Being an agnostic, I don't buy into the heaven/hell deal.......
I suspect God has a special place for "agnostics " that is neither heaven or hell.
It's probably something "modelled" from Kafka's " The Castle " where agnostics spend there time endlessly shuffling papers behind grey walls or filling out the required triplicate forms needed to use the lavatory.
Being an agnostic, I don't buy into the heaven/hell deal, but it's still fun to explore theological concepts in the same way it is to talk about what's going to happen in the Matrix or Star Wars.
That said, I've always thought it a totally reasonable conclusion (within a theological framework, of course) that upon arriving in heaven one could expect to find all their loved ones there (those that made the cut, that is) even if they weren't dead at the time of one's death. Your parents, friends, spouse, children, great, great.... great grandchildren would all be there the moment you arrived (and vice versa with respect to them).
Why? Well, obviously Einstien's theory shows that time isn't constant, and even if it was an all-powerful diety surely has the ability to alter time, so there is no reason why heaven or hell would have to be on the same clock as earth.
Applying the same logic to those religions that believe in re-incarnation, one could expect to be re-incarnated into the past as well as the future. Extending this, for a religion that accepts re-incarnation there is no reason to believe (theologically speaking) that a soul couldn't be re-incarnated into a different person (or animal) during the same time period. Taking this notion to it's logical extreme there might be only one soul that has been reincarnated into everyone in the future, past, and present.
For some reason most theists I talk to have a problem with these ideas, but they can't cite any scriptural reason why it couldn't be the case (except to challenge re-incarnation if their theism doesn't believe in that). So, I thought I'd see what people on this forum thought. Have at it.
You are quite correct that this is not covered in Scripture . In fact, this is a matter of discussion, in a way, among much bigger minds than my own. The discussion, from what I understand, hinges on whether the soul goes immediately to heaven or we simply don't know anything until the resurrection of the dead at the end of time.
Personally, I don't care. I can't change it and if God doesn't think it important enough to mention, then why should I? "In my Father's house are many mansions. If it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you." John 14:2
If i follow your way of thinking then God is regressing
On the contrary, science is knowledge based and like all knowledge, it's up to scrutiny & revision..
That said,it is becoming increasingly clear that science in many fields is finding many theories no longer appear as "water tight" as they first seemed.
For every questioned answered, a dozen more appear.
So as the boundaries of our knowledge expand, so do the boundaries of the unknown and possibly unknowable ( God ).
Applying the same logic to those religions that believe in re-incarnation, one could expect to be re-incarnated into the past as well as the future. Extending this, for a religion that accepts re-incarnation there is no reason to believe (theologically speaking) that a soul couldn't be re-incarnated into a different person (or animal) during the same time period. Taking this notion to it's logical extreme there might be only one soul that has been reincarnated into everyone in the future, past, and present.
puts a whole new concept into the... God, Jesus Christ, and the holy spirit, maybe the holy spirit is this conceptualized idea of everyone sharing a little of the same spirit and this flaw in time gives it that attribute? - reincarnation thing. But what do I care... you're going to hell but wait if you're correct you've already been to heaven... so whats the point?
See....I told you this was hell, How else can you explain it ? As De Gaulle once said "if the English didn't exist it wouldn't be necessary to invent them"
Where was God when this happened eh ?
To which Churchill would have replied re :
De Gaulle & the French.....
" They have all the virtues I dislike & none of the vices I admire "......
Cheer up Sedgy, there is always Le Grande finale...
I suspect God has a special place for "agnostics " that is neither heaven or hell.
It's probably something "modelled" from Kafka's " The Castle " where agnostics spend there time endlessly shuffling papers behind grey walls or filling out the required triplicate forms needed to use the lavatory.
Sounds like the fate of suicides in Beetlegues. Of coursee, he probably got that from Kafka.
Word play, rock God cannot lift. I believe God is dimensional as well as extra-dimensional. This is to say God has a vantage point within and outside that of our own perception.
