What is Heaven?

[JoshC]

In Christian (and other religions, if you like) beliefs, what is Heaven?

Where is it? What is it? Wouldn't it get a bit boring? Isn't it just a mess up from humans' evolutionary useful fear of death and cognitive abilities?

Just wondering what peoples ideas on this.

[Random Mind]

If someone has a basic understanding of evolution and human psychology it's easy to see how an afterlife is "just a mess up from humans' evolutionary useful fear of death and cognitive abilities".

Do you expect an explanation that would change your mind given your beliefs in evolution which seem to contradict the notion that god / afterlife exists?

Just got back on today and noticed this one was quoted a half dozen times and I was given many explantions where I was wrong. Notice in bold I highlighted where I said his beliefs which he already stated that anyone with a basic understanding of evolution would know the after life is conjured up by our fear of death.

So maybe hold a side meeting with ol JoshC.

So now that we've gotten deep in the arguement, lets go back to the original question and see how much we really wanted to know hm?

In Christian (and other religions, if you like) beliefs, what is Heaven?

Where is it? What is it? Wouldn't it get a bit boring? Isn't it just a mess up from humans' evolutionary useful fear of death and cognitive abilities?

Just wondering what peoples ideas on this.

This seems to be an honest question, but the rest of the questions proceeding it definitely were a setup to blast the first person that gave their opinion on what a Christians idea was on Heaven (without mocking of course). While I'm happy to answer any of your questions, this has proven time and time again in this thread as the complete opposite intention than what was sworn up and down it was. Seems to be anything but a genuine interest in what Christians believe and more like a firing squad.

Thank all involved for this interesting experiment. What say we start a new thread since all the questions posed in this one aren't even close to being on topic (I'm guilty as well, I'm easily distracted).

[Random Mind]

To be more precise, the word in Isaiah when describing the world is "chuwg", which is also a 'circuit, or 'a compass'.. .i.e.. flat.

I'll submit the origin is unknown, but from my studies of Hebrew, I've never come across a scholar who's taken the meaning to suggest "flat". I agree he's not definitely suggesting a sphere, I think there is a possibility, but I'll drop that point.

If he wanted to use a 3-D model , he would have used the term duwr, which is translated as 'ball'.

This is where you get off a little in the interpretation of the word duwr. There isn't any (to my knowledge) specific word meaning sphere in the Hebrew language. Which is why I suggested the writer could have been suggesting such a thing with chuwg. That being said, duwr would probably be a little less accurate than using chuwg. Let me provide some examples:

18 He will roll you up tightly like a ball
and throw you into a large country.
There you will die
and there your splendid chariots will remain—
you disgrace to your master's house!

Here duwr is translated "ball". It would easy to misunderstand this verse, but looking at the hebrew meaning of the first part of that sentence, the definition is "to wrap or wind up together" and duwr can mean either "ball" or "circle" in Hebrew. The writer is using the illustration of wrapping / winding something together in a circular motion, not anything to do with spherical objects.

I will camp against you encircling you,
And I will set siegeworks against you,
And I will raise up battle towers against you.

Duwr is used for "encircling" in this verse. The intention in this one is just surrounding them from all sides, a circle.

Please tell me that was sarcasm....
Circles are in fact flat yes....
....

te="Dictionary"]
a sphere or orb: the circle of the earth.

Again, no specific Hebrew word for sphere. Looking down at earth, having no word for sphere, saying circle would be accurate.

Thanks. Good that you agree with me
Of course you can deny it all you want, but the bible is filled with this. Seeing the entire world from a mountain top because it's high.. something descending out of the sky that everyone on earth can see yadda yadda.

Filled with what? Verses you haven't studied the meanings of? Whoever claimed the Bible couldn't be distorted? I'm sure your degree in whatever field of science probably gives you great insight into hebrew / greek language and writing styles.

Why does evolution contradict the notion that God exists?

It doesn't. That was in reference to something the OP said about his beliefs. It wasn't meant as a broad statement. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

As JoshC has correctly shown. This is nothing but creationist propaganda. It's the same kind of trickery they use claiming Darwin had a change of heart and renounced his theory.

