What Happens if I Don't Want to go to Heaven or Hell, is there a choice?

reply to post by Leahn

. . .while you admited yourself that you're only stating your own beliefs.

Everything about theology is just your beliefs, so from time to time, I throw in that qualifier. Now you want to make that a point of debate? I really don't care about your debate and you win, so there!
Are you happy now?
You can go on another thread and boast of how you remain undefeated. Yeah!
Enjoy it now because that is your reward that you have in this life.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
I can post the chapter, edited to the parts I thought apply.

These false teachers will infiltrate your midst with destructive heresies,

I cut out the elaboration but the point is that there is no escaping the consequences of doing evil,

edit on 6-7-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

And I cut out everything but the first sentence since that alone is enough to counter your argument. What part of my argument that "people that never heard of God will have to hear about Him first" is countered by your argument that "false teachers of God will be punished" ? In what way a passage talking about people that not only know about God, but are actively corrupting His teachings can be used in reference to people that never heard of Him?

reply to post by Leahn

Ok, that I usually like to entertain. Since you're so confident, prove. I'd like the evidence that it is not true. Lest I, again, dismiss your statements without evidence, by your own criteria.

argumentum ad ignorantiam

You can't dismiss reincarnation. You can't dismiss the theory that there's a teapot factory on Pluto, you can't dismiss that the sun isn't a gallactic portal.

We could play the "you can't prove me wrong" game until our hearts are content.

Heaven and Hell are theories formed without evidence;

By what reason, what evidence, what logic, what probability do we base the "theory" on? NOTHING; Absolutely nothing but biblical scripture which is proved to be scientifically inaccurate and morally and ethically abhorrent.

It's fearmongering; it's scare tactics.

This thread is regarding heaven and hell. I'm allowed to discuss unfalsifiable theories. And i'm allowed to share my opinion.

Originally posted by ExistentialNightmare
reply to post by Leahn

 

You can't dismiss reincarnation. You can't dismiss the theory that there's a teapot factory on Pluto, you can't dismiss that the sun isn't a galactic portal.

I am not dismissing anything. Have you seen me making any statement regarding them? There is a reason why I haven't done so. You, on the other hand is quite happy to make statements you cannot prove.

We could play the "you can't prove me wrong" game until our hearts are content.

You will play it alone, then. I don't ask people to prove me wrong. I ask people to prove themselves right, which I am entitled to do in a discussion.

Heaven and Hell are theories formed without evidence;

Prove. Are you trying to say that because we don't have whatever evidence was used to form the ideas when they first appeared, then such evidence doesn't exist? Do you have a full documented recollection of how the ideas of heaven and hell were formed to make such statement?

By what reason, what evidence, what logic, what probability do we base the "theory" on? NOTHING; Absolutely nothing but biblical scripture which is proved to be scientifically inaccurate and morally and ethically abhorrent.

Notably lacking in your argument is "proven wrong" which it hasn't been. While whether the Bible is scientifically inaccurate or not is open to discussion, and even if you could prove it to be true, the best you could afford to prove is that it is inaccurate on those parts that were demonstrated to be wrong. It says nothing about everything else written on it, specially about those parts that are not scientifically verifiable. Equally, whether the Bible is morally and ethically abhorrent is or not is open to discussion, and even if you could prove it to be true, it says nothing about being wrong.

It's fearmongering; it's scare tactics.

Again, prove.

This thread is regarding heaven and hell. I'm allowed to discuss unfalsifiable theories. And i'm allowed to share my opinion.

edit on 6-7-2011 by ExistentialNightmare because: (no reason given)

No, the thread is about whether there is a third alternative besides heaven and hell. It is not about whether they exist or not, it is not about whether God is tyrannical or not, and it is not about whether God exists or not, which basically is what you've been trying to derail the discussion into. Everything but the topic of the thread, that is, whether there is a third alternative besides heaven and hell.

reply to post by Leahn

I am not dismissing anything. Have you seen me making any statement regarding them? There is a reason why I haven't done so. You, on the other hand is quite happy to make statements you cannot prove.

The word "you" is both singular and plural. I wasn't saying saying you were dismissing anything.

You will play it alone, then. I don't ask people to prove me wrong. I ask people to prove themselves right, which I am entitled to do in a discussion.

Again, my point was that people can claim Hell and Heaven are true, the same way that people can state Heaven and Hell are not true. Both are equal statements because they are both unfalsifiable.

Prove. Are you trying to say that because we don't have whatever evidence was used to form the ideas when they first appeared, then such evidence doesn't exist?

"Prove a negative" LOL. Again, argument from ignorance fallacy.

It's unfalsifiable; the Preists and the biblical scholars had evidence at the time? I'd love to examine it, i'd love to hear what it was. It wasn't until the "gentile Jesus; meak and mild" came about was Hellfire introduced.