Yo Fellowship,
I think you're actually siding with the quantum interpretation (God could do both at the same time).
When I think of word play I think of things like...
"There are no absolutes" (except this one of course)
"Tolerance means you must be tolerant of the intolerant" (which means you accept intolerance, a contradiction)
"I am lying" Spock's technique to burn out an android.
On the contrary, science is knowledge based and like all knowledge, it's up to scrutiny & revision..
That said,it is becoming increasingly clear that science in many fields is finding many theories no longer appear as "water tight" as they first seemed.
This is the case with all science, and always has been. It's not a weakness in any way.
Quote:
For every questioned answered, a dozen more appear.
So as the boundaries of our knowledge expand, so do the boundaries of the unknown and possibly unknowable ( God ). [/B]
What was unknown was always unknown, but it is obvious that human knowledge, in total, grows. With respect to an omnipotent diety's knowledge it cannot be argue that the god's knowledge regresses because you are comparing a finite against an appearantly infinite.
It has been argued by theists that God only acts within the unknown in which case his/her influence does decrease with time, but I think this is a pretty weak formulation. I believe Einstein said he didn't respect a god that hides in the shadows or something like that.
When he heard about quantum theory, he said "God does not play dice," and rejected it (may have been a different thing you're talking about).
Nah, that's not it, but I can't find it on the web right now.
On another note, modern physics also complicates the long held theological principle of the "First Cause". This popular idea asserts that even if the universe was created in a big bang, something must have started the big bang, and so on with the only exception being a god which was never created, but always existed.
The first obvious response is that if string theory is correct then you can have the universe being a small part of the multi-verse which is, itself, infitinite and always (not needing a creator).
The other interesting implication (this time a consequence of relativity) is that when we work the physics back to the big bang time starts to lose meaning. Without the concept of time you cannot employ the First Cause argument because it is entirely dependent on time. That is, for something to be created it must not exist at one time and then exist at another time. Without time what are you left with?
Nah, that's not it, but I can't find it on the web right now.
On another note, modern physics also complicates the long held theological principle of the "First Cause". This popular idea asserts that even if the universe was created in a big bang, something must have started the big bang, and so on with the only exception being a god which was never created, but always existed.
The first obvious response is that if string theory is correct then you can have the universe being a small part of the multi-verse which is, itself, infitinite and always (not needing a creator).
The other interesting implication (this time a consequence of relativity) is that when we work the physics back to the big bang time starts to lose meaning. Without the concept of time you cannot employ the First Cause argument because it is entirely dependent on time. That is, for something to be created it must not exist at one time and then exist at another time. Without time what are you left with?
Comments
Originally posted by Nordstrodamus
Being an agnostic, I don't buy into the heaven/hell deal.......
I suspect God has a special place for "agnostics " that is neither heaven or hell.
It's probably something "modelled" from Kafka's " The Castle " where agnostics spend there time endlessly shuffling papers behind grey walls or filling out the required triplicate forms needed to use the lavatory.
Originally posted by aapl
.
.
Long you live and high you fly
And smiles you'll give and tears you'll cry
And all you touch and all you see
Is all your life will ever be
.
.
.
.
.
Run, rabbit run.
Dig that hole, forget the sun,
And when at last the work is done
Don't sit down it's time to dig another one.
.
.
.
Originally posted by segovius
Maybe Hell is AI but we all don't realise we're dead.
Like in that old movie about those passengers on the cruise ship with the waiter that gave them everything they wanted and wore a white suit.
Or singing.....
" Welcome to the Hotel California " Eagles
Originally posted by Nordstrodamus
Being an agnostic, I don't buy into the heaven/hell deal, but it's still fun to explore theological concepts in the same way it is to talk about what's going to happen in the Matrix or Star Wars.
That said, I've always thought it a totally reasonable conclusion (within a theological framework, of course) that upon arriving in heaven one could expect to find all their loved ones there (those that made the cut, that is) even if they weren't dead at the time of one's death. Your parents, friends, spouse, children, great, great.... great grandchildren would all be there the moment you arrived (and vice versa with respect to them).