Haven't heard the last part. You must visit these sites often. I haven't been to any of the conspiracy sites before. Interesting though.

Is a flat earth historically accurate?

If you live in Kansas

You are painfully mistaken. Show me a geologist that thinks the earth is "young".

Do you actually want a list or will you toss it out as propaganda? I must remember that trick you pull where you ask a question, get an answer, but if it isn't the one you want you say it's propaganda. It's very handy when dismissing all things you don't believe.

Evolution is not random chance. Evolution is the idea that life results from the 'non-random survival of randomly varying replicators'. Natural selection and chance do not mix.

Describe how life first formed? In what scenario can we ever observe no life, then life?

I believe that history supports that Christ was both real and his death / resurrection happened.

Like Muslims believe the entire Quran and Mohammed ascending to heaven is also historically supported. Unfortunately there is no historical evidence to support this on both accounts.

I'll assume you disagree with the resurrection part, do you also discard the death?

If at any point the history or science can actually prove otherwise, I'll be the first to jump on it.

Prove what otherwise? That hell/heaven exists? Science does not work this way.

This was in reference to accounts in Scripture (not about hell/heaven). I apologize, you keep asking me one question, then switching it out when I answer it. The ol bait an switch I guess.

One of the main parts of religion is trying to comfort you with answers that were made up on the spot in order for you to feel better about your life by this false hope.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'made up on the spot' since the Bible is an account of a few thousand years. I'll agree religion can be comforting. I think, personally, it's more about giving ones life direction and meaning. Personally, I pursue truth, I'm not bias where it may be found.

False Hope? In what? Lets say I'm wrong; I've lived a very fulfilling life, very joy filled. I have a beautiful wife, I have an awesome job, I gain satisfaction out of helping everyone I can find. What is false again? That if I die and I cease to exist I've somehow been tricked? How will this affect me after death? If I’m right, I've gained everything. If I'm wrong, I've lost nothing. I, personally, feel what I believe in is true, I'm not asking you to accept that though. Just saying that's my opinion on the matter.

The thought of dying is not appealing to people, and the fear thereof quite common.

So you believe everyone is so terrified of death that they came up with Christianity, which has been the cause of terrible persecutions across history and people accepted it knowing they would be murdered? So all in all, you believe that our fear of death causes us to believe something that may cause us to die sooner, rather than later? Interesting....

[T-mash]

This is where you get off a little in the interpretation of the word duwr. There isn't any (to my knowledge) specific word meaning sphere in the Hebrew language.

duwr: a circle, ball or pile:--ball, turn, round about.

chuwg: circle, circuit, compass

I don't think it's his interpretation that is wrong here. On top of that considering he is Jewish himself and the bible backs him up... I think he just might be right

Guess that cuts short the flat-earth part

a sphere or orb: the circle of the earth.

A circle is a simple shape of Euclidean geometry consisting of those points in a plane which are equidistant from a given point called the center.

A sphere is a perfectly round geometrical object in three-dimensional space, such as the shape of a round ball. Like a circle in three dimensions, a perfect sphere is completely symmetrical around its center, with all points on the surface lying the same distance r from the center point.

Wikipedia says: 'Stop lying'
(elementary school geometry says the same)

I also love how you ignored the other things that state the earth is flat

Filled with what? Verses you haven't studied the meanings of? Whoever claimed the Bible couldn't be distorted? I'm sure your degree in whatever field of science probably gives you great insight into hebrew / greek language and writing styles.

I'm sure yours does too to counter all the arguments. Chop chop.

Haven't heard the last part. You must visit these sites often. I haven't been to any of the conspiracy sites before. Interesting though.

http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0 ... ecant.html

I wouldn't call it interesting. It's pretty pathetic to do because first of Darwin might as well have been a rabid psychopath, this changes nothing about evolution. Second off the only thing you are doing is trying to ridicule one of the great minds in our human history to the point where his family even has to make a statement about it telling people who weren't there that they are wrong.

