praying to reserve your place in heaven. For all that Jesus, if he really does exist, wants is to institute order and harmony in the world. If you do not infringe the law that means you agree with the idea of God or Jesus, and if you agree with Jesus or stand by the laws he has formulated of serving his people why should Jesus not be pleased with you to send you to heaven. I feel funny why people slavishly hero-worship Jesus?

[mtpspur]

If I understand the Bible and Christian (Protestant) doctrines corrrectly a person in Hell is there because of sinhaving been commited against a holy God. All the good deeds in the world cannot erase the effect of sin which by definition is an offense against a Holy God (check out any of the 10 commandemnts to use for a point of reference). Adam represented mankind on a judicial basis and fell in sin when he took the fruit from the ONE tree. God provided a blood sacrifice (death) to pay the price for sin as represented in the Lord Christ. So if you believe in Him to have settled the account then all is well--if not you stand on your own and unfortunately you won't be standing long. I affirm this in a very broad and simple terms.

[kiki1982]

Didn't Dante send those who were good at heart, but did not believe in God/Jesus as the Son of God, to the upper circles of hell, whereas the nasty people were down there somewhere in the cold with Lucifer frozen solid? Thus, Virgil and other nice Romans were quite comfortable, where some nasty popes and such were deeper in hell than the so-called heathens (apart from Nero, of course :D)...

I don't know. Pope John Paul II called back the idea of hell and called it a state (of mind) rather than a physical state (pit of fire or something like that). Pope Benedict XVI seems to be a little more conservative and now professes that hell 'is a place' really. I don't think anyone agrees on what it is exactly.

Personally, I could not consider God to be cruel and casting people into hell even though they have been good. If he can show mercy to people who have committed murder because of true remorse (or so we are led to believe) then how could he cast a perfectly good and charitable 'heathen' into hell? I just suppose that hell does not really exist and that it is a handy tool for people to show their little finger when it comes to being up to no good... My scientfic mind cannot get round to it, although I am really a catholic. I am too pragmatic... It is probably a state of mind.

So, for me, no, you will not go to hell if you do not believe in Jesus...

[Literary]

"Jesus said to him, 'I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father, except through me.' " John 14:6

It means that heaven only can be reached by believe in jesus.

[Literary]

Am not a moslem?

[Literary]

Sorry, I wrong write title... I mean "Will I Go To The Hell If I..."

[papayahed]

"Jesus said to him, 'I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father, except through me.' " John 14:6

It means that heaven only can be reached by believe in jesus.


Back in school the nuns used to teach that the father, son, and holy ghost were one in the same, like three sides of a triangle, so why do I need to go throught Jesus to get to the father if the father is Jesus?

[billl]

Not a Biblical scholar here, and I have NO idea what the original Hebrew might've meant, etc--and I don't have much at all invested in the Biblical position on this, personally, but:

It seems to me that Jesus could conceivably be pointing to himself as a metaphor. e.g. he is pursuing a certain "way," he is committed to truth, and he represents life. So, by living as he does, committed to truth, one must use this life to gain (earn? find? reach?) the Father (or source, etc.).

Not something a fundmentalist would go for, I'm guessing, but I've read some things where Jesus's words are compared and contrasted to aspects of other spiritual systems (e.g. the Tao), so I thought this was pretty interesting to think about it in that light.

[DanielBenoit]

I agree with billl's aproach. Fundimentalists seem to mistake many metaphors and symbolism in the Bible for actual literate events.

[Literary]

but jesus offering of atonement, so someone who believes in jesus would think, "I'm not afraid to commit a sin, because god jesus will make it up."

[blazeofglory]

In Hinduism there is a popular belief that even if you commit a thousand sins in life, all kinds of sins- murder, treachery, thievery, rape, molestation and the like and if you pray at the time of death the gate to heaven will be open for you. There is a beautiful story in Hindu scriptures about this. A man named Ajamil was a malefactor, committed all kinds of sins, had raped so many virgins, indulged in all criminal acts. He had a son named Narayan. This is the name of Lord Vishnu. And he called his son by his name. That means the name of his son and the name of Lord Vishnu was one and the same. He was about to be tied by emissaries from hell. Suddenly God's envoys, good angels appeared there and stopped the emissaries from hell. The emissaries were surprised and asked why they stopped them. The reply was that if any body would take God's name knowingly and unknowingly they would be sent to heaven no matter what kind of sins he had committed in life.
People believe this strongly despite the fact that there is room for doubts speaking logically.

[Literary]

22. He who hates not the appearance of light, (the effect of Sattva), activity (the effect of Rajas), and delusion (the effect of Tamas), (in his own mind), O Pândava, nor longs for them when absent; 22

p. 320

23. He who, sitting like one unconcerned, is moved not by the Gunas, who, knowing that the Gunas operate, is Self-centred and swerves not;

24. Alike in pleasure and pain, Self-abiding, regarding a clod of earth, a stone and gold alike; the same to agreeable and disagreeable, firm, the same in censure and, praise; 24

p. 321

25. The same in honour and disgrace, the same to friend and foe, relinquishing all undertakings—he is said to have gone beyond the Gunas. 25

Those are how to get atonement in Hindu.

How with jesus?

[lupe]

Will I get a present if I don't believe in Santa-Claus ?

[Virgil]

Not believe in jesus?


Back in school the nuns used to teach that the father, son, and holy ghost were one in the same, like three sides of a triangle, so why do I need to go throught Jesus to get to the father if the father is Jesus?


Those are how to get atonement in Hindu.

How with jesus?
Look I’m not a theological scholar and there is a lot of dumbed down religion for the average person and I don’t consider myself an expert here,and I don’t usually venture into theological discussions but let me try to fill in a little. mtpspur is absolutely correct that to receive salvation (meaning entrance to heaven) in Christianity one must accept that Christ’s sacrifice as the atonement for all human sin. So Papaya, when it’s said that you have to go through Jesus, what it’s essentially saying is that you have to acknowledge that Christ’s blood sacrifice was made for all humanity and for you. If one accepts that and feels the grace of God from that, then you will be saved.

That goes for most Christian denominations I can think of. Now there are subtle differences between denominations. Now Calvinists believe that this is all predetermined, that those that have the grace of God is already determined from birth, or actually from the beginning of time, and that it is already known who will go into heaven. But the overwhelming majority of Christians believe in free will in accepting this grace – that God offers it to all and you decide whether to accept it or not. Papaya mentioned catholic school nuns and mtspur mentioned Protestantism. There is a subtle difference there too, and that relates to what mtspur refers to as “deeds” (or in other words, good works) and the receiving of grace. Most Protestants believe in strictly grace and deeds have no relation to entering heaven. At least that’s the Evangelical Protestant position. It kind of feels that Anglicans and Lutherans waver a little on this, but maybe that’s my perception. Catholics and I believe Easter Orthodox branches also believe in grace as an a priori requirement for entering heaven but your life’s works are considered in terms of judgment, in the sense that a purgation of your soul will occur prior to entering heaven. That’s why Catholics have the notion of purgatory.

Both positions, the Evangelical Protestant and the Catholic cite passages to support their positions and as far as I can see both are theologically sound. It’s a question of which resonates in you. Protestants will cite the Paul epistle passages (don’t ask me to find them I’m not going to waste my entire night searching for quotes) where he strictly says that good works cannot get you into heaven. Catholics will cite the epistle of James that clearly says good works count and also cite several of Christ’s parables that indicate He values works - the story of the good Samaritan, Christ washing his apostle’s feet, and curing blindness even on the Sabbath come to mind. Those are works. Protestants will counter that by saying that those who have the grace of God will naturally want to emulate Christ and do good works. I’m not advocating one or the other, just laying it out as I understand it. I happen to be Catholic, if anyone finds any flaw in here, please correct me.

So to answer you Literary, to get into heaven from a basic Christian perspective, you have to accept Christ and His sacrifice as atonement for all sin. The fruit that was pulled off the tree in the Garden of Eden is put back on the tree as Christ on the cross.

[Jozanny]

Obviously the Vatican offered Virgil the LN diplomacy spot, but he pretty much has this one right, broadly speaking. The good news is that the Pope recently pulled the plug on Limbo. It is no longer where the souls of unbaptized newborns meander.