Why? Well, obviously Einstien's theory shows that time isn't constant, and even if it was an all-powerful diety surely has the ability to alter time, so there is no reason why heaven or hell would have to be on the same clock as earth.
Applying the same logic to those religions that believe in re-incarnation, one could expect to be re-incarnated into the past as well as the future. Extending this, for a religion that accepts re-incarnation there is no reason to believe (theologically speaking) that a soul couldn't be re-incarnated into a different person (or animal) during the same time period. Taking this notion to it's logical extreme there might be only one soul that has been reincarnated into everyone in the future, past, and present.
For some reason most theists I talk to have a problem with these ideas, but they can't cite any scriptural reason why it couldn't be the case (except to challenge re-incarnation if their theism doesn't believe in that). So, I thought I'd see what people on this forum thought. Have at it.
You are quite correct that this is not covered in Scripture . In fact, this is a matter of discussion, in a way, among much bigger minds than my own. The discussion, from what I understand, hinges on whether the soul goes immediately to heaven or we simply don't know anything until the resurrection of the dead at the end of time.
Personally, I don't care. I can't change it and if God doesn't think it important enough to mention, then why should I? "In my Father's house are many mansions. If it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you." John 14:2
Originally posted by segovius
That's just got to be a reference to the multi-verse infinite possibilities model of physics we were discussing above....
Where science ends..God begins...
Originally posted by Aquafire
Where science ends..God begins...
If i follow your way of thinking then God is regressing
Originally posted by Powerdoc
If i follow your way of thinking then God is regressing
On the contrary, science is knowledge based and like all knowledge, it's up to scrutiny & revision..
That said,it is becoming increasingly clear that science in many fields is finding many theories no longer appear as "water tight" as they first seemed.
For every questioned answered, a dozen more appear.
So as the boundaries of our knowledge expand, so do the boundaries of the unknown and possibly unknowable ( God ).
Originally posted by Nordstrodamus
Applying the same logic to those religions that believe in re-incarnation, one could expect to be re-incarnated into the past as well as the future. Extending this, for a religion that accepts re-incarnation there is no reason to believe (theologically speaking) that a soul couldn't be re-incarnated into a different person (or animal) during the same time period. Taking this notion to it's logical extreme there might be only one soul that has been reincarnated into everyone in the future, past, and present.
puts a whole new concept into the... God, Jesus Christ, and the holy spirit, maybe the holy spirit is this conceptualized idea of everyone sharing a little of the same spirit and this flaw in time gives it that attribute? - reincarnation thing. But what do I care... you're going to hell
Originally posted by Segovius Maximus
So true Aqua - hopefully God will begin by bestowing super-human powers on the French rugby team.
One hour to go till the 'nation of shopkeepers' get kicked out of the world cup.....yeahh !!!
Excuse my 'orrible "franglaise Sedgy......but....
" Vivent longtemps le gardes de magasin "
Originally posted by segovius
See....I told you this was hell, How else can you explain it ? As De Gaulle once said "if the English didn't exist it wouldn't be necessary to invent them"
Where was God when this happened eh ?
To which Churchill would have replied re :
De Gaulle & the French.....
" They have all the virtues I dislike & none of the vices I admire "......
Cheer up Sedgy, there is always Le Grande finale...
Originally posted by Outsider
Angels are mono-poles and God's wrath is mini-blackholes. It explains a lot.
It does, as neither monopoles or mini-black holes are believed to exist!
Originally posted by xenu
It does, as neither monopoles or mini-black holes are believed to exist!
Err That's not strictly true.
Look very carefully at this page Xenu.
I have posted two "mini black holes" > : < see them ?
Plus a curved monopole > ) < ( the best I could do given such short notice )
But the strange thing is that when you add them together on a page like this you get a >
Originally posted by Aquafire
I suspect God has a special place for "agnostics " that is neither heaven or hell.