I don't know if you have evidence for creationism, since you claimed science brought you to it. But I've never seen any. All I've seen is weak attempts to try and discredit evolution, assuming that 'if we can prove evolution wrong, that means our theory is right!'

Do you actually want a list or will you toss it out as propaganda? I must remember that trick you pull where you ask a question, get an answer, but if it isn't the one you want you say it's propaganda. It's very handy when dismissing all things you don't believe

Ehm... what? Lol...
Let me try and get this straight.
- I ask you a question
- You then say: "Are you really asking or will you just dismiss it as propaganda anyway?"
- Then you already blame me for pulling tricks answering with that it is propaganda in the same sentence without me obviously having responded yet?

What?

Describe how life first formed? In what scenario can we ever observe no life, then life?

And this shows me you did in fact not research evolution like you claim. For starters.. how life evolved and how life began are two different subjects. Abiogenesis is not part of evolution.

Second off, you are not familiar with that what you ask off: "In what scenario can we ever observe no life, then life?". Do you know what the word 'life' you toss around so easily actually means on the level of cellular biology?

I'll assume you disagree with the resurrection part, do you also discard the death?

What relevance does that have? Proving a person dies unfortunately does little to support your god-claim, since it's hardly a miracle

I'm not sure what you mean by 'made up on the spot' since the Bible is an account of a few thousand years.

"What happens when we die?" etc

False Hope? In what? Lets say I'm wrong; I've lived a very fulfilling life, very joy filled. I have a beautiful wife, I have an awesome job, I gain satisfaction out of helping everyone I can find. What is false again? That if I die and I cease to exist I've somehow been tricked? How will this affect me after death? If I’m right, I've gained everything. If I'm wrong, I've lost nothing. I, personally, feel what I believe in is true, I'm not asking you to accept that though. Just saying that's my opinion on the matter.

I think you do not quite get the term 'false hope'. It's not synonymous to success, I'm afraid.

So you believe everyone is so terrified of death that they came up with Christianity, which has been the cause of terrible persecutions across history and people accepted it knowing they would be murdered? So all in all, you believe that our fear of death causes us to believe something that may cause us to die sooner, rather than later? Interesting....

Sooner than later? And there I was thinking an eternal paradise was a long time, guess I'm wrong! Silly me. You are right. Christianity is indeed build around the assumption that your existence ends sooner than later

[Goat]

To be more precise, the word in Isaiah when describing the world is "chuwg", which is also a 'circuit, or 'a compass'.. .i.e.. flat.

I'll submit the origin is unknown, but from my studies of Hebrew, I've never come across a scholar who's taken the meaning to suggest "flat". I agree he's not definitely suggesting a sphere, I think there is a possibility, but I'll drop that point.

If he wanted to use a 3-D model , he would have used the term duwr, which is translated as 'ball'.

This is where you get off a little in the interpretation of the word duwr. There isn't any (to my knowledge) specific word meaning sphere in the Hebrew language. Which is why I suggested the writer could have been suggesting such a thing with chuwg. That being said, duwr would probably be a little less accurate than using chuwg. Let me provide some examples:

18 He will roll you up tightly like a ball
and throw you into a large country.
There you will die
and there your splendid chariots will remain—
you disgrace to your master's house!

Here duwr is translated "ball". It would easy to misunderstand this verse, but looking at the hebrew meaning of the first part of that sentence, the definition is "to wrap or wind up together" and duwr can mean either "ball" or "circle" in Hebrew. The writer is using the illustration of wrapping / winding something together in a circular motion, not anything to do with spherical objects.

I will camp against you encircling you,
And I will set siegeworks against you,
And I will raise up battle towers against you.

Duwr is used for "encircling" in this verse. The intention in this one is just surrounding them from all sides, a circle.
[/quote[

This seems at odds with other interpretations. For example, this is discussed
fully here

[Random Mind]

I don't think it's his interpretation that is wrong here. On top of that considering he is Jewish himself and the bible backs him up... I think he just might be right

Guess that cuts short the flat-earth part

So because you think so and he’s Jewish, I must be wrong? Wow, didn’t even read through pure evidence. Is this how you ‘research’ in your scientific field? What is it that you do anyway, I’m curious what degree you have and what field you work in.