[Literary]

In Hinduism there is a popular belief that even if you commit a thousand sins in life, all kinds of sins- murder, treachery, thievery, rape, molestation and the like and if you pray at the time of death the gate to heaven will be open for you. There is a beautiful story in Hindu scriptures about this. A man named Ajamil was a malefactor, committed all kinds of sins, had raped so many virgins, indulged in all criminal acts. He had a son named Narayan. This is the name of Lord Vishnu. And he called his son by his name. That means the name of his son and the name of Lord Vishnu was one and the same. He was about to be tied by emissaries from hell. Suddenly God's envoys, good angels appeared there and stopped the emissaries from hell. The emissaries were surprised and asked why they stopped them. The reply was that if any body would take God's name knowingly and unknowingly they would be sent to heaven no matter what kind of sins he had committed in life.
People believe this strongly despite the fact that there is room for doubts speaking logically.
I know that story, but I think you need to tell it completely. Speaking about logic, do you believe in reincarnation and law of karma?

[Literary]

So, is heaven only can be reached by believe in yesus?
How if I believe in Allah (Judea) or Allah (moslem) or Buddha?

[BienvenuJDC]

So, is heaven only can be reached by believe in yesus?
How if I believe in Allah (Judea) or Allah (moslem) or Buddha?

It is contradictory to believe in all these religions. According to my beliefs, all people who have come to the understanding of good and evil (who succumb to the evil temptations...everyone then), is separated from the Almighty God. Since God does not want any of His creation to be apart from Him, He sent the Christ to be an atonement for those sins, thus by accepting Christ we receive that atonement and are reunited with God. Heaven is being in the full existence of God (Jehovah). Therefore John 14:6 applies.

The Judeo Allah, also referred as Yahweh, later Anglicized as Jehovah is the same as 'the Father' as known by Christians. The Muslim Allah is contradictory to the Judeo and Christian God. There is no correlation between Buddha and Jehovah/Yahweh.

[blazeofglory]

I know that story, but I think you need to tell it completely. Speaking about logic, do you believe in reincarnation and law of karma?

In fact if I believe in incarnation the fount of my belief is rooted in books of scriptures and beyond that I do not know anything about it. I was conditioned or told to have a faith in God, in fact in so many gods in Hinduism. I could not un-believe then. I could not think otherwise for I suffered a constraint of knowledge. Now as I am educated on western logical notions I have a different idea, for it touched me to be skeptical of things I hear of . I kind of am in the habit of weighing every piece of idea, belief in the scale of reasoning or logics. Now I cannot believe in incarnation but I believe in Karma. I hold the idea that the world is really mystifying, and things are not as they seem on the surface and Gods, religions, afterlives, heavens, hells and the like are products of our thoughts and I cannot go beyond the periphery of my thoughts and experiences. I believe in my own confinements

[billl]

I believe in my own confinements

This is a great line from an interesting post. And it might be more empowering than one might imagine, at first blush. But we must be careful, as well... For we are not really alone.

It is an interesting thing--to communicate and trust, yet not be duped. Our "best guesses" and "faith" are poor subjects for "lecturing" acquaintances. But there are experiences in which a certain level of shared-recognition might occur, among strangers, and even moreso amongst friends.

[Literary]

It is contradictory to believe in all these religions. According to my beliefs, all people who have come to the understanding of good and evil (who succumb to the evil temptations...everyone then), is separated from the Almighty God. Since God does not want any of His creation to be apart from Him, He sent the Christ to be an atonement for those sins, thus by accepting Christ we receive that atonement and are reunited with God. Heaven is being in the full existence of God (Jehovah). Therefore John 14:6 applies.

The Judeo Allah, also referred as Yahweh, later Anglicized as Jehovah is the same as 'the Father' as known by Christians. The Muslim Allah is contradictory to the Judeo and Christian God. There is no correlation between Buddha and Jehovah/Yahweh.

do you meant heaven only can be reached by believed in jesus?

[Literary]

In fact if I believe in incarnation the fount of my belief is rooted in books of scriptures and beyond that I do not know anything about it. I was conditioned or told to have a faith in God, in fact in so many gods in Hinduism. I could not un-believe then. I could not think otherwise for I suffered a constraint of knowledge. Now as I am educated on western logical notions I have a different idea, for it touched me to be skeptical of things I hear of . I kind of am in the habit of weighing every piece of idea, belief in the scale of reasoning or logics. Now I cannot believe in incarnation but I believe in Karma. I hold the idea that the world is really mystifying, and things are not as they seem on the surface and Gods, religions, afterlives, heavens, hells and the like are products of our thoughts and I cannot go beyond the periphery of my thoughts and experiences. I believe in my own confinements

I don't talking about incarnation, do you believe in reincarnation?

[Kagloo]

My two penneth....

The Hebrew word translated hell in the Bible is the word 'Sheol'. This word always refers to the common grave that all humans end up in!

The Greek equivilent is Hades which in scripture refers to the same place... the grave.

The concept of hell being a burning place where God torments people forever is out of step with the fact that God is LOVE. It is unthinkable that such a God would torture people forever in fire. When the jews started to practice pagan religion and left their pure worship thay started to sacrifice their kids to false gods by throwing them into the fire literally. God said through the prophet that such a thing had never even come up into his heart to do!!!

Hell is simply the place where all humans go to when they die. i.e. the grave, where we are unconscious and know nowt !!

[Radha Krsna]

Hi Literary...

[Neferetiabet]

It is contradictory to believe in all these religions. According to my beliefs, all people who have come to the understanding of good and evil (who succumb to the evil temptations...everyone then), is separated from the Almighty God. Since God does not want any of His creation to be apart from Him, He sent the Christ to be an atonement for those sins, thus by accepting Christ we receive that atonement and are reunited with God. Heaven is being in the full existence of God (Jehovah). Therefore John 14:6 applies.

The Judeo Allah, also referred as Yahweh, later Anglicized as Jehovah is the same as 'the Father' as known by Christians. The Muslim Allah is contradictory to the Judeo and Christian God. There is no correlation between Buddha and Jehovah/Yahweh.

I don't agree with you when you say that Allah is contradictory to the evangelical and hebrew god. In fact, all the latter abrahamic religions speak of the same God. They may have different names but that is merely due to the dominating language in which each religion was preached. If you mean something else by 'contradictory' then please elaborate on that. I mean, some would argue that Islam is closer to Judaism than Christianity is.

[wlz]

Wll I go to hell if I worship Satan and then change my mind just before I get carted off?

[Neferetiabet]

I would say say that only God may judge your inner intentions. Are you changing your mind due to precaution, as in you suddenly realize that you have nothing to lose if you believe in God. That basically decides whether you are repenting or not.

[englishstudent9]

there is no heaven /thread

[Blanket Heist]

there is no heaven /thread

http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/917/1262492043764.jpg

[mal4mac]

Didn't Dante send those who were good at heart, but did not believe in God/Jesus as the Son of God, to the upper circles of hell... Thus, Virgil and other nice Romans were quite comfortable...


They didn't seem all that comfortable to me. Although they did not suffer physical torture they were filled with an eternal longing for a God who would not give them the time of day. Jesus thought it was such a bad place that he swooped down and pulled the Old Testament bunch out of this circle up to join him in heaven. I found it amusing that the agnostics were not thought fit to enter heaven *or* hell, but were left to rot (in a nasty way) outside the gates of hell.

[mal4mac]

Wll I go to hell if I worship Satan and then change my mind just before I get carted off?

That's why angels, and devils, cause random accidents -- when Gabriel, or Old Nick, drops a fridge on your head you will have no time to reform.

[kiki1982]

They didn't seem all that comfortable to me. Although they did not suffer physical torture they were filled with an eternal longing for a God who would not give them the time of day. Jesus thought it was such a bad place that he swooped down and pulled the Old Testament bunch out of this circle up to join him in heaven. I found it amusing that the agnostics were not thought fit to enter heaven *or* hell, but were left to rot (in a nasty way) outside the gates of hell.

Well, yes, but at least they were not suffering from frostbite or so. Of course they had to suffer, but at least not <hile they were tortured. :p

[wlz]

Will I go to hell if I continue to try and evoke daemons from the Goetia such as Orabas and Paimon?

[wlz]

but mal4mac, I am 6ft, 5inch... my fridge is just not that big! lol.

[wlz]

Besides, Aleister CROWLEY lived a long and ACTIVE life. No angels there dropping fridges out of the blue!

[aquarium444]

I believe about hell, but will I go to hell if don't believe in jesus while I always do good.

How do you know that what you are doing is good, if you do not believe in Jesus? Anyway, yes, you will go to hell theoretically, but so would a lot of people.

[BienvenuJDC]

If you ask the question, then there must be an inking of belief, but it won't be judged on belief alone, but actions too...

[twhite56]

ugh.yeah.sorry

[Neo_Sephiroth]

Nope.

