Is there any evidence that heaven and hell exist? I think that the whole thing is a fairy story dreamed up by the church to scare people.
“Dreamed up” I can go along with. There is certainly no evidence for God, heaven, hell, afterlife, etc.
“to scare people” is simply the application of cynicism without understanding. There is no indication in any culture where the afterlife is a part of the cultural mythology that those who told the tales believed them any less than the people to whom the tales were told.
If you want to posit self-delusion, fine. If you want to claim deliberate mind control, it would be nice if you could actually provide any evidence that it has actually happened (omitting Hubbard and similar scams).
I asked this question because I have a difficult time understanding some professed Christians. If I truly believed that my “immortal soul” were jeopardized by “sinning”, I sure wouldn’t do it. Actually, I haven’t “sinned” lately anyway, but that’s beside the point. I have a friend who claims to be a Christian, but: has had an abortion, a child out of wedlock, is dishonest, sleeps around, and those are just the things I know about. I think she believes she’s still gonna go to heaven because she’s a “Christian”, either that or she oughta be scared out of her wits. I’m sure Jimmy Swaggart and Jim Baker think they’re going to heaven. Or, in the alternative, they don’t really believe it either. Sometimes I wonder.
Actually to many Christians, sinning is unavoidable, due to the way they define sin. For example:
So, to many evangelical Christians, just saying “I don’t need to be saved by Jesus, thank you very much, since I live a good and moral life” just isn’t an option. After all, no one can help thinking about stuff. By this standard, every guy walking around commits fornication and/or adultery at least a hundred times a day.
These are just a few of the quotes from my Bible:
“[The Pentatateuch] was transmitted by word of mouth from generation to generation.”
“[The Gospel of John] was probably written in the 90s of the first century.”
"Critical analysis makes it difficult to accept the idea that the gospel as it now stands was wriiten by one person. Chapter 21 seems to have been added after the gospel was completed…”
So just what is bunk about the idea that it has been changed to control people? The idea that it has been changed, or the idea that it was done to affect people’s actions?
I’d have to disagree with you there.
I think it’s a question of profound importance for billions of people.
As I was recently taught:
temptation = desire + opportunity
sin = temptation + action
death = sin + no repentance
Man, by his very nature, has been corrupted by sin. Sin is unavoidable. The Christian’s duty after he/she sins is to turn to Christ for forgiveness, genuinely repent, and take steps to right the wrong.
By genuinely repenting your sins, God does not allow you to die from them. No human is free from temptation or sin, but with a genuine appeal to the Savior anyone can be delivered from death.
Those who claim to be Christian yet live a sinful life with zeal are deluding themselves. Being a Christian requires you to fight temptation, but if you do succumb, to repent.
How would you go about proving such a thing?
You have answered your own question. It is not up to me to prove it but the “believers”. They say that these places exist.It is no use relying on some 2000 year old ducuments or “faith” . Where is the hard evidence?
I’ve always gathered that much of what makes up the bible was indeed passed down by word of mouth for generations before anyone wrote it down. Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John, for example, were not contemporaries of Jesus, but lived varying numbers of centuries later (one to four hundred years later?). I remember being surprised to learn this, having, as a kid, vaguely assumed that Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John were four of Jesus’ deciples.
Also, different portions of the bible originated in many different times and places. And the bible has been translated from one language to another, and been copied by hand for centuries.
And supposedly, during all this time, not one single mistake was made? Not during the oral tradition period, not during any of the translations, not during any of the hand copying? Some say that God has been supervising this project very closely all along, and seeing to it that no one ever made the slightest error, but I don’t buy it.
Re the whole thing about who gets into heaven, I think some of the Christians have a pretty good explaination for the deal about people doing bad stuff still being able to make the grade – the ones who say, “yes, you, a sinner, can get into heaven, IF you REALLY repent, and REALLY try to do better”. For me, the really objectionable thing is the claim some Christians make that NO ONE ever goes to heaven without “accepting Jesus as their savior” – that no matter how good a life you lead, you go to hell if you don’t hold the correct beliefs. IMO, holding these correct beliefs or not holding them is mainly a matter of were you or were you not born into a family that taught you those beliefs in childhood. The deck is stacked against millions of people who were not raised as Christians.
Not contemporaries, true (although Mark may have been and an old tradition makes the author of Matthew the same as the apostle Matthew).
One to four hundred years? Piffle.
Generally, Mark’s gospel is thought to have been written a bit less than 40 years after the death of Jesus, Matthew’s and Luke’s a bit less than 50 years after the death of Jesus, and the gospel of John around 60 years after the death of Jesus.
As to the copying, we have a lot of copies that do show differences. However, the differences tend to be minor changes in individual letters or words that can be reconciled against other copies to discover what the original most likely had been. We also have fragmentary evidence going back to nearly the period when the books were written that matches the complete texts we have from the fourth century.
The Masoretic text compiled by the Hebrew scholars of the middle ages generally lines up with amazing precision to the versions of the same texts found among the scrolls in Qumran. (There are, indeed, several books that have substantial sections of text that were either added or deleted by some group, but even those sections can generally be matched to other texts of the times. For the text that is not in dispute, the words and spelling are nearly congruent.)
It is quite possible to look on Scripture as simply the wishful writings of people who hoped there might be a god “out there.” The argument that there have been massive changes to the text that no one knows or remembers because it was translated and copied too often is simply not substantiated by the evidence.
Come now, are we supposed to imagine that you asked this question without having already decided your position? - To me, it really looks as if you posted it as a soapbox to voice your (already existing) scorn for Christianity.