If you die and nothing happens; you can't prove it.
If you die and afterlife is true; how do you prove it to living people?

Notably lacking in your argument is "proven wrong" which it hasn't been. While whether the Bible is scientifically inaccurate or not is open to discussion, and even if you could prove it to be true, the best you could afford to prove is that it is inaccurate on those parts that were demonstrated to be wrong. It says nothing about everything else written on it, specially about those parts that are not scientifically verifiable. Equally, whether the Bible is morally and ethically abhorrent is or not is open to discussion, and even if you could prove it to be true, it says nothing about being wrong.

You can't prove Scientology wrong either. What a wonderful way to form a belief system (You can't prove it wrong, therefore you should believe)

Again, prove.

Children and adults are scared. Many people are afraid of death - There's evidence of that all around the world.

Preists were telling mothers that unbaptised babies would end up in "purgotory" - Of course, we can't prove them wrong either; but that's no reason to believe them.

No, the thread is about whether there is a third alternative besides heaven and hell.

I've already mentioned re-incarnation. but i still find these guessing games to be farcical, and equal glimpses of the untrue. Again, it's a tactic employed by the wicked and applied to man's greatest fear; DEATH.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Leahn

You don't really elaborate on that to show how Paul says what you are saying.

I was never requested to. You never even tried to understand my argument. It follows. The relevant passage is Acts 17:23-30.

I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you. (...) From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; (...) God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, (...) we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone --an image made by man's design and skill. In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent.

Paul is quite clear. There was an age when people did not know about God. They searched for God, because there is an innate desire in humans to search for God and they ended up worshiping idols made of stone and metals. And God overlooked such ignorance. The Greek word translated as "overlook" [hupereidon], according to Strong's Concordance, means "to not punish, to wink at."

Then he completes by saying "now He commands all people everywhere to repent." Again, the Greek word translated as "now" [nun] also means "henceforth" or "hereafter", "a logical consequence of what precedes it", differently of other word translated as "now" [tanin] which indicates only chronological present. And "now" (that is, with the death of Christ), God is commanding people everywhere to repent. And that means that there was no such commandment before from God.

Obviously people who never heard the Gospel can not be judged by the Gospel message and how they have accepted it. The solution to that is not that they are then, after their life is completed, to be told the Gospel in some kind of holding area at the gates of Heaven and Hell.

No, of course, it isn't, since this isn't neither what I said, nor what the Bible says.

My greater point is that all people are judged by what they were given and those given more, more will be expected from him. For example, you have studied the Bible for 20 plus years so God will demand quite a bit from you.

I am aware that God is gonna be quite harsh with me. I truly do not care as I trust His judgement. Yet your greater point misses the fact that some people are given nothing at all, and therefore nothing at all can be demanded of them.

Originally posted by ExistentialNightmare
The word "you" is both singular and plural. I wasn't saying saying you were dismissing anything.

Again, my point was that people can claim Hell and Heaven are true, the same way that people can state Heaven and Hell are not true. Both are equal statements because they are both unfalsifiable.

I will ask, once more. What's the relevance of your point, and how does it address my argument? Even accepting your argument as correct (I could be pedant and show how it isn't, but that's besides the point), even then, how is it relevant to the discussion of whether there is a third alternative to heaven and hell and how does it address what I said regarding the topic?

"Prove a negative" LOL. Again, argument from ignorance fallacy.

Demonstrably, you have only a passing idea of what an argument from ignorance is, which is telling, given that your whole argument is basically one. You obviously also do not know the difference between "demanding negative proof" and "demanding to prove a negative" since the former is a fallacy, but the latter is not. And neither is an argument from ignorance. Anyhow, demanding that you prove your statement that "hell and heaven are theories formed without evidence" is neither an argument from ignorance, nor a demand of negative proof. And since you cannot provide evidence for such statement, I am dismissing it without presenting any evidence either, by your own criteria.

It's unfalsifiable; the Priests and the biblical scholars had evidence at the time? I'd love to examine it, i'd love to hear what it was. It wasn't until the "gentile Jesus; meak and mild" came about was Hellfire introduced.

So, as long as you believe it to be unfalsifiable (it isn't, since we have such thing called archeology), you get a free pass to say it is false? Argument from Ignorance much? And you're historically incorrect on your statements anyway. Not only the idea of hellfire was present on Greek Mythology (which may surprise you in the fact that it precedes Jesus by a handful of centuries), but it was also present on the Jewish Mishna. And it only became part of the Christian theology in the 4th century.

If you die and nothing happens; you can't prove it.
If you die and afterlife is true; how do you prove it to living people?

Your point is?

You can't prove Scientology wrong either. What a wonderful way to form a belief system (You can't prove it wrong, therefore you should believe).

