As I am too lazy to read back in this thread, I am going to guess that the “pig” in question is “Nebraska Man.” Back in the Thirties (I believe) a tooth was found in a deposit of fossils from the invasion of North America by Asian animals. That was when camels and cats came over (IIRC) (the camels moved down to South America and became llamas). The tooth looked like that of an anthropoid ape and was tentatively identified as such. A writer of popular science articles thought it would be more interesting to illustrate it as belonging to a Homo erectus type homonid rather than a pongoid ape. Thus Hesperopithecus became viewed as an erly man.
Within six years, the discoverer of the tooth found more. These were associated with a jawbone, and the jawbone was clearly not a primate, but a peccary. The discoverer promptly wrote up his misidentification, and Hesperopithecus disappeared from the literature except for Creationist tracts.
I have never felt that Hesperopithecus deserved to be mentioned in the same breath as Eoanthropus. Piltdown was a conscious fraud (possibly starting out as a joke, but since we still don’t know for sure who did it we cannot tell). Hesperopithecus was an honest error, corrected by the same person who announced it as soon as further evidence became available.
Dr. Fidelius, Charlatan
Associate Curator Anomalous Paleontology, Miskatonic University
“You cannot reason a man out of a position that he did not use reason to reach.”
I did however, take offense at Furt’s characterization of Stephen Jay Gould as “Openly Hostile to Christians”. As somebody who has read most of his books, I can say that I have read much about the so-called conflicts between religion and science and never read a harsh word against Christians. I suppose Furt would consider the late Isaac Asimov’s and Carl Sagan’s writings as hostile. In fact, I would say that Mr. Gould has done more to bridge the gulf between science and religion and to expose this myth of hostility between the two.
What Mr. Gould is “hostile” against was not religion or Christianity but the pseudoscience called “Creationism” (He even testified in front of the Supreme Court on this issue). This distinction doesn’t seem to have been made. I would hope that there is not a scientist who would take umbrage at anybody who believes in a God. But what people like Gould have fought against is the anti-intellectual hogwash called “Creation Science”.
There are not fossils of sea life on the tops of mountains because of Noah’s flood. The Earth is NOT 6,000 years old. Carbon and other methods of dating fossils are somewhat accurate. Man and ape do share obvious inherited traits (We and chimps are 98% identical!). Mammals do have a common ancester. This is the way God made this world and we all have to deal with it. Denying the evidence does nobody any good.
I’m sorry, but if your “religious” beliefs included teaching your children that the sky is pink and grass is orange, I would have to tell you that you are wrong, and yes, I would fight like hell to keep you from teaching this in public schools and would be consider.
The only thing that Gould has been hostile toward is ignorance and anti-intellectualism. Fighting ignorance is an uphill battle at best. I would point you toward Gould’s newest book: “Leonardo’s Mountain of Clams and the Diet of Worms.”
I would also like to take this oppurtunity to point out another myth of Science vs Religion: Columbus believed the Earth was round, everyone else (The Church) thought it was flat. Of course the real debate was over the size of the Earth, and the Church won that battle.
Aye. It’s a popular misconception that the Earth was believed to be flat in medieval times, when it was known to be round even back in Aristotle’s time.
However, the big argument was over whether the Earth spun around the Sun. I recommend Umberto Eco’s The Island of the Day Before for a hilarious discussion on the Earth’s movement between a Jesuit and a Paris intellectual.
It reminds me, also, of Aristotle’s argument against the rotation of the Earth:
If the Earth spun:
There would be a permanent wind from the east;
If we jumped, we would land a few feet to the west;
The Earth would fall apart under the centrifugal force;
Ships would take a longer time navigating eastward.
I’m not too sure what has possessed me to post here today, but here goes. I am a religious man. I believe in god. I realize that that statement alone sets me up to be lambasted by many and thought of as a stupid man. But what’s so wrong with that. I wish we were all religious men. I wish we all could follow the words of the bible. The world would be a better place. I believe the words of the bible to be true. Now when I say that I don’t mean to suggest that everything in the bible is “true” - meaning factual. No, what I mean is that the bible is truth. It is what the bible represents that is important. It represents a way for humans to live together civilly. Now of course someone will retort “That’s nice maury…seems like every war that’s been fought was because of religion.” You’re right. It’s unfortunate that even the religious must squabble over fine points and lose perspective of the underlying meaning. But that’s human nature.