[Lacra]

" I will go to Hell if..." I would be happy if life would have only two sides: good and bad. The things are not so simple. In fact, no one is sure about the final destination, this is the Creator's decision.
I remembered some words our teacher told us one day:
" When you will arrive in Paradise, you will be shoked by two evidences:
Firstly- where are the very good ppl we predicted the Paradise for them while they were still alive?
Secondly - what are doing in here those bad guys we were sure they will inherit the Hellfire?"

[JuniperWoolf]

How do you know that what you are doing is good, if you do not believe in Jesus? Anyway, yes, you will go to hell theoretically, but so would a lot of people.

Like basically everything else, morality arose because of evolution. Humans rely on the group for survival, so things that go against/damage the group are considered "bad.”If everyone was murdering/stealing/etc. the species wouldn’t flourish. People that go against the group are anomalies, they go against their own survival and they're selected against (by us, we put them down or imprison them which prevents them from mating). It's neat, the system works itself out.

[Maryd.]

but mal4mac, I am 6ft, 5inch... my fridge is just not that big! lol.

Wow, can I stand next to you when the fridge falls, this way my little 5ft2 body, will be covered.:lol:

[Dinkleberry2010]

God will exist as long as humans exist. Atheists, eat your hearts out and get over it. God is an integral part of humanity. As long as humans exist, God will exist. You can argue and try to convince yourself and others that God does not exist, but you know in your innermost being that God does indeed exist. God will exist until humans no longer exist. So cut out all the crap and just accept that fact.

It doesn't matter how God is conceived or if he or she or it has human attributes or whatever. The simple fact is that God will exist as long as humans exist. So get over it.

[Babbalanja]

It doesn't matter how God is conceived or if he or she or it has human attributes or whatever. The simple fact is that God will exist as long as humans exist. So get over it.
But since, as you say, there's so many different (and even contradictory) ways to define the notion of "God," the point is that it's not really a coherent concept. People will probably continue to profess belief in "God" for as long as there's people, but that doesn't make it a rational belief.

Saying "God" exists doesn't make it a fact. So get over it.

Regards,

Istvan

[Dinkleberry2010]

It doesn't matter if God is a coherent concept. The simple fact is that God will exist as long as humans exist. God is an inherent part of humanity. As long as humans exist God will exist. You can argue untill you are blue in the face, but it won't change the fact that God exists--as long as humans exist.

[lupe]

God will exist as long as humans exist. Atheists, eat your hearts out and get over it. God is an integral part of humanity. As long as humans exist, God will exist. You can argue and try to convince yourself and others that God does not exist, but you know in your innermost being that God does indeed exist. God will exist until humans no longer exist. So cut out all the crap and just accept that fact.

It doesn't matter how God is conceived or if he or she or it has human attributes or whatever. The simple fact is that God will exist as long as humans exist. So get over it.

What a deep and thought-provoking argumentation. Bravo! It speaks louder that any of the serious deist theories. And it makes it very clear that you ("in your innermost being") know gods exist in our heads only (hence the "as long as humans exists").

[JuniperWoolf]

So cut out all the crap and just accept that fact.

Hey dude, don't tell other people what to believe. I hate that. Both atheists and theists are constantly shoving their garbage down each other's throats, it's the most annoying thing. Then different branches of theism are doing the same to each other, Protistants and Catholics killing each other because they disagree on how to worship the exact same god... it's moronic.

[aquarium444]

What difference does it make whether God exists or not, especially in modern society. One would think that God should be angry if people do not believe in his existence, but if it does not bother God, than he could exist for all anyone would know. He might not feel like showing himself, but instead work in mysterious ways. I'm really disappointed that God does not show up and bow down to me because of what I think. There must be more to this life, and if the works of man do not please God, than who needs him, or do they? The writings of God are all that there is of God that is available for the last however many thousands of years. It must be plenty.

[aquarium444]

Like basically everything else, morality arose because of evolution. Humans rely on the group for survival, so things that go against/damage the group are considered "bad.”If everyone was murdering/stealing/etc. the species wouldn’t flourish. People that go against the group are anomalies, they go against their own survival and they're selected against (by us, we put them down or imprison them which prevents them from mating). It's neat, the system works itself out.

Ahh, yes, but what happens in the event that they are going for the Kingdom! Haha.

[Radha Krsna]

You won't come to the hell by doing good to all being creature, although you r not believe in God...

[MentalReadFreak]

I know that story, but I think you need to tell it completely. Speaking about logic, do you believe in reincarnation and law of karma?

Actually that would be more true in Protestant Christian religions. Hinduism you would most likely have poor karma resulting in some kind of future repercussions. Definitely no Aladdin's magic lamp to polish moments before one's demise.

As far as the story, Hinduism has so many diverse sects and sub-sects that many sects have contradictory beliefs and even nested sects contradict the parent sect. Books revered in one sect are unheard of in another, and stories passed down faithfully in one region might have their endings changed to provide a different moral.

FYI: I am born and raised in India of Hindu parents.

[LMK]

Not believe in jesus?

First of all, I doubt there is a single human on this planet that can definitively answer this question.

However, for the sake of discussion...

Do you mean to say that you do not believe that Jesus existed or that you do not believe that he is the Son of God and through him your sins are forgiven?

I do not think that religion is an all or nothing proposition; that if you believe this then you must believe that, and so on. So to say that you accept the existence of Hell and wonder if you might be headed there if you do not accept the messianic existence and purpose of Jesus is not contradictory in my opinion.

Still, I would go out and suggest that if you believe in Hell, then you believe in God. Do you believe in a loving, merciful God? If so, then I suggest that it may be that God will not send you to Hell, but rather when it comes your time, you will see what is and what is not true and be given the opportunity to accept whatever God sets before you to choose.

For those who believe that Jesus conquered death, is there a reason to suppose that one's beliefs be completely solidified prior to mortal death?

[Dekarto]

Not believe in jesus?

Yes, you will go to hell if that is the case.

[OrphanPip]

As a gay atheist socialist, I'm reasonably sure I would go to hell if it existed.

:reddevil: I also enjoy kicking puppies. :reddevil:

[Paulclem]

Still, I would go out and suggest that if you believe in Hell, then you believe in God. Do you believe in a loving, merciful God? If so, then I suggest that it may be that God will not send you to Hell, but rather when it comes your time, you will see what is and what is not true and be given the opportunity to accept whatever God sets before you to choose.



Your suggestion is incorrect. The Buddhist worldview has hells and heavens, but no creator God.

I also think you don't need to believe in hell. Many people have experienced it here. Hell on earth? Yes sometimes. Thus if you believe in an afterlife of some kind, then the possibility of hell being an option increases.

[Paulclem]

As a gay atheist socialist, I'm reasonably sure I would go to hell if it existed.

:reddevil: I also enjoy kicking puppies. :reddevil:

I'll see you there then. Don't kick my pup though. :smile5:

[LMK]

Your suggestion is incorrect. The Buddhist worldview has hells and heavens, but no creator God.


Perhaps you mean to say that you do not aggree, for I doubt that any person is really in a position to say that anyone else's thoughts, suggestions, ideas, beliefs or lifestyles are correct or incorrect.

Also, it is my understanding that Buddhist teachings (both schools) do not preclude a creator God.

My post discussed that a belief in Hell suggested a belief in God. I did not specifically say a creator God.

Additionally, my post specifically points out my view that one needed believe in an all or nothing concept of God or religion,

I do not think that religion is an all or nothing proposition; that if you believe this then you must believe that, and so on. So to say that you accept the existence of Hell and wonder if you might be headed there if you do not accept the messianic existence and purpose of Jesus is not contradictory in my opinion.

[NikolaiI]

Still, I would go out and suggest that if you believe in Hell, then you believe in God. Do you believe in a loving, merciful God? If so, then I suggest that it may be that God will not send you to Hell, but rather when it comes your time, you will see what is and what is not true and be given the opportunity to accept whatever God sets before you to choose.

Yes, and certainly not for a Muslim or Hindu or Buddhist, considering that those religions all speak of hell, or in the case of the later two, hells.

[Paulclem]

Perhaps you mean to say that you do not aggree, for I doubt that any person is really in a position to say that anyone else's thoughts, suggestions, ideas, beliefs or lifestyles are correct or incorrect.

Also, it is my understanding that Buddhist teachings (both schools) do not preclude a creator God.

My post discussed that a belief in Hell suggested a belief in God. I did not specifically say a creator God.