It's probably something "modelled" from Kafka's " The Castle " where agnostics spend there time endlessly shuffling papers behind grey walls or filling out the required triplicate forms needed to use the lavatory.
Sounds like the fate of suicides in Beetlegues. Of coursee, he probably got that from Kafka.
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
Word play, rock God cannot lift. I believe God is dimensional as well as extra-dimensional. This is to say God has a vantage point within and outside that of our own perception.
Yo Fellowship,
I think you're actually siding with the quantum interpretation (God could do both at the same time).
When I think of word play I think of things like...
"There are no absolutes" (except this one of course)
"Tolerance means you must be tolerant of the intolerant" (which means you accept intolerance, a contradiction)
"I am lying" Spock's technique to burn out an android.
Originally posted by Aquafire
On the contrary, science is knowledge based and like all knowledge, it's up to scrutiny & revision..
That said,it is becoming increasingly clear that science in many fields is finding many theories no longer appear as "water tight" as they first seemed.
This is the case with all science, and always has been. It's not a weakness in any way.
For every questioned answered, a dozen more appear.
So as the boundaries of our knowledge expand, so do the boundaries of the unknown and possibly unknowable ( God ). [/B]
What was unknown was always unknown, but it is obvious that human knowledge, in total, grows. With respect to an omnipotent diety's knowledge it cannot be argue that the god's knowledge regresses because you are comparing a finite against an appearantly infinite.
It has been argued by theists that God only acts within the unknown in which case his/her influence does decrease with time, but I think this is a pretty weak formulation. I believe Einstein said he didn't respect a god that hides in the shadows or something like that.
Originally posted by Nordstrodamus
I believe Einstein said he didn't respect a god that hides in the shadows or something like that.
When he heard about quantum theory, he said "God does not play dice," and rejected it (may have been a different thing you're talking about).
Originally posted by Harald
When he heard about quantum theory, he said "God does not play dice," and rejected it (may have been a different thing you're talking about).
Nah, that's not it, but I can't find it on the web right now.
On another note, modern physics also complicates the long held theological principle of the "First Cause". This popular idea asserts that even if the universe was created in a big bang, something must have started the big bang, and so on with the only exception being a god which was never created, but always existed.
The first obvious response is that if string theory is correct then you can have the universe being a small part of the multi-verse which is, itself, infitinite and always (not needing a creator).
The other interesting implication (this time a consequence of relativity) is that when we work the physics back to the big bang time starts to lose meaning. Without the concept of time you cannot employ the First Cause argument because it is entirely dependent on time. That is, for something to be created it must not exist at one time and then exist at another time. Without time what are you left with?
Originally posted by Nordstrodamus
Nah, that's not it, but I can't find it on the web right now.
On another note, modern physics also complicates the long held theological principle of the "First Cause". This popular idea asserts that even if the universe was created in a big bang, something must have started the big bang, and so on with the only exception being a god which was never created, but always existed.
The first obvious response is that if string theory is correct then you can have the universe being a small part of the multi-verse which is, itself, infitinite and always (not needing a creator).
The other interesting implication (this time a consequence of relativity) is that when we work the physics back to the big bang time starts to lose meaning. Without the concept of time you cannot employ the First Cause argument because it is entirely dependent on time. That is, for something to be created it must not exist at one time and then exist at another time. Without time what are you left with?
G'Day Nordstrodamus! Love reading your ideas!
Fellows
Originally posted by Aquafire
Err That's not strictly true.
Look very carefully at this page Xenu.
I have posted two "mini black holes" > : < see them ?
Plus a curved monopole > ) < ( the best I could do given such short notice )
But the strange thing is that when you add them together on a page like this you get a >
*Aquafire makes 709's secret list of best posts ever*
Originally posted by 709
*Aquafire makes 709's secret list of best posts ever*
Thankyou 709......
Just for that I'm going to let you have two more.
You can take them to work with you tommorow.