So what happens when science replaces religion? What happens when you teach children in school that evolution is how we got here? That’s fine but what of the consequences? What happens when people think that they are an insignificant particle in this whole massive universe. here only by freak chance? They go on living their life thinking that no matter what they do in life it has no lasting consequence. Crazy things start happening. Maybe they run into their school and shot a bunch of people. (There’s a statement that I’ll take hell for). But think of it. Did they worry about ending their life? Did they worry about ending the life of others. Now I know that’s extreme, but something is wrong with people today. You have to admit, some crazy sh*t is going on. Why? When people (esp. children) don’t think anyone is watching over their shoulder, they are more willing to do bad things. They’re not afraid of consequences. People inherently know the difference between right and wrong. However, they need to be taught that there is something worse than jail if they do wrong.
With that, I will say one other thing then watch as the beating of Maury begins. Something that has always bothered me about science is the illusion of discovery. Supposedly someone discovered that famous double helix, DNA. Now, did they discover it, or was it already there? We call it DNA, but is it really called something else. Another thing while I’m on this DNA topic. Supposedly we come from chimps because our DNA is extremely similar. If I was in the kitchen making some brownies, I’d mix up a bunch of crap stick it in the oven and voila…brownies. If I wanted to make brownies with nuts, something very similar, but different, I wouldn’t expect to keep mixing the same batch after batch after batch until whammo, by some freak chance I suddenly had nuts. Bad analogy, maybe. But the point is, just because something is a lot alike doesn’t mean it evolved from the other. It just means they’re a lot alike. One other thing for you science types. It bothers me to watch a program aimed at children, (i.e. Bill Nye) and speak of the big bang as fact. A true scientist should always make a distinction between theory and law. Until you have proved the Law of Big Bang, don’t speak of it as fact.
Don’t forget, these Bible stories came from somewhere. Unfortunately, they became so exaggerated over time that people don’t want to swallow the information as truth. In today’s society if we don’t see it we don’t believe it. Back then information was passed by word of mouth. Passed on from generation to generation by storytellers. Not a satellite dish broadcast - “Creation, live at five”. These stories were meant to be dramatic, full of metaphor, they were entertaining if anything else. But they had a meaning - a meaning that somehow got lost. Love one another like your brother. Don’t kill. Don’t covet. Turn the other cheek. Greed is bad. Respect your parents. Do unto others. I ask you, where else do we learn these things today?
So don’t be afraid to have a little faith. Admit to yourself that you don’t know everything. Admit your shortcomings. Admit that there just might be more to it than you know. Speak to God one night. It will make you feel better. Love your wife. Love your children. Love your mother. Love your father. Love your neighbor. Love a stranger. Love a creationist for heaven’s sake. Agree to disagree. Who says we’re not both right?
I don’t think of you as a stupid man for believing in God. Faith is an essential part of human condition, and the fact religion was probably invented before fire goes to show how deeply rooted it is in mankind’s consciousness.
So does the Torah and the Koran. Why is the Bible privileged in that respect?
Lemme get this straight. You’re blaming highschool shootouts and violence on the teaching of evolution in school?
I’m being sarcastic, of course; but I still disagree with your general point: that science leads to people feeling insignificant. If anything, science has taught me how important individual lives are, whereas religion just told me some Tyrant oversaw everything and condemned me based on petty larceny.
Society teaches children to act in despair, not science. While religion provides a “recipe” for social conduct, it also leads to a number of other neurosis. Catholicism is a long guilt trip, and if anything, dealing with that guilt can make you more miserable than being carefree.
Furthermore, is it alright to lie to children so that they grow up “good” members of “society”? I don’t think so. You’re deterring evolution just because it leads, in your view, to violence. I think that’s a poor excuse.
Again; do you think the value of religion is that it puts fear of Hell in you? That’s pathetic. It’s a scare tactic not worthy of consideration. It’s obvious a notion such as Hell exists to scare believers into obedience, but there is so much such a tactic can bring. It’s better to teach, educate and responsibilise people than to beat them into moral submission.
There is no such thing as the Law of Big Bang; it’s a theory, but it doesn’t mean it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense, and it’s proven by experience.
What about the theory of gravity? Do you disbelieve it because it’s just a theory? Still, it has extensive proof, and it holds you to the ground.