Additionally, my post specifically points out my view that one needed believe in an all or nothing concept of God or religion,

I was reading about creation in Buddhism the other day, and there is no creator God. It's talked of as a cycle of universe creation over eons that does not require a creator god. Certainly the idea of a personal loving god is not subscribed to.

Additionally, my post specifically points out my view that one needed believe in an all or nothing concept of God or religion

Yet I can believe in heavens and hells as a Buddhist without the idea of a creator god.

[OrphanPip]

I'll see you there then. Don't kick my pup though. :smile5:

I'm sure it's a lot more fun than the priest make it out to be anyway, Heaven would be full of up tight fuddy duddies.

[Redzeppelin]

Yet I can believe in heavens and hells as a Buddhist without the idea of a creator god.

That's interesting; such a belief suggests that the locations are physical and therefore exist somewhere. Where might these places be? As well, without a moral-willed creator, why should such places exist at all? How can a universe devoid of a being with a moral will generate places that can be called "heaven" and "hell"?

[clouds41]

I do not believe in hell as a place where man suffers eternally. Hell is the grave. There is a lake of fire where satan will perish. Men will not suffer there 'forever'. I believe in Universal Salvation, "every knee will bow, every tounge confess".

In the world there are many reasons not to believe in Christ or God. We are distracted daily, we have ourselves... when everyone who does not believe is risen and stands before God, with nothing else they have from the world, no distractions, just them and their creator, they will believe. It will not be any mans good works. It will be the simple belief of what is before your eyes. This is hard or impossible for many to believe because they are in themsleves or the world, but I believe it will happen. Then ALL will be from age-to-age. God's plan has always been to have men with him, from the beginning. Men have ruined this- not God.

So, no. Though you can believe now and come to God via a different route- through grace- you will not burn 'forever' in hell. Just my belief from what I ahve read and learned.

[Paulclem]

That's interesting; such a belief suggests that the locations are physical and therefore exist somewhere. Where might these places be? As well, without a moral-willed creator, why should such places exist at all? How can a universe devoid of a being with a moral will generate places that can be called "heaven" and "hell"?

Maybe it's a place - but it could also refer to a state of mind.

The moral force is embodied in Karma which is seen as a natural law. It's also not an eternal state but fits the rest of the Buddhist cosmology in terms of itrs transience. Heaven is similarly not eternal but is occupied until the karma to remain is used up.

[Mona ..]

Not believe in jesus?



jesus is a prophet & you need to believe in all prophets

I wish you go to heaven ..





..

[Scheherazade]

W a r n i n g

The aim of Religious Text section is to discuss religious issues.

Posts fail to respect others' beliefs or aim to preach/convert have been and will be removed without further notice.

[caddy_caddy]

Wiil I Go To The Hell If I?
I care only for half the question which is a question of judgment .
I cannot understand how someone of any religion dare to answer such a question as he is God !!!!!
This is not our business to judge others . The question of Hell and Heaven is not our realm . According to appearances we could only know that this person is a sinner but we cannot go further than that . Because this very sinner could enter the Heaven by the end .
We are told that an old woman would enter the Heaven because she used to feed the cats on the streets. God sees and knows what we cannot know and see ,and no one has the keys of Heaven and Hell in his pocket!!

[Neo_Sephiroth]

If you don't believe in Jesus then how do you believe in hell?

Yeah, that's a good one! I'm going with that.:smilewinkgrin:

[Mr. Pedantic]

God will exist as long as humans exist. Atheists, eat your hearts out and get over it. God is an integral part of humanity. As long as humans exist, God will exist. You can argue and try to convince yourself and others that God does not exist, but you know in your innermost being that God does indeed exist. God will exist until humans no longer exist. So cut out all the crap and just accept that fact.

It doesn't matter how God is conceived or if he or she or it has human attributes or whatever. The simple fact is that God will exist as long as humans exist. So get over it.

I assume that everyone here is an atheist about the overwhelming majority of the Gods that were every believed in. I'm sure very few of you believe in Zeus or Helios because we now have much better explanations for why the sun rises. Do you have any evidence which should lead me to believe that we won't eventually go one God further and eschew religion altogether?

Using logic, I'm best able to determine whether or not God exists, and the overwhelming majority of scientist and intellectuals say that He doesn't exist.
Just what is my innermost being anyway? Whatever it is I bet it's not provable. Listening to our innermost beings or our guts hasn't cured any diseases or launched any rockets. Why not listen logic instead?
So when the universe explodes on itself in 30 billion years will God cease to exist because there are no humans? What if we all kill each other off before that? Will God die too?

[Ane]

I'm sure it's a lot more fun than the priest make it out to be anyway, Heaven would be full of up tight fuddy duddies.

Yeah, man - hell's where the party's at! Even if we atheists turn out to be wrong, we will at least avoid spending eternity with a bunch of believers saying "Told you so!"

[sports24x]

don't worry about where u will go in future...think about where u r right now..

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Not believe in jesus?

If you go by what many Christians say, then yes (though, I don't really think that counts for much).

[stephofthenight]

okay so I'll give the sunday school teacher answer...

which depends on the religion or denomination you follow-

I follow the non-denominational church...
__________________________________________________ _____________

John 3:36 He who believes in the son shall have everlasting life, and he that does not believe in the son shall not see life, but instead the wrath that God has on him.

John 6:40 And this is the will of the Father, every one who sees the son with their heart, and believes in him will have everlasting life, and I will rise him up on his last day.

Romans 10:9 If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and you believe in your heart that God Raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

1 Timothy 1:15-16 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners...(16) Which should hereafter believe on him to live everlasting. {hey im doing this by memory okay, so go look the ... up if you want sheesh}

Acts 16:31 believe in the lord Jesus Christ and you SHALL be saved...
__________________________________________________ ______________

I think you have to find your own answer, we all have our own believes and how we interupert the word of God. He says "Do not come to me luke warm, come hot or cold or be spit out" So look in your own heart and figure out What you believe, but not just that. But WHY it is you believe that and never back down. All of litnet can tell you what they believe but there is no satisfaction in conforming to someone elses belief... Good luck and God Bless
-steph-

[nida]

i believe that i will go to hell if i do not believe in jesus as a prophet, instead of considering him son of god.

[MarkBastable]

....you know in your innermost being that God does indeed exist...


I don't have an innermost being. All my being is right out there, being.

[signelect]

"Will I get a present if I don't believe in Santa-Claus ? " --lmao couldn't have said it better myself.

[YesNo]

"Will I get a present if I don't believe in Santa-Claus ? " --lmao couldn't have said it better myself.

There's a legend about a Japanese retailer putting Santa Claus on a cross as a way to celebrate Christmas: http://www.snopes.com/holidays/christmas/cross.asp

[Magga]

Not believe in jesus?


According to the Bible, yes. Many modern-religious people, however, claim that more than just one road can lead to heaven. This is a very debated subject, although perhaps not within American Protestant environments.

[Snowman37]

Will you go to hell if you don't believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior? Well, I would say that is solely between you and God. However, I would say that for salvation, you need Christ, for he died on the cross to absolve all of his followers of sin and damnation. You need only believe in him. Christ was the ultimate sacrifice. Why not believe? I will NEVER tell anyone they will go to hell for not believing in Christ. I can point them to the Bible, but ultimately... their salvation is between them and God. It is not for us to speculate.

[jajdude]

Would you even have the idea of 'hell' or whatever else, if it were not given to you by other people, who have no idea about it anyway, since it is just an idea?

We love to make stuff up. Fools that we are.

[YesNo]

Would you even have the idea of 'hell' or whatever else, if it were not given to you by other people, who have no idea about it anyway, since it is just an idea?

We love to make stuff up. Fools that we are.
I sort of agree.

There are people who have had negative near death experiences which makes me suspect that there is something that could be associated with the idea of "hell" after death. Other near death accounts suggest there are also "heavenly" experiences to match the idea of heaven.

So the question of whether I will go to hell or heaven if I do this or that is perhaps important. I don't think belief in any particular religion is relevant to whether one has a hellish or heavenly NDE. That previous sentence is a falsifiable statement that could be scientifically tested.

For example, just quickly browsing I found the following site that discusses hellish near death experiences that appears to be biased neither toward a Christian nor an atheistic perspective: http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/visions_of_hell.htm

Near death experiences are a kind of evidence. At least that is how I interpret them. Others will find them to be delusions (if they are atheists) or pranks of the devil (perhaps, if they are a particular type of Christian). I doubt there is any way to objectively decide what we should believe about them, but they provide some support for the ideas of hell and heaven.

[MarkBastable]

I doubt there is any way to objectively decide what we should believe about them, but they provide some support for the ideas of hell and heaven.