A circle is a simple shape of Euclidean geometry consisting of those points in a plane which are equidistant from a given point called the center.

A sphere is a perfectly round geometrical object in three-dimensional space, such as the shape of a round ball. Like a circle in three dimensions, a perfect sphere is completely symmetrical around its center, with all points on the surface lying the same distance r from the center point.

Wikipedia says: 'Stop lying'
(elementary school geometry says the same)

No Hebrew word for sphere, thus “circle� can (not always) be used for the purpose of describing.

I also love how you ignored the other things that state the earth is flat

Actually, if you read back I’ve already answered them. Then again, all the readers and I have seen a consistent avoidance to acknowledge anything suggesting you might be wrong. Then again, since you base facts purely off of what random thoughts you come up with and if someone is Jewish or not, I guess it doesn’t surprise me.

Since you’ve failed to acknowledge you have zero ability to understand Hebrew or Greek, lets just let this point die. It’s fairly obvious you have no desire to actually understand the facts.

Filled with what? Verses you haven't studied the meanings of? Whoever claimed the Bible couldn't be distorted? I'm sure your degree in whatever field of science probably gives you great insight into hebrew / greek language and writing styles.

I'm sure yours does too to counter all the arguments. Chop chop.

I’ve provided examples to back everything up. Care to share any actual evidence?

Haven't heard the last part. You must visit these sites often. I haven't been to any of the conspiracy sites before. Interesting though.

http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0 ... ecant.html

I wouldn't call it interesting. It's pretty pathetic to do because first of Darwin might as well have been a rabid psychopath, this changes nothing about evolution. Second off the only thing you are doing is trying to ridicule one of the great minds in our human history to the point where his family even has to make a statement about it telling people who weren't there that they are wrong.

Agreed, it would be pathetic if anyone actually went to those sites. You’re the first person I’ve come across so far that has.

I don't know if you have evidence for creationism, since you claimed science brought you to it. But I've never seen any. All I've seen is weak attempts to try and discredit evolution, assuming that 'if we can prove evolution wrong, that means our theory is right!'

Hm, seems you’re still confused on the topic the OP posted. You seem to display a problem with understanding the meanings of lots of things you read.

Describe how life first formed? In what scenario can we ever observe no life, then life?

And this shows me you did in fact not research evolution like you claim. For starters.. how life evolved and how life began are two different subjects. Abiogenesis is not part of evolution.

Second off, you are not familiar with that what you ask off: "In what scenario can we ever observe no life, then life?". Do you know what the word 'life' you toss around so easily actually means on the level of cellular biology?

They word I “easily� tossed around, I’m still waiting for you to answer. Yes I’m aware it’s at that level. Can you provide any instance where there was no life and then life occurred?

I'll assume you disagree with the resurrection part, do you also discard the death?

What relevance does that have? Proving a person dies unfortunately does little to support your god-claim, since it's hardly a miracle

You don’t seem to want to debate much, do you? I was merely asking a question to get an understanding of your view of historical events. You seem incapable of actually discussing anything, so I think our time of debating is coming to an end.

False Hope? In what? Lets say I'm wrong; I've lived a very fulfilling life, very joy filled. I have a beautiful wife, I have an awesome job, I gain satisfaction out of helping everyone I can find. What is false again? That if I die and I cease to exist I've somehow been tricked? How will this affect me after death? If I’m right, I've gained everything. If I'm wrong, I've lost nothing. I, personally, feel what I believe in is true, I'm not asking you to accept that though. Just saying that's my opinion on the matter.

I think you do not quite get the term 'false hope'. It's not synonymous to success, I'm afraid.

So you believe everyone is so terrified of death that they came up with Christianity, which has been the cause of terrible persecutions across history and people accepted it knowing they would be murdered? So all in all, you believe that our fear of death causes us to believe something that may cause us to die sooner, rather than later? Interesting....