You don’t learn it, you live it. And I don’t need a book to teach it to me.
Who would you rather face? Someone who won’t kill you because he fears eternal damnation, or someone who won’t kill you because he believes it is fundamentally unethical to do so?
I have my own principles, morals and behavioral code. You know, you don’t need to fear God to behave yourself.
I tried, but all I get is an answering machine, and He doesn’t return my calls.
You’ll have to tell me how you captured those quotes. Unitl then…
We stick to the ground because Newton’s theory of gravity became Newton’s Law of Gravity. A very distintive point according to the scientific method. A typo on your behalf perhaps…if not, my point exactly. There is a very big difference between the two, and unfortunately they are sometimes used interchangeably. I understand there is no Law of the Big Bang. That is my point. There is a theory however.
The shootouts may have been a poor example. One that needed more clarification than is easily communicated in a posting. I am not saying evolution=15 dead in a high school. What I am saying is that I see a general pattern going on here and I blame people who don’t believe in eternal consequence. You call it a scare tactic unworthy of consideration. You call it that because you don’t believe it. I call it living an eternity with the guilt of the horrible thing you did.
So where did you get this code you live by? Your parents, your peers, your books? Like it or not, they trickled down from the Bible. And beating people into moral submission? You suggest educating and responsibilising people. With what may I ask. Man’s law. That’s great, but what is it based on primarily?
The most important thing we all should take from this is a little lesson in humility. I certainly am not an expert in any of these matters. I know what I believe and sometimes I’m not sure I even know that. Who knows, hopefully you science guys will figure it all out and tell us who the hell God is someday. I just pray he’s not pissed. Hopefully that was his plan the entire time. He’s just waiting for us to figure it all out. Or then again, maybe he’s right here in front of our face reading our every word. I’ve often wondered how this Cecil guy knows all this stuff.
furt: [[3) Galelio: No question, the church pulled a rock on this one. Dead flat wrong. Of course, science has pulled a few too–remember Piltdown Man? Everybody who was anybody in paleontology was saying this was the missing link, the last nail in the creationist coffin. Then it turned out to be a pig. We all make mistakes… ]]]
No no – that was Piltdown Pig, the ancestor of Wonder Warthog and Paranoid Punkpig.
[[ The shootouts may have been a poor example. One that needed more clarification than is easily communicated in a posting. I am not saying evolution=15 dead in a high school. What I am saying is that I see a general pattern going on here and I blame people who don’t believe in eternal consequence.]] Maury
Someone should have told that to all the people who have been killed by suicidal nuts convicned they were thereby going to a better world. Really, it is lame to foment belief in a fantasy for purposes of social control. People should do the right thing because it is the right thing to do, not because the Spirit in the Sky will reward them or punish them.
[[So where did you get this code you live by? Your parents, your peers, your books? Like it or not, they trickled down from the Bible. And beating people into moral submission? You suggest educating and responsibilising people. With what may I ask. Man’s law. That’s great, but what is it based on primarily?]]
Logic, plus respect for the dignity and autonomy of humans.
Since anything can be proven by the bible, laws that are biblically based can be the most dangerous of all. Remember, for every verse, there is an equal but opposite verse.
Using the bible to “prove” any scientific point merely points out your personal prejudices, not your intelligence.
“When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.”
Hunter Thompson
AAAAUGH! Okay… I need to respond… this is just too hard to keep my mouth shut.
“It bothers me to watch a program aimed at children, (i.e. Bill Nye) and speak of the big bang as fact. A true scientist should always make a distinction between theory and law. Until you have proved the Law of Big Bang, don’t speak of it as fact.”
Whoa… we are talking about KIDS here. There is a certain amount of age appropriateness? Have you ever tried to explain an abstract aspect of life to a six year old? Have you ever read the wonderfully entertaining explanations of God by kids? How about a thirteen year old’s view of how the world works? Not until highschool are children even slightly equipped to deal with abstracts such as “science has no answers, only ideas” and then it’s still not quite sinking in. There are stages we go through psychologically. I don’t care if you ascribe to a stage theory of development or a continuum theory, the fact is, you try to give that kind of info to a kid, and you will end up with a seriously confused kid. In other words, (if I may use a biblical analogy) you will have just given a child who was learning to eat solids, a twelve course meal. Personally, I think that mr Nye does a wonderful job of offering the basics of science to children who are often still in a “rule” stage of development with a need for limits and understandable boundaries. Then, you expect that when they are older, someone will continue to take responsibility for furthering their education within an college setting (wherein there are STILL those who work within the “rule” stage… we all develop at different rates) and begin to challenge the belief of Proof and Fact.
