Heaven - A Fool's Paradise - DPChallenge Forums

04/23/2010 04:38:49 PM · #26

Originally posted by Matthew:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Is there an angle worth talking about here Matthew? What was the purpose of your posting? Certainly the easiest interpretations of this lead to conversations that have been done to death, so why post this?

I thought it was an interesting angle on some otherwise staid discussions. It is not something I have seen in other threads (though I might have missed it). In particular, I thought that the religious leaders thread was a bit silly, based on crazed fundamentalism (not really a debating topic) and getting a bit too personal when it comes to individual relationships.

Heaven as being a physical reality seems to underpin a lot of religious belief: but the modern concept is nothing short of screwy when one really thinks about it seriously. I was interested by the article's assertions that it is actually a negative force in society.

Well, certainly Saint Harris and Saint Dawkins would back you up on that last point, but it doesn't seem any different than the "down with the crusades" chant, and THAT has been discussed lots of times.

Probably articles like this reflect the increasingly aggressive tactics of the atheist movement. They used to be content with leaving the crazies to their own delusions, but Harris and Dawkins have cultivated a much more offensive (versus defensive) mindset. Their objective is to paint religion in a bad light.

zeuszen

Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II

Pentax D-FA* 70-200mm f/2.8 ED DC AW

04/23/2010 04:41:35 PM · #27

[quote=Matthew...Heaven as being a physical reality seems to underpin a lot of religious belief: but the modern concept is nothing short of screwy when one really thinks about it seriously. I was interested by the article's assertions that it is actually a negative force in society. [/quote]

A more inclusive belief instead, i.e. one that would extend to the little blue planet we live on, should make for a hell of a positive force.

K3Master

Pentax K-3

04/23/2010 04:41:53 PM · #28

Originally posted by Phil:

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

Originally posted by Phil:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Is there an angle worth talking about here Matthew? What was the purpose of your posting? Certainly the easiest interpretations of this lead to conversations that have been done to death, so why post this?

Maybe to get to start a thread called, "Heaven - A Fool's Paradise" without actually violating the personal attack TOS because he is copying an article?

How would starting a thread like that even without an article be a personal attack? It would have to be, "Heaven - DrAchoo's Fool Paradise" or something.

Oh, I don't know. How about if someone started a thread named "God Hates Fa*s" and linked to a story on the Westboro Baptist Church?

Nahh, that wouldn't be personal since no one was named, right?

I wouldn't have a problem with that. I'd just avoid the thread. It's not a personal attack, by itself.

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

04/23/2010 04:45:26 PM · #29

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Probably articles like this reflect the increasingly aggressive tactics of the atheist movement. They used to be content with leaving the crazies to their own delusions, but Harris and Dawkins have cultivated a much more offensive (versus defensive) mindset. Their objective is to paint religion in a bad light.

Well......for a long time, religion has done a dandy job of painting itself in a bad light, created some pretty serious strife in people's lives that wanted nothing to do with it, and in general because fo many of the rulesa and regulations seems to be awfully tough for many to stomach.

It's also a lot easier to speak out against religion, at least in free countries, now that the threat of retaliation, like crucifiction and burning at the stake, is generally considered rude.......8>)

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

04/23/2010 04:53:22 PM · #30

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I really was asking Matthew if there was something he wanted to discuss, because the "is there proof for x" or "religion can cause bad behavior" conversations have been discussed lots of time already. Maybe he had a different idea in mind?

I would seem to be likely that his "point" here is that it can be proven, empirically, that the modern concept of heaven is a recent invention, and this might make for an interesting discussion?

R.

Hah, I got distracted and hit post 15 mins later, I am out of date.

Message edited by author 2010-04-23 16:54:05.

Panasonic LUMIX DMC-LX100

04/23/2010 05:15:09 PM · #31

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

I would seem to be likely that his "point" here is that it can be proven, empirically, that the modern concept of heaven is a recent invention, and this might make for an interesting discussion?