Given that evidence is by definition objective, how do they provide support for any idea if there's no way to assess them objectively?

[Snowman37]

Would you even have the idea of 'hell' or whatever else, if it were not given to you by other people, who have no idea about it anyway, since it is just an idea?

We love to make stuff up. Fools that we are.
Would you even have the idea of Saturn or any other planet if if were not revealed to you by other people?

Ignorance of hell does not make it a fantasy.

[YesNo]

Given that evidence is by definition objective, how do they provide support for any idea if there's no way to assess them objectively?
When I hear the word "objective" I suspect I'm being led to someone's privileged frame of reference to which some authority will require that I synchronize my clock and measuring rod. That privileged position cannot exist according to current physical theory. If I understand postmodern philosophy correctly, such a privileged position doesn't even exist in the language used to create our evidence and ideas.

So, let's say that evidence is a story told to a jury who decides if it is worth accepting or not and ideas are larger stories which are supported by that jury's accepted evidence. Ultimately we are the members of that jury and we are deciding for our own lives.

That means there is no way to access the evidence objectively. And yet we will make a choice.

[MarkBastable]

When I hear the word "objective"....

Hey, you started it.

[YesNo]

Hey, you started it.
:)

I'm glad you posted something. It forces me to think through stuff.

Yesterday I finished reading Raymond Moody's Glimpses of Eternity. He's the guy who coined the phrase "near death experience" over 20 years ago. This book defined and presented examples of "shared death experiences" that people sometimes have when someone they are physically or emotionally close to dies, that is, they may also see the light, the tunnel, the relatives and angels that the dying person supposedly experiences. So the evidence no longer comes only from those who are resuscitated.

These NDEs and SDEs provide another way to answer the original question of this thread which was "Will I go to hell if I don't believe in Jesus?" If we associate hell with a hellish NDE and heaven with a heavenly one, we can ask if belief in Jesus determines which of these experiences one will have.

I think the current answer is that even people who do not believe in Jesus or who are atheists have heavenly NDEs. Or, in other words, if you do not believe in Jesus, it does not mean that you will go to hell.

[jajdude]

Would you even have the idea of Saturn or any other planet if if were not revealed to you by other people?

Ignorance of hell does not make it a fantasy.

I guess not. But they exist anyway. They are real. Hell is an idea. We don't know if it exists. You need a better argument than to bring up something everyone knows to exist, to counter one about belief.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Would you even have the idea of Saturn or any other planet if if were not revealed to you by other people?

Ignorance of hell does not make it a fantasy.

Well, that's just a stupid argument. We know Saturn exists. I saw it with a telescope. I've never seen hell, and as far as I know, no one else has, either.

These arguments of "If you don't believe in Jesus or God, you don't get into Heaven" is what has always led me away from religion. So, someone leads a good life. The person is charitable, kind, faithful to friends, family, and spouse, but if that person does not believe that Jesus Christ magically rose from the grave, they're going to hell.

If that's the case, God and Jesus Christ can kiss my ***. I don't want to be a part of that Heaven.

[YesNo]

These arguments of "If you don't believe in Jesus or God, you don't get into Heaven" is what has always led me away from religion. So, someone leads a good life. The person is charitable, kind, faithful to friends, family, and spouse, but if that person does not believe that Jesus Christ magically rose from the grave, they're going to hell.

If that's the case, God and Jesus Christ can kiss my ***. I don't want to be a part of that Heaven.
I agree.

I don't think an exclusively Christian heaven exists anyway. However, based on the NDEs and SDEs, it doesn't seem that life ends at death either.

[Armel P]

I really don't understand how one can see NDE's as any proof at all. They are not "death experiences"; they're near death experiences. Those people never died. If they had they would not be around to tell you stories. Period. Even if you believe in an afterlife, even if you don't dismiss the afterlife, you can't see it as proof. You want to see it as proof because, in a time of the validity of your outlook on the nature of the universe often being called into question, you want validation. Your bias is leading you astray. If one sets the pole of a pole vault at 3 inches off the ground and clears it, that doesn't make the person a pole vaulter. But if one really really wants to be a pole vaulter one can convince himself that it does.

[Ecurb]

20 And when he (Jesus) was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:

21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you. (Luke 17:20-21)

[YesNo]

I really don't understand how one can see NDE's as any proof at all. They are not "death experiences"; they're near death experiences. Those people never died. If they had they would not be around to tell you stories. Period. Even if you believe in an afterlife, even if you don't dismiss the afterlife, you can't see it as proof. You want to see it as proof because, in a time of the validity of your outlook on the nature of the universe often being called into question, you want validation. Your bias is leading you astray. If one sets the pole of a pole vault at 3 inches off the ground and clears it, that doesn't make the person a pole vaulter. But if one really really wants to be a pole vaulter one can convince himself that it does.
There are also examples, Armel_P, of "shared death experiences" that Moody describes in his latest work, Glimpses of Eternity. These are experiences that people have who are either physically close to the dying person or who are emotionally close to the dying person. The person actually dies, but these other people share in what the dying person experiences: lights, tunnel, seeing previously deceased relatives and so on. Those experiences corroborate the NDEs, they are cross-cultural and they actually involve a death.

I'm not really interested in proof, but evidence. This is not a logical exercise. I view evidence as a narrative that I can either accept or not. I find the narratives relating to NDEs and SDEs acceptable. This does not mean that you have to find them acceptable.

So what does that mean for me? Well, it means I can use this evidence to accept or reject some religious ideas. In particular, and related to this thread, the Christian idea that one must believe in Jesus in order to go to heaven, I can reject based on this evidence.

[Armel P]

There are also examples, Armel_P, of "shared death experiences" that Moody describes in his latest work, Glimpses of Eternity. These are experiences that people have who are either physically close to the dying person or who are emotionally close to the dying person. The person actually dies, but these other people share in what the dying person experiences: lights, tunnel, seeing previously deceased relatives and so on. Those experiences corroborate the NDEs, they are cross-cultural and they actually involve a death.

I'm not really interested in proof, but evidence. This is not a logical exercise. I view evidence as a narrative that I can either accept or not. I find the narratives relating to NDEs and SDEs acceptable. This does not mean that you have to find them acceptable.

So what does that mean for me? Well, it means I can use this evidence to accept or reject some religious ideas. In particular, and related to this thread, the Christian idea that one must believe in Jesus in order to go to heaven, I can reject based on this evidence.

One cannot separate evidence from proof. The purpose behind the discovery and presentation of evidence is proving or at least demonstrating the likelihood of something. They are linked. Evidence necessarily carries with it the intention to prove.

And in this case it doesn't qualify as evidence if it can also be considered evidence in support of phenomena that are contradictory to what you hope is being supported to an equivalent if not greater degree. It is just as likely, if not more so, that it be evidence for certain psychological and sociological explanations. For the sake of this discussion, the only thing that tips the balance is bias.

Additionally: you say it's not a logical exercise but then you are trying to separate evidence for logic which I also feel can't be done. Evidence also carries with it the intention of proceeding logically.

[Ecurb]

The point of the Luke quote I made earlier is that the "evidence" for the Kingdom of Heaven is not found by looking outward, but by looking inward (acc. Jesus). The modernist, scientific worldview thinks of "evidence" as something seen and touched in the world outside oneself. Strangely, the Fundamentalists agree -- they are constantly seeking physical, historical evidence -- pieces of Noah's ark. But that's not the only kind of evidence. "The Kingdom of God cometh not with observation...."

[Paulclem]

What about evidence based on inference? This is used by phycicists to infer the prescence of a star by means of the star's effect upon its surroundings, or on types of waves. (I'm not a physicist though, so apologies if this is clumsy or incorrect).

So, if you posit the idea that there is an afterlife, then taking the view that heavenly or hellish conditions can exist on earth, then the possibility of heaven or hell is possible in an afterlife.

The question of evidence has come up again and again on religious threads here, and seems irreconcileable between those for whom objective evidence is less important than experience, and those for whom subjectivity cannot claim validity.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

There are also examples, Armel_P, of "shared death experiences" that Moody describes in his latest work, Glimpses of Eternity. These are experiences that people have who are either physically close to the dying person or who are emotionally close to the dying person. The person actually dies, but these other people share in what the dying person experiences: lights, tunnel, seeing previously deceased relatives and so on. Those experiences corroborate the NDEs, they are cross-cultural and they actually involve a death.

I'm not really interested in proof, but evidence. This is not a logical exercise. I view evidence as a narrative that I can either accept or not. I find the narratives relating to NDEs and SDEs acceptable. This does not mean that you have to find them acceptable.