“Again; do you think the value of religion is that it puts fear of Hell in you? That’s pathetic. It’s a scare tactic not worthy of consideration.”
I find that I agre with this. :0) Anyone who has tried to punish a child can say, that the child will simply try to get away with it later. Punishment often creates shame and guilt, fear of punishment cuts down on self esteem and kills assertiveness… However, if you teach the means of living, then often I think, with the tools and the respect given the individual as a human being, there is more likely going to be a positive change. The bible doesn’t go around saying “Everyone who doesn’t do as I (God) say, is going to HELLLLLL evil laugh” No… it says “I (God) am Love, and Love is about Grace and even though that is beyond your human comprehension (have you ever really tried to understand how inclusive that concept is? It’s beyond my imagination… limitless) I don’t care what you’ve done, I want you here with Me.” Seems to me, the bible does more positive reinforcement than punishment. Saying things like the rich can’t enter the kingdom of heaven, but with God everything is possible… etc… F I’m rambling ain’t I? My point is this… God is the God of second chances and the God of “but” S that the word is filled with LAW and then BUT… S We are FREE from the law… not held by it. Why does God consistantly say Do NOT fear? Love and Fear are not the same thing.
“proven by experience.”
I seem to be posting this everywhere… Science has nothing to do with proof. :0) It only concerns itself with disproof. I take my experience, decide on a possible manner of explanation, and then set out to find exceptions to that manner of explanation (a hypothesis) and if I do, then I rearrange my explanation… if my explanation isn’t hit with exceptions for a while, then it might become a theory… or even a law… but it’s ALWAYS suspect… people will always try to find the exception to the rule. Or may even just stumble across it without meaning to. Science has no concept of proof (as in answer). Only disproof. g
“Like it or not, they trickled down from the Bible.”
I have to say that I believe the Bible says differently. And I think, that may just be a bit more ethnocentric of a view than we like to admit. :0) In fact, the bible states that there is an inherant understanding of what is right and wrong. That we are judged according to our knowledge of the law. (being God’s law) That if we are ignorant of the law, then we are not judged by it. :0) So, what I’m trying to say, is that the knowledge of good and bad, doesn’t come from the bible. It comes from God. (this is for Maury… I’m using a biblical argument, not a scientific one, therefore I’m not sure I’ll be able to argue semantics and hypothesis with the same breath.) And knowledge of God comes from seeing His creation. I realize I’m not using verses. And I’d be wiling to find them if you aren’t familiar with the sources that I’m citing offhandedly.
Of course… I COULD be arguing a manner of interpretation. sighs So let me put a disclaimer on this. :0) This is how I’ve seen a side of the truth, that I’m afraid I can’t truly understand. Therefore, I’m not sure any of what I say is really an answer. I mean, really, if you look at it from the correct point of view (meaning, realizign that we are all limited beings with no realy concept of what the world or the universe or God for that matter is about …like trying to describe an oak tree by staring at a leaf…) then nothing of what I say, is likely to be even remotely correct. g Which is nice, because that also means no one else has the answers either.
(I’m taking a chance and entering this one. and JDP? w I know you have some amazing ideas on this… )
Settle within the rushes and listen to the lark
Singing o’er hillock and dale.
Praise to the heavens and making his mark,
From atop our farthest fence rail.
Sp before that, people just floated around at random?
I bet you don’t know jack shit about the scientific method, but for our viewers at home, please explain when a theory becomes a law. For bonus points, explain what a theory is.
There really isn’t, not in science.
So explain why relativity is referred to as a theory when all its predictions have been borne out (most recently by the Hipparcos satellite, which provided amazingly accurate measurements of gravitational lensing).
The predictions made by the big bang theory are the most accurate we have to date, and explain more things than any other testable hypothesis.
Please don’t pretend that the entire Old Testament after Genesis is not composed of thousands of people constantly hacking thousands of other people to bits, including women and children. Why, one might begin to think that behavior was acceptable! And please don’t pretend that people who do believe in eternal consequence don’t also perpetrate these same atrocities (Shiites, Catholics . . .)