Sooner than later? And there I was thinking an eternal paradise was a long time, guess I'm wrong! Silly me. You are right. Christianity is indeed build around the assumption that your existence ends sooner than later

Wow, I’m starting to lean towards you just have a hard time with reading comprehension. You made the statement that people come up with things like the afterlife, based off of a fear of death. I then stated that would mean Christians are so afraid of dying, that they’re willing to accept something that would cause it even sooner. Your logic doesn’t seem to prove you right, so maybe you’re ok with an illogical thought process (which you’ve displayed a few times anyway).

This seems at odds with other interpretations. For example, this is discussed
fully here

When taking a look at places were duwr was used and the context given, it doesn’t mean sphere. I agree, though, that Isa 40:22 it doesn’t necessarily suggest a spherical object. The word used for circle, though, doesn’t mean “flat� anymore than duwr does.

[Christanity4ever]

Great informative posts Random Mind. Your posts are accurate.

This here is the well loved by the atheists here (Not) pastor4Jesus. Something happened to my password etc and I couldn't log on to this site so I am using another computer at my mission which I don't really like to do. Hopefully I will be able to delete this or my prior account and fix it. Anyway I am saying this only to let yas' know that I am not being sneaky....

Here is a cut and paste that is in reference to not the Hebrew but the later Greek ideas of a spherical earth by believers of Chrestus (the Hebrew God and Jesus Christ) etc. Both are a myth (that the ancients thought the earth was actually flat). I think that Random Mind makes a much better argument for the Hebrew beliefs.;

THE FLAT EARTH MYTH

“The earth isn’t flat – end of story.� So says Case Western Reserve University physicist Lawrence Krauss, according to the Cleveland Plain Dealer. “We don’t have to have classes or be sensitive to the issues of those who believe that, because they’re wrong.�

Defenders of Darwinian evolution sometimes compare their critics to believers in a flat earth. According to the standard story, Christians used to believe for theological reasons that the earth is flat. When modern science demonstrated that the earth is actually a sphere, most Christians acknowledged their mistake, but a few continue to persist in their outmoded belief. Since modern science has likewise demonstrated the truth of Darwinian evolution (so the story goes), its critics are like people who still believe in a flat earth.

But the story is false. It began as fiction, and it was elevated to a historical claim by late-19th century Darwinists who used it as a weapon to ridicule Christians.

The spherical shape of the earth was known to the ancient Greeks, who even made some decent estimates of its circumference. Christian theologians likewise knew that the earth was a sphere. The only two who are known to have advocated a flat earth were a 4th-century heretic, Lactantius, and an obscure 6th-century writer, Cosmas Indicopleustes. [These were really second stringers. The leading theological lights of that period were Origen, Athanasius, the Cappadocian Fathers, and Augustine -- none of these thought the earth was flat.]

A major promulgator of the flat earth myth was the 19th-century American writer Washington Irving. In his fictional History of the Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus (1828), Irving wrote that flat-earth churchmen had opposed Columbus on the grounds that he would fall off the edge of the earth if he tried to sail across the Atlantic. In actuality, Columbus had been opposed by people who not only knew the earth was a sphere, but also had a pretty good idea of how big it was – but who knew nothing of the Americas and thus thought a voyage to the Far East would take too long and cost too much.

The flat earth remained clearly in the realm of fiction until after Darwin published his Origin of Species in 1859. Two of Darwin’s followers then elevated it to a historical claim in books defending Darwinism and attacking Christianity: John Draper’s The History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science (1874), and Andrew Dickson White’s A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom (1896).

So defenders of Darwinism who ridicule their critics for being like believers in a flat earth are being misled by a myth that Darwinists themselves helped to create. [/b]

http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwinis ... arth-myth/

Christianity4ever

[T-mash]

So because you think so and he’s Jewish, I must be wrong? Wow, didn’t even read through pure evidence. Is this how you ‘research’ in your scientific field? What is it that you do anyway, I’m curious what degree you have and what field you work in.