I take it that you can't prove your statements, then. I am always amused by atheists repeatedly demand of proof from theists, claiming arguments from ignorance, when they, themselves, cannot provide a single shred of proof for their own statements. Notably is the use of Carl Sagan's sentence "what is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" for which they cannot provide evidence themselves (and it therefore self-defeating).

Your whole argument is an argument from ignorance, dude. You haven't provided a single evidence for anything you said, in case you haven't noticed. Yet, you made no shortage of statements of the things you belief. It is truly a wonderful way to form a belief system, this one you make use of. Make blatant and absurd statements, and if no one can prove you wrong (and sometimes, even when they do), believe yourself right. Truly wonderful your belief system.

Children and adults are scared. Many people are afraid of death - There's evidence of that all around the world.

People have been afraid of dying prior to Christianity. This may surprise you, but Christianity is much younger than mankind. There is plenty of archeological evidence of people doing whatever they could to avoid death in older cultures that far predate Christianity. Notably are the ancient alchemist experiments trying to find the Elixir of Eternal Youth that go as far back as Ancient Egypt some 5 to 6 thousands of years ago. Yes, people are afraid of death, and it is not because they fear going to hell.

People are also afraid of water, of ants, of cockroaches, of spiders, of long words, of darkness, or clowns, of high places and of an assortment of other things. People being afraid is not evidence of something being fear-mongering. People are afraid of things they do not understand.

Priests were telling mothers that unbaptized babies would end up in "purgatory" - Of course, we can't prove them wrong either; but that's no reason to believe them.

The idea of baptism of babies is not biblical, and its roots are not Christian.

I've already mentioned re-incarnation. but i still find these guessing games to be farcical, and equal glimpses of the untrue.

Reincarnation is not a Christian idea. While you're free to give your opinion, I am under the impression by the way that the OP phrased his question that it was directed to the Christian theology. I could be wrong, though.

I have, however, some considerations about reincarnation. Care to elaborate?

reply to post by davethebear


Yes...I believe there is another choice...you can choose to reincarnate again.

here is a link: www.angelfire.com...

reply to post by Leahn


It's really as simple as this; it's an assumption, and an extraordinary assumption to say that we are governed by an a deity. It's an assumption to say that a deity exists.

This is one extraordinary claim; but this is just a case of "Deism."

The theists takes this claim even further:

Not only does the theist claim a deity exists but they also claim to understand the mind of the deity; what pleases the deity; and they also know the history of the deity's involvement with life on earth.

Heaven and Hell are supernatural claims that are tied in with Theism, and are again, formed without evidence.

I think it's astonishing that these extraordinary claims are made, and daringly not even ordinary evidence is provided to support such claims.

Peace

"If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed."

~Albert Einstein

Originally posted by ExistentialNightmare
reply to post by Leahn

 

It's really as simple as this; it's an assumption, and an extraordinary assumption to say that we are governed by an a deity. It's an assumption to say that a deity exists.

Heaven and Hell are supernatural claims that are tied in with Theism, and are again, formed without evidence.

Again, prove your assertions. Unless you have a full recollection of the moment when the claims were "formed" to establish that they were formed without evidence, you are under a serious burden of proof to support your claims.

reply to post by Leahn


You can't prove a teapot isn't orbiting the sun beyond pluto, especially if i'm careful to add that it's out of range of our best telescopes.

I made the claim; should i expect you to prove me wrong? No - The burden of proof is on me.

Make up any theory you like, comrade - And then claim that the burden of proof is on those who doubt your theory; try doing that in any philosophical or scientific arena, you won't last long.

reply to post by ExistentialNightmare


Our best telescopes can see far beyond Pluto. We can actually see stars on other galaxies.

Again, you mistake "proving yourself right" as being "prove me wrong." You seriously need a course in logic so you can understand the difference between "demanding negative proof" and "demanding proof for a negative."

You're not "doubting my theory." You are openly and blatantly calling it false, without providing evidence.

I understand what you mean. I also had mixed feelings about going to heaven or hell. Most people don't want to go to hell since it's basically the worst place ever. However, heaven isn't just living forever and being able to do things that you like to do in a peaceful, perfect world or continuing your current life for eternity. It's everything you want and more. I used to think I would be able to go sky-diving and travel the world in heaven but the idea of doing that for eternity bored me. But in heaven you can never be bored. You live every day happy with the most content feeling ever. You have finally returned home. Not only that but you can also do anything. Think of all the coolest things you've ever done in your life. God made that possible. Think of all the galaxies and stars and planets He's created. If He can do that then think of what is possible in heaven. All your seemingly impossible dreams are brought to life. Anything is possible. But the journey back to our true Father is a long and hard struggle. Not only that but salvation and reaching heaven isn't something that any of us are entitled to. It is a gift granted to us by our loving God. God sent His son to die for all of us because He loves us so much and wants us to be saved. He wants us to return to Him. I hope this gave you some perspective. Have a good day!