Besides, if you’re going to believe in stuff you made up and can’t prove, shouldn’t it at least be pleasant?
So, how did preBiblical societies thousands of years ago decide not to murder and rape each other at will?
Basically, your whole philosophy comes down to “I think we should believe in really unpleasant made-up stuff and teach it to children as a way to force them to behave through fear, mostly because I am generally uncomfortable with real life and the facts of the universe.”
** Phil D. **
“Not only is the world queerer than we imagine,
it is queerer than we can imagine.”
–J.B.S. Haldane
I know I’m being facetious, but… We do not stick to the ground because Newton formulated the Law of Gravity. We did so long before he did.
Now, there was no typo on my part. Science makes a clear distinction between a law and a theory, but scientists tend to throw the terms around without clarifying them.
So, a law is a mathematical affirmation, a mathematical behaviour if you will. A theory is an attempt to describe reality. Just keep this in mind: law is mathematical, theory is physical.
The law of gravity, as postulated by Newton, is this:
F = Gm1m2/r^2
where F is the resulting force, G a constant called the “gravitational constant” (not to be confused with g), m1 and m2 the masses attracting each other, and r the distance between the two.
That is Newton’s Law of Gravity. Newton’s Theory of Gravity is that bodies attract one another following the Law of Gravity.
As it turns out, Newton’s Theory of Gravity turned out to be wrong when the Theory of General Relativity walked in. It’s not that we were wrong all along, but it turned out that Newton’s theory was a special case of General Relativity; i.e., it worked in most day-to-day cases, but was inadequate to describe more specific cases, such as the bending of light near a massive object.
Again, I reiterate my point: I do not kill fellow human beings because I fear the consequences; I do so because I believe it is unethical to do so. I do not need fear of Hell to behave myself in society.
It’s the other way around. Are you saying Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Babylonians, and any other civilisation that predated christianism were incapable of behaving themselves, that they had no code of ethics?
Rather, the Bible was built around ethical principles trickled down from previous civilisations. “Thou shalt not kill” is easy enough to formulate and pass down as a sensible law, not necessarely as a God-given order. Of course, it is easier to enforce sense on a primitive community by appending fear of eternal punishment.
If anything, my personal code of ethics was built by an initial reaction of religion. I began asking myself why it was so wrong to have sex outside of marriage, almost as much as killing your fellow man. Why is it wrong not to go to Church?
After some time, I selectively built my own moral standards that endure to this day. My principles are based on introspection, on logic, but also on compassion. They stem from myself and not from some ancient book which condemns homosexuality in the same breath as it tells you what to wear.
I sometimes think that God may have imposed Religion on humanity so he can sort out those who do not accept prefabricated ideas and will seek the truth no matter the threat of eternal damnation. Then, he keeps those around Him for His eternal enjoyment.
I know I’d probably do that if I were Him. I’d rather sit with Socrates, Nietzsche, Einstein, Galileo and Newton than have to suffer millions chanting my name for Eternity, when all they had to do to get in was obey principles blindly. If this were the case, lemmings, and not humans, would be God’s chosen people.
I probably had the wrong reference with the piltdown man thing, but the point remains; Science regulary finds that what was once settled “fact” turns out not to be true at all. This does not mean that science is bad or invalid, but just that its a little silly to think that we’ve got it all figured out and our current scientific models are waterproof.
–Elijah: “It’s obvious a notion such as Hell exists to scare believers into obedience”
Actually, it’s not obvious, especially as many Christians believe in “eternal security,” or “once saved, saved forever.”
–Sara Alexis “In fact, the bible states that there is an inherant understanding of what is right and wrong. That we are judged according to our knowledge of the law. (being God’s law) That if we are ignorant of the law, then we are not judged by it.”
Citation, please. You might want to stay away from Matthew 5, Romans 2:12
"The bible doesn’t go around saying “Everyone who doesn’t do as I (God) say, is going to HELLLLLL evil laugh” No… it says “I (God) am Love, and Love is about Grace and even though that is beyond your human comprehension…I don’t care what you’ve done, I want you here with Me.”
You are right in asserting that God is not out looking to waste people for the sheer joy of it, but you are missing the rather clear indication in the Bible that God also cares about Justice. Would God save an unrepentant Hitler?