Nice try.
Let's see: You are a random guy, he is too. He is Jewish and has shown a great deal of understanding of Hebrew in other topics, you are not Jewish, nor have you proven to know Hebrew. He says something, which the Hebrew dictionary agrees on, you say the opposite. By logical means, your 'opinion' is eliminated until proven otherwise. The fact that you assume this is how I consider science to work as well, based on something that has nothing to do with science minimize the chance that logic comes from you severely.

Me: Hmm I can't decide if I should wear a black sweater or a white one.. think I'll go with the black one because it matches my shoes more..

You: OMG IS THAT HOW YOU DO SCIENCE?!

lol...

No Hebrew word for sphere, thus “circle� can (not always) be used for the purpose of describing.

Dictionary says, you are clueless about Hebrew. A Jew says.. you are clueless about Hebrew. Got it yet?

Since you’ve failed to acknowledge you have zero ability to understand Hebrew or Greek, lets just let this point die. It’s fairly obvious you have no desire to actually understand the facts.

Oh yes. Lets just say the Hebrew dictionary is written by people that do not understand Hebrew so you can prove your point. That makes absolute sense.

I’ve provided examples to back everything up. Care to share any actual evidence?

Really? I've missed your scanned diploma that says you are a scholar. Care to reupload the picture again so you can claim authority over me and a Jew and the Hebrew Dictionary?

Agreed, it would be pathetic if anyone actually went to those sites. You’re the first person I’ve come across so far that has.

You just did too

They word I “easily� tossed around, I’m still waiting for you to answer. Yes I’m aware it’s at that level. Can you provide any instance where there was no life and then life occurred?

Way to show you are clueless about the subject....
Your question is idiotic and since you fail to answer: 'Do you know what the word 'life' you toss around so easily actually means on the level of cellular biology?' I can only assume you don't even know why it's idiotic, which makes matters worse...

I think everyone who has had basic biology in High-School would be able to see what my question points out and would be able to see why yours is pure nonsense. I'm sorry that you can't.

Wow, I’m starting to lean towards you just have a hard time with reading comprehension. You made the statement that people come up with things like the afterlife, based off of a fear of death. I then stated that would mean Christians are so afraid of dying, that they’re willing to accept something that would cause it even sooner. Your logic doesn’t seem to prove you right, so maybe you’re ok with an illogical thought process (which you’ve displayed a few times anyway).

How exactly does believing there is an after-life mean you think your existence ends sooner? What part of after in afterlife do you not get? Are you sure you should blame my reading comprehension?

What is it that you do anyway, I’m curious what degree you have and what field you work in.

I'm sure you are and likewise

[T-mash]

Great informative posts Random Mind. Your posts are accurate.

This here is the well loved by the atheists here (Not) pastor4Jesus. Something happened to my password etc and I couldn't log on to this site so I am using another computer at my mission which I don't really like to do. Hopefully I will be able to delete this or my prior account and fix it. Anyway I am saying this only to let yas' know that I am not being sneaky....

Here is a cut and paste that is in reference to not the Hebrew but the later Greek ideas of a spherical earth by believers of Chrestus (the Hebrew God and Jesus Christ) etc. Both are a myth (that the ancients thought the earth was actually flat). I think that Random Mind makes a much better argument for the Hebrew beliefs.;

THE FLAT EARTH MYTH

“The earth isn’t flat – end of story.� So says Case Western Reserve University physicist Lawrence Krauss, according to the Cleveland Plain Dealer. “We don’t have to have classes or be sensitive to the issues of those who believe that, because they’re wrong.�

Defenders of Darwinian evolution sometimes compare their critics to believers in a flat earth. According to the standard story, Christians used to believe for theological reasons that the earth is flat. When modern science demonstrated that the earth is actually a sphere, most Christians acknowledged their mistake, but a few continue to persist in their outmoded belief. Since modern science has likewise demonstrated the truth of Darwinian evolution (so the story goes), its critics are like people who still believe in a flat earth.