Alright, warm up your flamethrowers. Dale is posting…
I think it all comes down to your definition of the word “repent.” If a person does something saying “God will forgive me, so I can carry on,” they aren’t very sincere about their repentance. God understands that we aren’t perfect, so we can repent, essentially saying that if we could go back and “un-do” what we did, we would. That kind of sincerity is between an individual and God. I have no way of measuring someone else’s sincerity. However, I’d guess that someone who keeps repeating the same sin knowingly, and just assumes that God will forgive happily, should pack an asbestos coat, just in case. We can’t presume to be able to trick God, nor sould our motivation be to get into heaven (or to avoid hell). That’s a self-serving attitude, IMHO.
Can I get married and still go on being a carelesss philandering woman-hating bastard?
Jesus speaks on the judgement of the world:
All of which goes to show that the issues are not clear-cut at all. All I know is that there will be a lot of surprised people in the afterlife. Aren’t you glad God is in charge of judgement and not one of us?
Gp
I get so tired of answering this canard (which so many atheists use to mock Christianity).
What matters is the relationship. You are going at this on a very surface level, where the words matter more than what is in your heart. You seem to think that if you mutter, “I’m sorry,” like a bad widdle kid after having gotten in a scrap with the neighbor kid, all will settle down and you’ll be friends.
The legalistic answer is that if you do bad things with the knowledge that you can ask forgiveness later, and that you ask forgiveness with the intent to go out and do the same thing, than your request forgiveness is nothing of the sort in any sense that matters. St. Paul was very direct about this: “Shall I sin all the more, that the grace may abound? Not so!”
On the other hand, God makes allowances for (and is kind to) those who are struggling with their sin, with all their strength and heart, and who fail. St. Augustine: “Lord make me chaste — but not yet!”
So try to get beyond the straw men of those who want to knock the Christian religion. If you want to be a Christian, one of the things that go with it is a constant desire, and effort, to do the right thing.
Christians are not sinless… they’re simply saved (subject to true repentance and the acceptance as Christ as their saviour).
Let’s get personal… I began my Christian walk just four years ago. That means I have to unravel 47 years of ‘secular’ life… it won’t happen overnight. Indeed, it is unlikely to happen in my lifetime! I’m having to learn how to live the perfect life. I’m going through the process of sanctification and that will take time.
As I walk the path of righteousness, my failings become more and not less apparent. I may well do or say something today, believing it to be ‘okay’. I may be less pleased with myself some days/weeks/months hence, when I realise that it probably was not as ‘okay’ as I’d always thought.
I will continue to fall short of God’s intentions, even while Jesus teaches me the way… but he is patient and kind and makes allowances for me, his prodigal son. In return I endeavour to follow his lead and rid myself of the ‘sinful’ acts and deeds, once I am aware of them.
Okay, dlb, I’m not mocking, but there is something I find ridiculous about Christian dogma or doctrine or whatever the right term may be.
Never mind repentence – what about the other side of the coin? What about the rule that the only way to avoid hell is to hold the right beliefs? Looking at history as well as the present, it seems to me that the great majority of people have always held whatever beliefs they were raised to have. Most people stay with the religion into which they were born. Throughout history, there have been a lot of different religions. Since Christianity came along, there have been a lot of different versions of Christianity. Today, we still have many different religions and many different versions of Christianity. And some are not raised in any religion at all, or in households whose ties to any religion are so weak as to be almost non-existant.
Many Christians (perhaps most?) would say that, no matter how good a life he or she leads, no Jew, Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, etc, can escape hell. Many Christians would also say that only members of their particular brand of Christianity can avoid hell. All those other people, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, atheists, agnostics, and Christians who belong to the wrong version of the religion – all of them will burn in hell forever, no matter how good the lives they led.
As I understand it, if you want to go to heaven, and you have the bad luck to be born into the wrong religion, you’ve got to figure out that you’re in the wrong religion, figure out that Christianity is the right religion, and convert. And at least some Christians would further say that you’ve got to be sure to select the one right choice from among all the many, many versions of Christianity. And all those people that were born into one of the wrong versions had better figure out that that’s the case, identify the one right version (even if no Christions of the right sort exist in their country) and convert to it ASAP.
To me, looking at all this from the outside, this seems utterly absurd. I’d have more respect for Christianity if the deal really was what young children are usually told: if you’re good, you’ll go to heaven; if you’re bad, you’ll go to hell. (And while we’re at it, if people don’t feel that they can tell small children the truth about their relgion’s dogma, maybe there’s something wrong with that dogma?)
It isn’t a secret club, or a quiz, or a special deal for insiders. God really does know your heart. Your words are nothing, you live by your conscience, and Jesus knows every detail of your heart. It is love that can save you.
Jesus already knows you. Before you are judged, you will know Him, and your heart will be bared to Him, and your every pretension and self-delusion evaporated. You will choose, and by your will, you will love, or perish.
But love is what is offered, and love is what is asked. It is so simple. If belief is beyond you, consider this, love by itself is cause enough to fill a life, and as deserving of honor without God, as with Him. If you cannot love God, then for your own sake, love man.
Tris
" It is no use walking anywhere to preach unless our walking is our preaching." ~ Saint Francis Of Assisi ~
How do we know that what Christians are saying is correct?. Don’t forget that this was the religion that up to about 1500 insisted that the Earth was the centre of the Universe and everything else revolved aroud it. Anybody that had the temerity to question this belief (men of straw!!) were dealt with in the most harshest of ways , including imprisonment or even worse. When the churches version is proved to be wrong (as above) then it takes a very long time to admit it’s mistakes. I think it was only about fifty years ago that the books of the people that put forward the correct theory were taken of the “banned” list by the Vatican