Well, of course there are questions and contradictions in science; that’s exactly what science IS. However, once something has been kicked around for a few decades, the questions are those of refinement, the contradictions those of minutiae. The point is, just because science may be wrong (and this must always be a possibility; if it ain’t falsifiable, it ain’t a theory) on details, saying “Einstein/Darwin/Gould’s work is just theory, so my half-assed explanation of reality is just as valid as theirs” is not a valid criticism of their work.
Romans 2:12 “All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law”.
However, having scanned the rest of the passage and the posts relating to the above quote quickly, I decline to speculate on which interpretation of the Bible is better supported.
On the issue of whether God is truly a just God. I think sometimes we forget how completely unworthy we all really are of God’s love and mercy. A statement by Will Campbell when asked for a 10 word definition of Christianity “We’re all bastards, but God loves us anyway” . (Yes, I know that’s 8 words, he declined to use his other two words). This was the title of a sermon I heard recently. (aside: the minister commented that he’d gotten flack from three groups of people with respect to the sermon title. There were those who don’t think that the word “bastard” is an appropriate word to use, especially in church. There are those who are uncomfortable being called “bastards”. And, there are those who don’t think that those people who merit the name (as commonly used in the pejorative sense, not with reference to legitimacy) should be loved by God)
Anyway, the point of the illustration was that if God does not love us all, regardless of merit, than he can’t truly love any of us, because NONE of us merit God’s love. God has to love the KKK member, as well as the black man who the KKK member persecutes. God has to love the men who killed Matthew Shepard just as much as he does Matthew Shepard. God has to love the ax-murderer on death row just as much as Mother Teresa.
As people though, we tend to like to divide other people into groups of “worthy” and “unworthy”, forgetting that in God’s view we are all unworthy. We like to believe in the power of deathbed conversions for our loved ones who lived “good” lives (at least relative to Hitler) but failed to recognize God. On the other hand, we tend to act suspicious of “Born-again Christians”. The more dramatic the change in someone’s outlook and behavior, the more suspicious we sometimes are as to whether the person is sincere.
Enough. I could continue, but I’m not sure that I’d be adding clarity to what I’ve written.
“I don’t want to kill your loved ones. But if you don’t listen to me and do as I say, I will be forced to do it. It will be your own fault.”
So God loves us all, but when we’re damned because of, say, being raised in the wrong religion, being beaten by your parents until you turn into a serial killer, or dressing as a bat because your parents died before you (sniff), it’s not God’s fault. He loves you, but you just wouldn’t listen.
I call it psychological manipulation. It’s the fault of the one who sets the rules, and I don’t buy into that tactic.
We believe in a transcendental justice which will make everything right once we die; we do so because we know it doesn’t exist on Earth. But is true justice possible?
What if you die, and one day, in Heaven, you run into Hitler hanging out with a few archangels. When you ask him how come he’s here, he answers, ‘Oh, well, I realised the errors of my way and the Big Guy let me in.’ In the meantime, a good Christian accidentally killed his brother and cannot overcome the guilt, so spends his time in Hell because he will not accept the Grace of God. Where is justice in that?
The whole dogma of Christian forgiveness is this: those who do evil are condemned to eternal suffering for the gratification of people who worked hard to attain Heaven; everyone except you, who can be forgiven if you accept God into your heart.
Sounds quite self-serving to me.
The truth is: there is no higher Justice. There is persistence of will, and the formidable strength of the human mind to cling to what they believe is right. This doesn’t make the Universe a just place, but it means it’s a land of opportunity where you can have your own justice if you work for it, instead of hoping some omnipotent being dispenses it like candy.
Does that mean I can live a totally amoral life, go around fornicating and blaspheming, and then go to Confession once my health starts to decline? As I understand it, as long as you have time to prepare, you can be forgiven and saved from Hell.
I guess the unlucky ones are the ones who die in a car accident or from a stroke. If given enough advance warning, you get to reevalue your ways out of mortal fear, and voila. It’s when you know you’re gonna die that you start growing religious, so you are quite willing to repent then. Your passport for Heaven is stamped.
But if all you can say when you get to the Pearly Gates is, “Huh? Where did that truck come from?” and you lived a life of sin, you’re not allowed in.
Sounds like a fair gamble… Live a simple life and deny yourself the pleasures of life in the name of sanctity and sacrifice, and be allowed into Heaven, or live your life to the fullest, and hope (pray?) you’ll have enough time to call the neighborhood priest.