So what does that mean for me? Well, it means I can use this evidence to accept or reject some religious ideas. In particular, and related to this thread, the Christian idea that one must believe in Jesus in order to go to heaven, I can reject based on this evidence.
What about all the people who experience near-death and don't have NDEs? They far outweigh the reverse.

[YesNo]

What about all the people who experience near-death and don't have NDEs? They far outweigh the reverse.
I don't know, but that doesn't invalidate the experience of those who do.



The question of evidence has come up again and again on religious threads here, and seems irreconcileable between those for whom objective evidence is less important than experience, and those for whom subjectivity cannot claim validity.
Yes, I've noticed that as well. I don't think there is such a thing as objective evidence. It is all subjective, but that's just my current guess.


The modernist, scientific worldview thinks of "evidence" as something seen and touched in the world outside oneself. Strangely, the Fundamentalists agree -- they are constantly seeking physical, historical evidence -- pieces of Noah's ark. But that's not the only kind of evidence. "The Kingdom of God cometh not with observation...."
I agree. They appear to be out-of-date modernists, as distinct from being postmodernists. Of course, I'm not sure exactly what postmodernism is.


One cannot separate evidence from proof.
From my perspective the evidence has proved the points I was making. From yours it likely has not. I have no more of a privileged position than you do so all we can do is try to justify our respective positions. If you had not posted, I would not have had that opportunity. Thanks!

[Ecurb]

I agree. They appear to be out-of-date modernists, as distinct from being postmodernists. Of course, I'm not sure exactly what postmodernism is.
!

Neither is anyone else. That's because postmodernism is not a coherent, comprehensive philosophical approach. Instead, it is a critique of modernism. The fact that postmodernism hasn't come up with a replacement for modernism in no way negates the cogency of the critique.

[Dodo25]

Postmodernism is mostly nonsense because the 'critique' is simply misguided. And in case nobody has found it yet, the answer to the OP in this thread is 'no, most likely not.'

[Ecurb]

Aren't dodoes extinct?

[Armel P]

From my perspective the evidence has proved the points I was making. From yours it likely has not. I have no more of a privileged position than you do so all we can do is try to justify our respective positions. If you had not posted, I would not have had that opportunity. Thanks!

It's not an issue of perspective to ignore some evidence while accepting others. It has proved something to you because you are choosing not to look at and interpret all of the evidence available to you. That is a choice on your part and not a matter of perspective.

[YesNo]

Neither is anyone else. That's because postmodernism is not a coherent, comprehensive philosophical approach. Instead, it is a critique of modernism. The fact that postmodernism hasn't come up with a replacement for modernism in no way negates the cogency of the critique.
Is there something you would recommend to help get a better understanding of postmodernism?

I've read a couple of essays by Richard Rorty, An Ethics for Today and What's the Use of Truth, and some introductory, survey-type texts, but that is about it. To the extent I understand it, I think the critique of modernism is valid.

[Dodo25]

Aren't dodoes extinct?

That's only your Western chauvinist notion of the words 'dodo' and 'extinct'. Since truth is relative, dodos are still kicking it, at least in my culture since we have different perceptions, ya know.

[Squabbles]

In response to the original posters question: The answer to your question is subject to whatever you choose to believe. There is no definite answer, only speculation.

An unrelated side note: I never understood the "complexity of religion" argument. When people argue that the bible has to be true because of how much there is to it, I want to hit them with a huge book on Greek Mythology. It is quite extensive, and so are several other religions and works of literature.

[Dodo25]

In response to the original posters question: The answer to your question is subject to whatever you choose to believe. There is no definite answer, only speculation.

Hell either exists or it doesn't. Someone's beliefs shouldn't affect that. Except if the beliefs contain dodos. If I believe dodos exist, then they do.

[Snowman37]

In response to the original posters question: The answer to your question is subject to whatever you choose to believe. There is no definite answer, only speculation.
Bingo. Though there is some evidence, a big part of believing in Christianity or whatever belief system you choose is faith. Without it, all you have is skepticism.


An unrelated side note: I never understood the "complexity of religion" argument. When people argue that the bible has to be true because of how much there is to it, I want to hit them with a huge book on Greek Mythology. It is quite extensive, and so are several other religions and works of literature.
When people argue that the Holy Bible is true due to how much there is to it, they're not talking about how expansive it is. They are talking about how rooted it is in history. A true debater will not dismiss this claim. Rather, a debater should do his own digging and try to find the truth whether it is a truth he likes or dislikes.

[Squabbles]

When people argue that the Holy Bible is true due to how much there is to it, they're not talking about how expansive it is. They are talking about how rooted it is in history. A true debater will not dismiss this claim. Rather, a debater should do his own digging and try to find the truth whether it is a truth he likes or dislikes.

Very true. I don't mean to dismiss the knowledge, content, influence, etc. of the bible, I simply mean to say that many other religions have the same. Though, I have yet to attain extensive knowledge of most religions, and should keep quiet until I do. Which is why I am a casual inquirer instead of debater. :blush:

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I don't know, but that doesn't invalidate the experience of those who do.

Just as much as it doesn't invalidate the people who don't experience an NDE. So, I guess, if we're going by NDEs, either possibility is, um, possible.

[OrphanPip]

When people argue that the Holy Bible is true due to how much there is to it, they're not talking about how expansive it is. They are talking about how rooted it is in history. A true debater will not dismiss this claim. Rather, a debater should do his own digging and try to find the truth whether it is a truth he likes or dislikes.

Silly, because every book written ever is "rooted in history."

I suppose if archeoligist in 3000 AD discover the issue of Spider-Man where Spidey swings by Obama, and since they have corroborating evidence that Obama existed, then it will be reasonable for them to conclude that radioactive spiders will make you a superhero.

And no, the burden of proof should be on those trying to make a positive claim. I don't need to assume the truth of your position until I can show otherwise, that's ridiculous since there are an infinite number of false claims that can be made.


Is there something you would recommend to help get a better understanding of postmodernism?

I've read a couple of essays by Richard Rorty, An Ethics for Today and What's the Use of Truth, and some introductory, survey-type texts, but that is about it. To the extent I understand it, I think the critique of modernism is valid.

Some post-modernist critiques are valid some aren't. Irigaray saying e=mc^2 is a masculinist equation and that science is a methodology that excludes feminine experience is a load of steaming bull****.

The primary problem when you take the lax Derridian form of deconstruction is that you lead it spiraling towards insubstantial useless conclusions. Because scientific observation relies on subjective elements does not mean that it is equally subjective as personal experience, or that personal experience is a useful means of representing anything. When I look at the people leveling post-modernist critiques at science, I see snake-oil merchants selling homeopathy or anti-vaccers. These people aren't interested in getting at any useful or accurate conclusions, they are only interested in obfuscation for the purpose of justifying their own dangerous delusions.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Some post-modernist critiques are valid some aren't. Irigaray saying e=mc^2 is a masculinist equation and that science is a methodology that excludes feminine experience is a load of steaming bull****.

I've never heard this, but it sounds hilarious. :lol:

[YesNo]

Some post-modernist critiques are valid some aren't.
Which ones do you find valid?

[OrphanPip]

Broadly speaking I'm sympathetic to Lyotard's ideas about grand-narratives and it's implication in queer theory (Sedwick/Butler but they also draw on Derrida and Foucault) and post-colonial discourse (Said/Bhabha), but I'm not so quick to reject all grand-narratives and some overstretch the implications too far.

Marshall McLuhan's ideas about media are brilliant.

Some of Foucault's way of thinking about sexuality and the changing conceptions of some of our most fundamental institutions are interesting, but Foucault was also an awful historian who misrepresented his data and also falls prey to that overstretching of his claims.

There aren't many I would say are right most of the time, but there are many, even Derrida, who are interesting even if you disagree with them.

The humanities are far too obsessed with post-modernist Continental philosophers.

[YesNo]

Broadly speaking I'm sympathetic to Lyotard's ideas about grand-narratives and it's implication in queer theory (Sedwick/Butler but they also draw on Derrida and Foucault) and post-colonial discourse (Said/Bhabha), but I'm not so quick to reject all grand-narratives and some overstretch the implications too far.

Marshall McLuhan's ideas about media are brilliant.

Some of Foucault's way of thinking about sexuality and the changing conceptions of some of our most fundamental institutions are interesting, but Foucault was also an awful historian who misrepresented his data and also falls prey to that overstretching of his claims.