But the story is false. It began as fiction, and it was elevated to a historical claim by late-19th century Darwinists who used it as a weapon to ridicule Christians.

The spherical shape of the earth was known to the ancient Greeks, who even made some decent estimates of its circumference. Christian theologians likewise knew that the earth was a sphere. The only two who are known to have advocated a flat earth were a 4th-century heretic, Lactantius, and an obscure 6th-century writer, Cosmas Indicopleustes. [These were really second stringers. The leading theological lights of that period were Origen, Athanasius, the Cappadocian Fathers, and Augustine -- none of these thought the earth was flat.]

A major promulgator of the flat earth myth was the 19th-century American writer Washington Irving. In his fictional History of the Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus (1828), Irving wrote that flat-earth churchmen had opposed Columbus on the grounds that he would fall off the edge of the earth if he tried to sail across the Atlantic. In actuality, Columbus had been opposed by people who not only knew the earth was a sphere, but also had a pretty good idea of how big it was – but who knew nothing of the Americas and thus thought a voyage to the Far East would take too long and cost too much.

The flat earth remained clearly in the realm of fiction until after Darwin published his Origin of Species in 1859. Two of Darwin’s followers then elevated it to a historical claim in books defending Darwinism and attacking Christianity: John Draper’s The History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science (1874), and Andrew Dickson White’s A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom (1896).

So defenders of Darwinism who ridicule their critics for being like believers in a flat earth are being misled by a myth that Darwinists themselves helped to create. [/b]

http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwinis ... arth-myth/

Christianity4ever

"The Church says the Earth is flat, but I know that it is round, for I have seen the shadow on the moon, and I have more faith in a shadow than in the church." - Ferdinand Magellan

I'll leave it up to you to guess when he lived.

[Random Mind]

He is Jewish and has shown a great deal of understanding of Hebrew in other topics....

I'm Italian, doesn't make me an expert on the language, considering I don't speak it.

His display is proven wrong by the dictionary, sorry.

.. you are not Jewish, nor have you proven to know Hebrew.

Your argument is that I can't know what I'm talking about because I'm not Jewish? Wow..... I showed passages in the Bible, in context, where duwr was used. I don't need to be Jewish to do that. Furthermore, is he a Jew by race or religion? I might submit he may know more if he was religiously Jew and had studied the language, but so far he's only referenced dictionaries (as have I) which makes him no more credible than I. We both are researching, I see no line of reasoning that suggests anyone can't look these facts up.

He says something, which the Hebrew dictionary agrees on, you say the opposite. By logical means, your 'opinion' is eliminated until proven otherwise.

Wrong on the Hebrew dictionary part. It doesn't agree, that's the point. I gave detailed examples you can go look up if you care to. Opinions don't matter, only facts, which I have provided. You have displayed no facts, only made absolute statements without providing anything more concrete than "The Jewish guy knows more than you because he's Jewish". If you'd like to join the debate, why not research?

The fact that you assume this is how I consider science to work as well, based on something that has nothing to do with science minimize the chance that logic comes from you severely.

Here you go again quoting "facts". You should really stay away from that.

My reference was to how you approach facts in general, you hear someone say something, it appeals to you, you accept it. I'm just speculating on how you've behaved thus far in the "debate". Slander, opinion, speculation and pure hearsay have been your main tools so far.

No Hebrew word for sphere, thus “circle� can (not always) be used for the purpose of describing.

Dictionary says, you are clueless about Hebrew. A Jew says.. you are clueless about Hebrew. Got it yet?

You can keep saying it, but it doesn't make it true. How much emphasis you place on someone being Jewish and your display of refusing to acknowledge facts gives everyone insight on how much weight your statements carry. Which at this point, is none whatsoever.

Oh yes. Lets just say the Hebrew dictionary is written by people that do not understand Hebrew so you can prove your point. That makes absolute sense.

Your ability to use sarcasm is incredible, I have enjoyed it. Your ability to acknowledge clear facts, far from credible. Sorry.

Really? I've missed your scanned diploma that says you are a scholar. Care to reupload the picture again so you can claim authority over me and a Jew and the Hebrew Dictionary?