Oh, well, I agree there. The concept of "what is heaven like" is likely to be greatly shaped by the current culture, but this needs to be separated from the idea that heaven itself is a modern concept. That is not.

spiritualspatula

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

04/23/2010 05:29:12 PM · #32

Can somebody define heaven without the Hollywood angels and clouds hyperbole? Or maybe point out where in The Bible it is? I've read it (Apocrypha too) but don't recall nor have I committed it to memory.

Panasonic LUMIX DMC-LX100

04/23/2010 05:37:37 PM · #33

Originally posted by spiritualspatula:

"No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him."

There, of course, is imagery written down, but it's just that, imagery. Probably a simple definition would be a place with the physical presence of God (although that may not be true for similar concepts in other religions).

Message edited by author 2010-04-23 17:40:26.

spiritualspatula

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

04/23/2010 05:47:04 PM · #34

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by spiritualspatula:
Can somebody define heaven without the Hollywood angels and clouds hyperbole? Or maybe point out where in The Bible it is? I've read it (Apocrypha too) but don't recall nor have I committed it to memory.

"No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him."

There, of course, is imagery written down, but it's just that, imagery. Probably a simple definition would be a place with the physical presence of God (although that may not be true for similar concepts in other religions).

At the risk of sounding horrendously cynical... that definition is so vague that heaven and hell could be the same place...

Panasonic LUMIX DMC-LX100

04/23/2010 05:55:43 PM · #35

Originally posted by spiritualspatula:

At the risk of sounding horrendously cynical... that definition is so vague that heaven and hell could be the same place...

I've never ever seen hell defined as being in the presence of God. Got any examples?

spiritualspatula

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

04/23/2010 06:08:50 PM · #36

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by spiritualspatula:

At the risk of sounding horrendously cynical... that definition is so vague that heaven and hell could be the same place...

I've never ever seen hell defined as being in the presence of God. Got any examples?

This is true. I was basing that comment purely on the quote you posted.
To me, even besides what most would cite as the problem with heaven (physical existence, which simply points out the obvious and fundamental difference between the two camps) exists the fact that I don't find it effective or conducive to encouraging moral behavior, nor do I feel that as a reward it is warranted. A reward for subjugation to servitude strikes me as a bit...off. And really, it isn't even servitude, it's just subjugation. Servitude would be a "results based" heaven.
Having said that, an evolution of the concept of heaven over the ages would be quite interesting to see.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

04/23/2010 06:14:58 PM · #37

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I've never ever seen hell defined as being in the presence of God. Got any examples?

You're suggesting that there is an exception to the condition of omnipresence?

Phil

Canon EOS-7D

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) for Canon

04/23/2010 06:33:47 PM · #38

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

Originally posted by Phil:

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

Originally posted by Phil:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Is there an angle worth talking about here Matthew? What was the purpose of your posting? Certainly the easiest interpretations of this lead to conversations that have been done to death, so why post this?

Maybe to get to start a thread called, "Heaven - A Fool's Paradise" without actually violating the personal attack TOS because he is copying an article?

How would starting a thread like that even without an article be a personal attack? It would have to be, "Heaven - DrAchoo's Fool Paradise" or something.

Oh, I don't know. How about if someone started a thread named "God Hates Fa*s" and linked to a story on the Westboro Baptist Church?

Nahh, that wouldn't be personal since no one was named, right?

I wouldn't have a problem with that. I'd just avoid the thread. It's not a personal attack, by itself.

Okay, then it's a group attack. Feel better? ;)

Message edited by author 2010-04-23 18:33:56.

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

04/23/2010 06:37:09 PM · #39

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I've never ever seen hell defined as being in the presence of God. Got any examples?

You're suggesting that there is an exception to the condition of omnipresence?

Yes, I am suggesting that.

Louis

Nikon D800

04/23/2010 07:16:29 PM · #40

Anyone read Clients From Hell? Here's a good one.

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

04/23/2010 07:19:51 PM · #41

Originally posted by Louis:

Anyone read Clients From Hell? Here's a good one.

chuckle. "you know....in league with the Devil"

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

04/23/2010 10:11:20 PM · #42

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I've never ever seen hell defined as being in the presence of God. Got any examples?