There aren't many I would say are right most of the time, but there are many, even Derrida, who are interesting even if you disagree with them.

The humanities are far too obsessed with post-modernist Continental philosophers.
I agree with you about Lyotard's meta-narratives to the extent that I understand them. I suspect that some supposed grand-narratives are just narratives, that is, some community accepts the stories but they do not have the power to force others to accept them who are not inclined to do so. Also their narratives are already under critique which means they are not part of a culture's common sense.

I'll see if I can find something by Marshall McLuhan.

I've heard people make similar comments about Foucault.

Most people aren't right most of the time. We just keep talking and changing.

Thanks!

[Dodo25]

Quine's 'Two Dogmas of Empiricism' is to some extent a critique of modernism, but it's not postmodernistic because it actually makes sense, and because he doesn't take it to such extremes as the postmodernists.

Kuhn (The structure of scientific revolutions) is often counted as a postmodernist, but that's merely because he uses weird terminology. He actually doesn't belong to postmodernism, and his 'critiques' are to some extent valid (though they're being misinterpreted constantly, I've heard people saying there's no objective criterion that can justify why Newton's theory is less conclusive than Einstein's, and that Newton would have no reason to accept Einstein).

[TheRanger(girl)]

The Bible says that 'if you with your heart believe and your tongue confirm you shall be saved'. So, not to be rude to those who do not believe in it, yes, I think you will go to Hell if you do not believe in Jesus. And honestly I think it's a very low price to pay for spending the rest of eternity in Heaven... But that's just my opinion...

[Ecurb]

Quine's 'Two Dogmas of Empiricism' is to some extent a critique of modernism, but it's not postmodernistic because it actually makes sense, and because he doesn't take it to such extremes as the postmodernists.

Kuhn (The structure of scientific revolutions) is often counted as a postmodernist, but that's merely because he uses weird terminology. He actually doesn't belong to postmodernism, and his 'critiques' are to some extent valid (though they're being misinterpreted constantly, I've heard people saying there's no objective criterion that can justify why Newton's theory is less conclusive than Einstein's, and that Newton would have no reason to accept Einstein).

Kuhn is postmodern because he sees scientific progression as being influnced by cultural prejudices and political factors (as opposed to Popper, the modernist, who saw it as some sort of steady, stately progression in knowledge). Of course if you disqualify something from being postmodern because "it actually makes sense", then it is quite reasonable to call postmodernism nonsense. It's a bit of tautological reasoning, however.

[MarkBastable]

Of course if you disqualify something from being postmodern because "it actually makes sense", then it is quite reasonable to call postmodernism nonsense. It's a bit of tautological reasoning, however.

Which, interestingly, is exactly the kind of circular reasoning that comes up so often in discussions about Christianity.

Person A: Christians believe in love and treating your fellow as you would like to be treated yourself.

Person B: Hang on - what about all the nasty things done by Christians?

Person A: Those people aren't Christians.

Person B: They say they're Christians.

Person A: Well, they're not. They can't be.

[OrphanPip]

I'll see if I can find something by Marshall McLuhan.


His central idea is usually summarized as "the medium is the message."

The crux is that new inventions change how humans think and relate to the world. So, now that we have TV, or electrical lighting, or white bread, we now conceive of our world in significantly different ways than people who lived without those things.

McLuhan essentially created the field of Media Studies, and some also credit him with the development of professional marketing.

He's also famous for coining the term "global village."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBtXfBdEXEs

And he was in Annie Hall.

[YesNo]

The Bible says that 'if you with your heart believe and your tongue confirm you shall be saved'. So, not to be rude to those who do not believe in it, yes, I think you will go to Hell if you do not believe in Jesus. And honestly I think it's a very low price to pay for spending the rest of eternity in Heaven... But that's just my opinion...
What do you think of Raymond Moody's Life After Life where he coined the phrase "near death experience" in the 70s and his more recent book, Glimpses of Eternity, where he introduced the concept of a "shared death experience"?

The reason I ask is that based on the stories even atheists can have heavenly NDEs and I assume the SDEs as well. I understand why atheists might not want to accept these because they also imply that there is something after death. I am curious how a Christian understands them.

Anyway, welcome to the discussion. Since we are prohibited from discussing current politics, this is a close as we get to some heated arguments.

[Dodo25]

Kuhn is postmodern because he sees scientific progression as being influnced by cultural prejudices and political factors (as opposed to Popper, the modernist, who saw it as some sort of steady, stately progression in knowledge).

Actually, you're right. I don't at all agree with the 'strong version' of what he's saying. The question is 'to what extent' (... is science influenced by subjective factors). Obviously biases have 'some' effect, but that doesn't have to mean objectivity is impossible in principle.

Kuhn is often counted as a postmodernist, but IMO there's a difference between his views and mainstream postmodernism. When he talks about 'postmodernism', he seems to mean something else than the typical proponents of it. To him, scientific statements are still useful. Either way, he's definitely not a modernist like Popper.

The thing with Kuhn is that you can interpret it in different ways, or only accept some of his views while accepting others (true of many philosophers). Here's what I got out of TSS: Paradigm shifts are sometimes needed to get from one place to the next. There's no logical foundation for 'how to shift it' or 'when', so science doesn't always progress linearly or even 'rationally'. However, and here comes the difference, there are objective reasons how we can tell one 'paradigm' is better than another: if it makes more true predictions. (In this case, 'true' may even be defined 'within' the paradigm, it still counts!)



Of course if you disqualify something from being postmodern because "it actually makes sense", then it is quite reasonable to call postmodernism nonsense. It's a bit of tautological reasoning, however.

Haha, I wasn't being completely serious there (:

Side note:
Hardly any university still teaches postmodernism as the 'height of philosophy'. Modernism (with addressing of the critiques) is the mainstream view now, or some call this 'neomodernism'.

[OrphanPip]

European Continental philosophy never really fully took off outside of France and the USA anyway. I don't think it's dead though, and the humanities in those two countries are still enamored of pomo. I think it's more relevant though for some of the humanities to be concerned with pomo, because a lot of artists are concerned with pomo.

[Dodo25]

European Continental philosophy never really fully took off outside of France and the USA anyway. I don't think it's dead though, and the humanities in those two countries are still enamored of pomo. I think it's more relevant though for some of the humanities to be concerned with pomo, because a lot of artists are concerned with pomo.

Good point about France. I wasn't aware of it being that popular in the US though.

And yeah, when I said earlier that it 'isn't really taught as the height of philosophy anymore', I meant in PHILOSOPHY. It is still 'believed' in the humanities. And, worstly, in anthropology, where it has become a dogma even. I don't really know why though, it's weird.

[Armel P]

The Bible says that 'if you with your heart believe and your tongue confirm you shall be saved'. So, not to be rude to those who do not believe in it, yes, I think you will go to Hell if you do not believe in Jesus. And honestly I think it's a very low price to pay for spending the rest of eternity in Heaven... But that's just my opinion...

Unless you chose the wrong religion, of course, and the correct one says the only way to get into heaven is to not believe in Jesus.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I was reading reviews on the book Fashionable Nonsense (http://www.amazon.com/Fashionable-Nonsense-Postmodern-Intellectuals-Science/dp/0312204078/ref=pd_ybh_5?pf_rd_p=280800601&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_t=1501&pf_rd_i=ybh&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=0HB3KF8S3A9SPY8TZ6NN). Just the reviews have my head spinning. I've never gotten into philosophy and its ilk. Just too long-winded. I do enjoy the synopsis of the different theories on Wikipedia, though. I just read the ideas of Carl Jung in a few paragraphs. Quite fascinating.

[Dodo25]

I was reading reviews on the book Fashionable Nonsense (http://www.amazon.com/Fashionable-Nonsense-Postmodern-Intellectuals-Science/dp/0312204078/ref=pd_ybh_5?pf_rd_p=280800601&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_t=1501&pf_rd_i=ybh&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=0HB3KF8S3A9SPY8TZ6NN). Just the reviews have my head spinning. I've never gotten into philosophy and its ilk. Just too long-winded. I do enjoy the synopsis of the different theories on Wikipedia, though. I just read the ideas of Carl Jung in a few paragraphs. Quite fascinating.

'Fashionable Nonsense' -- great title!

Here's a hilarious review of another book by Sokal and Bricmont:

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/824-postmodernism-disrobed

[BienvenuJDC]

What do you think of Raymond Moody's Life After Life where he coined the phrase "near death experience" in the 70s and his more recent book, Glimpses of Eternity, where he introduced the concept of a "shared death experience"?