If I was a Jew would it make me more credible? I've yet to say I'm a scholar in any field (as you have suggested you should be considered). Going over the way you've poorly debated thus far and seeing your age at 20, I assume you're 2 years into college and have really strong opinions on science and equally as strong, oppose religion. This is fine, it's your option, but you've proven to not really have studied much on Christianity, other than pull some verses out of context. That fact remains, it's simply not feasible to profess knowledge of all things. I admit, even with my years of study, that I do not know all there is to know about Scripture. I can use the same tools that others would use (lexicon, concordance, etc.) to research and learn what OT and NT writers were saying. Such as you can use research done by others to back up your beliefs in whatever field of science you lean towards. Same method, the only difference is I'm not demanding you meet the requirements of a race or particular field of science to be allowed to debate and it be considered a credible source. If it’s purely based on education level, again judging off your age, I’d have to assume I’m more credible. But that is a terrible way of weighing an argument and should never be used.

Lets argue the facts and stick to those, shall we?

Agreed, it would be pathetic if anyone actually went to those sites. You’re the first person I’ve come across so far that has.

You just did too

Still haven't been to that site. I'll take your word for it that it's pretty crazy. I have no idea why we're debating on something you went to, but don't agree with. I haven't ever heard of it and don't support it. How does this prove any of your points?

They word I “easily� tossed around, I’m still waiting for you to answer. Yes I’m aware it’s at that level. Can you provide any instance where there was no life and then life occurred?

[/quote]

Way to show you are clueless about the subject....
Your question is idiotic and since you fail to answer: 'Do you know what the word 'life' you toss around so easily actually means on the level of cellular biology?' I can only assume you don't even know why it's idiotic, which makes matters worse...

I think everyone who has had basic biology in High-School would be able to see what my question points out and would be able to see why yours is pure nonsense. I'm sorry that you can't.

I'm still waiting for you to answer the question. If it's so easy that a basic highschool biology student can explain it, then please, by all means, go ahead. I'd really like a real response to this instead of you dodging it with sarcasm and insults each time.

Wow, I’m starting to lean towards you just have a hard time with reading comprehension. You made the statement that people come up with things like the afterlife, based off of a fear of death. I then stated that would mean Christians are so afraid of dying, that they’re willing to accept something that would cause it even sooner. Your logic doesn’t seem to prove you right, so maybe you’re ok with an illogical thought process (which you’ve displayed a few times anyway).

How exactly does believing there is an after-life mean you think your existence ends sooner? What part of after in afterlife do you not get? Are you sure you should blame my reading comprehension?

This will be going on 4 times I believe, but I'll make another attempt since you asked so nicely. Please read each line fully before responding.

It was stated that people (supposedly) lean towards beliefs in the after life, due to a fear of death. Hence, it was suggested that people become Christians because were afraid of death. Historically speaking, becoming a Christian meant facing being heavily persecuted, tortured and killed (death), thus reaching that which they are afraid of (death) much quicker. It has nothing to do with non-existence, but the fear of the unknown. It seems to be a giant contradiction. By that line of thinking, people would have avoided becoming a Christian because it much of the time meant certain death. If they were so afraid of it (death), they would have avoided christianity at all costs, not found something (Christianity) that brought it sooner(death).

[JoshC]

It was stated that people (supposedly) lean towards beliefs in the after life, due to a fear of death. Hence, it was suggested that people become Christians because were afraid of death.

Early Christians didn't chose the religion solely because of the afterlife dogma.

A belief in an afterlife, in my opinion, is due to a fear of death and the ability to imagine a way to lessen it. Assigning yourself to a religion is your parents' choice in most cases.

I'm focusing on the afterlife part and how the idea was originally formed when I say, "Isn't it just a mess up from humans' evolutionary useful fear of death and cognitive abilities?"

Many cultures and religions have had the idea before world wide communication so obviously it is something in the way humans think which forms the idea. I have already made my suggestion on this.

How do you think a belief in the afterlife appeared by the way?