You're suggesting that there is an exception to the condition of omnipresence?

Yes, I am suggesting that.

Well then God isn't omnipresent or hell doesn't exist.

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

04/24/2010 01:39:00 AM · #43

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I've never ever seen hell defined as being in the presence of God. Got any examples?

You're suggesting that there is an exception to the condition of omnipresence?

Yes, I am suggesting that.

Well then God isn't omnipresent or hell doesn't exist.

I'm not sure I ever said he was...

EDIT: I should probably edit before we all get into something. It's possible the presence of God is in hell, but not in a supporting or empowering way. Really, it's not that important to me. Why couldn't God withdraw his presence from a place? I see no reason he couldn't. Just as I can't fathom what heaven is like, I also can't fathom hell.

Message edited by author 2010-04-24 02:09:12.

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

04/24/2010 06:41:46 AM · #44

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Just as I can't fathom what heaven is like, I also can't fathom hell.

Wouldn't it stand to reason then that the existence of either is unlikely?

Louis

Nikon D800

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

04/24/2010 12:00:08 PM · #45

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Why couldn't God withdraw his presence from a place?

He could, but then he is not omnipresent. So there are places were god isn't. Hell then becomes Satan's paradise, and he can do what he pleases -- including create a heaven just as beautiful as god's. So god's paradise becomes moot.

It's the same with god's other superpowers. If god is all-powerful, he should be able to create a stone he can't lift. If he can't lift a stone, he isn't all-powerful. If god is all-powerful, he should be able to create a being that is more powerful than he. He should be able to create a corner of the universe he knows nothing about, rendering his omniscience incomplete. He should be able to make himself powerless. If god is omniscient, he should know what will happen in the future, and should be able to change it, thus rendering his omniscience incomplete (and indeed powerless).

The wonders of god become nothing more than an absurdity. God vanishes in the blink of an eye under such circumstances.

04/24/2010 12:19:33 PM · #46

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Why couldn't God withdraw his presence from a place?

He could, but then he is not omnipresent. So there are places were god isn't. Hell then becomes Satan's paradise, and he can do what he pleases -- including create a heaven just as beautiful as god's. So god's paradise becomes moot.

It's the same with god's other superpowers. If god is all-powerful, he should be able to create a stone he can't lift. If he can't lift a stone, he isn't all-powerful. If god is all-powerful, he should be able to create a being that is more powerful than he. He should be able to create a corner of the universe he knows nothing about, rendering his omniscience incomplete. He should be able to make himself powerless. If god is omniscient, he should know what will happen in the future, and should be able to change it, thus rendering his omniscience incomplete (and indeed powerless).

The wonders of god become nothing more than an absurdity. God vanishes in the blink of an eye under such circumstances.

No, the absurdities are just silly. To me, finding logical paradoxes does not disprove God. Of course he can't create a stone he can't lift. He can't make 2+2=5 either. Does it matter? If you want the word "omnipotent" to include the requirement that God be able to carry out logical absurdities, then I would merely state that God is not omnipotent. Oooh, scary. ;) People seem to think if they point these funny things out that a Christian is required to run from the room screaming. I find that concept silly.

If you want to get technical about your conjecture, Satan does not have the power of God. He cannot create or destroy.

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

04/24/2010 12:20:20 PM · #47

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Just as I can't fathom what heaven is like, I also can't fathom hell.

Wouldn't it stand to reason then that the existence of either is unlikely?

Possible. But I can't fathom a ton of quantum mechanics either and I don't think that makes it unlikely. My brain definitely has limits.

Louis

Nikon D800

04/24/2010 08:36:40 PM · #48

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

People seem to think if they point these funny things out that a Christian is required to run from the room screaming.

On the contrary, I expect a true believer to do exactly as you've done and sweep aside the paradox with a smile and a shrug of the shoulders. This is a genuine paradox, however, and smarter people than you or I have been concerned with it for centuries.