The reason I ask is that based on the stories even atheists can have heavenly NDEs and I assume the SDEs as well. I understand why atheists might not want to accept these because they also imply that there is something after death. I am curious how a Christian understands them.

Anyway, welcome to the discussion. Since we are prohibited from discussing current politics, this is a close as we get to some heated arguments.

As a Christian, my perspective of a near death experience is the result of a very powerful mind that does nothing more than dream. There were some miraculous events of people coming back from true death, but I do not believe that one comes back after seeing the afterlife. I can't prove it, but that is my perception.

[YesNo]

His central idea is usually summarized as "the medium is the message."

The crux is that new inventions change how humans think and relate to the world. So, now that we have TV, or electrical lighting, or white bread, we now conceive of our world in significantly different ways than people who lived without those things.

McLuhan essentially created the field of Media Studies, and some also credit him with the development of professional marketing.

He's also famous for coining the term "global village."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBtXfBdEXEs

And he was in Annie Hall.
That was a funny video.

I found The Medium is the Massage in the library. At the risk of sounding like that professor in the video it seems that McLuhan is saying that the eye replaced the ear for the modernist when reading replaced hearing as the means to obtain information. And today the ear is becoming more important again.


As a Christian, my perspective of a near death experience is the result of a very powerful mind that does nothing more than dream. There were some miraculous events of people coming back from true death, but I do not believe that one comes back after seeing the afterlife. I can't prove it, but that is my perception.

Thanks. That does seem like a reasonable way for a Christian to approach NDEs, even though they do provide what some might call evidence for an afterlife.

[Dodo25]

As a Christian, my perspective of a near death experience is the result of a very powerful mind that does nothing more than dream. There were some miraculous events of people coming back from true death, but I do not believe that one comes back after seeing the afterlife. I can't prove it, but that is my perception.

Very interesting. One would generally expect religious people to desperately cling to everything that remotely looks like evidence for their position.

[YesNo]

Very interesting. One would generally expect religious people to desperately cling to everything that remotely looks like evidence for their position.

Actually, BienvenuJDC's position is as reasonable as your position. Perhaps more so. Both of you reject NDEs and SDEs. Why? Because a critical part of accepting them goes against your beliefs.

I think BienvenuJDC's position is more internally consistent. All he needs to do is believe in the texts he values. He doesn't need to have evidence. In your case, you supposedly value evidence over faith and yet you quickly reject NDEs and SDEs because they go against your theories.

[Dodo25]

Actually, BienvenuJDC's position is as reasonable as your position. Perhaps more so. Both of you reject NDEs and SDEs. Why? Because a critical part of accepting them goes against your beliefs.

I think BienvenuJDC's position is more internally consistent. All he needs to do is believe in the texts he values. He doesn't need to have evidence. In your case, you supposedly value evidence over faith and yet you quickly reject NDEs and SDEs because they go against your theories.

'Internally consistent' is great, but it's not worth much if there's no evidence to begin with. You need to ground an elegant and consistent story in reality. Maybe he has good reasons, or maybe he thinks he has good reasons. How would I know if I haven't asked?

Either way, since you have no idea why I reject NDEs, you don't know anything about my reasons either.

And saying 'he doesn't need to have evidence' isn't really helping his position. Belief without evidence is most likely wrong and definitely irrational.

[BienvenuJDC]

'Internally consistent' is great, but it's not worth much if there's no evidence to begin with. You need to ground an elegant and consistent story in reality. Maybe he has good reasons, or maybe he thinks he has good reasons. How would I know if I haven't asked?

Either way, since you have no idea why I reject NDEs, you don't know anything about my reasons either.

And saying 'he doesn't need to have evidence' isn't really helping his position. Belief without evidence is most likely wrong and definitely irrational.

I said that I couldn't prove it...I didn't say that I didn't have any evidence. There is a difference. I have evidence to support my position, I just didn't present it because I don't think that it is complete proof of my position. Nor do I want to start a tangent debate...

[Ecurb]

I hate to harp on the same note, but Jesus said, "The Kingdom of Heaven cometh not with observation." If we accept that, what COULD the evidence involve? Of course it seems like Dodo wouldn't accept ANY evidence that didn't involve observation. That's fair enough, but some people would disagree. Other kinds of evidence MIGHT involve: personal revelation; a priori reasoning; acceptance of the personal revelation of the testimones offered by others: etc., etc.

[Dodo25]

Of course it seems like Dodo wouldn't accept ANY evidence that didn't involve observation.

Probably, though maybe I'd be forced to accept evidence if a large amount of people independently of each other reported something really extraordinary.

NDE doesn't fit into that category because it isn't 'extraordinary'. Brain surgeons can actually stimulate a specific region of the brain to give patients an 'out of body experience' (some brain operations are actually done with the patient being awake, the brain doesn't feel pain). It has to do with how the brain works, and obviously there's nothing supernatural going on if it's a product of external brain stimulation.

[Ecurb]

It seems to me that Jesus was suggesting (especially because of the next line, "The Kingdomof Heaven is within you") that we can only find heaven by looking inward, not outward. Of course the modernist approach is looking outward -- but it's not the only approach to seeking enlightenment. What I find strange (since personally I tend to look outward, and seek whatever truth there is by observation) why this preference should maen that other approaches (about which I and, presumably, Dodo are inexpert) should be automatically pooh-poohed.

[Dodo25]

What I find strange (since personally I tend to look outward, and seek whatever truth there is by observation) why this preference should maen that other approaches (about which I and, presumably, Dodo are inexpert) should be automatically pooh-poohed.

Because they're unreliable. A Buddhist tells you he's 100% convinced he 'saw' 'A', a Christian tells you he's 100% convinced he was told 'B' by God himself, and a Hinduist is 100% convinced that he experienced 'C'. A B and C are mutually contradicting, now what?

[jajdude]

Well, that's just a stupid argument. We know Saturn exists. I saw it with a telescope. I've never seen hell, and as far as I know, no one else has, either.

These arguments of "If you don't believe in Jesus or God, you don't get into Heaven" is what has always led me away from religion. So, someone leads a good life. The person is charitable, kind, faithful to friends, family, and spouse, but if that person does not believe that Jesus Christ magically rose from the grave, they're going to hell.

If that's the case, God and Jesus Christ can kiss my ***. I don't want to be a part of that Heaven.

Could not have said it better myself.

We're all born and raised into systems, that is obvious. My culture said believe in Jesus. Another says believe in Allah.

It's all junk. It's all words.

Understand this, and life is easier.

Seriously, I'm a good guy, and I simply do not need this crap.

[Ecurb]

Could not have said it better myself.

We're all born and raised into systems, that is obvious. My culture said believe in Jesus. Another says believe in Allah.

It's all junk. It's all words.

Understand this, and life is easier.

Seriously, I'm a good guy, and I simply do not need this crap.

Some cultures say, "Believe in Divine Creation." My culture says, "Believe in Evolution". All junk? All words?

Somehow it's easy to see the sty in the other person's eye, while avoiding the log in one's own.

[jajdude]

Your reply is like others I've seen. People don't need to believe in something like evolution because it's a fact. What you think about it doesn't change that. You can deny a fact if you like, as I guess we all do at times. Belief in such things as divine creation, whatever that means, has led many to deny facts. That doesn't stop the fact from being real though. It's pointless to compare fact with belief. One exists no matter what; the other exists only in the mind. Belief, however, has a stronger hold on us than whatever is real, since we live constantly with whatever is in our mind. I guess that's because none of us knows what is real. We just have ideas.

[Ecurb]

Your juxaposition of "none of us knows what is real" and "that doesn't stop a fact from being real" has me confused. Of course I (being a product of my time and culture) agree that Evolution is a "fact". However, the nature of "facts" is slippery, and the reasons we accept them as "facts" is also slippery. We never know the entire truth about anything, because we always see things from only one perspective. So "facts" are colored by our perspective, our culturally constituted preconceptions (like language), and a myriad of other factors.

My point was simply this: the reasons for my belief in Evolution are not so very dissimilar to the religious persons reasons for their belief in Creation as some would like to think. I believe in Evolution because: 1) it is accepted by the scientific community and other experts whose opinion I trust; 2) it fits into my modernist, scientific worldview; 3) it seems to be supported by evidence (although I've never actually seen the evidence personally). Just tweak the words a little, and the Fundamentalists believe in Creationism for the same reasons.

[jajdude]

Fine.

We agree.

All I was saying is facts and beliefs are different.

Both are important.

I'm confused too.

Beliefs mean more to people. They have a stronger hold.

Facts just are. They don't care about us, and why should they?