Is there a god?

[LeedsRhinos]

Is there a god? I mean look at all the different relgions around the world who all believe that THEY are right & the others are wrong. They can't all be right can they. Which is why in my opion it all rubbish.

[Merlin]

More on modern evolution. And further to that, there is the difference that being in a socially, culturally and industrially 'developed' (I use the term ironically) environment makes. Modern medecine, for instance, interferes with evolution by enabling the survival of those who otherwise have perished. I'm not making a judgment - just saying that it happens. And we don't have to compete for the best cave or the biggest slice of mammoth meat in quite the same way. Evolution continues - just not quite with the same effects.

[el duerino]

of course. have you heard of reverse evolution? not religious more social so not worth going into here but just curious. of course indirectly extinction is proof of evolution also by proving that adaption to enviroment, which has radically altered over the millions of years of life on the planet, is necessary. but then there is the problem of JC ascending, physically, into the sky apparently. if heaven is not physical, why would he do that? it cannot be located in the physical realm because it processed non physical elements, so why go up? more impressive?

[I.R.]

I still don't think JC ascended in a physical body. And I try not to worry too much about the possible location of heaven, other than that it's supposed to be way up there.

[el duerino]

'After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight. They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going' so you clearly think the scripture is false, or at the very worst extremely misleading. How do you know which bits of the bible to pick and choose?

[Merlin]

Heaven (1) What man is doing to reverse-engineer (for want of a better label) his own evolutionary development is scary. But it is a side issue here � can you imagine the uproar if anyone of prominence raised the issue on a public stage? The ascension is an absolutely fundamental and key issue for Christianity (where would Chrsitianity be if JC was not God). We can�t be accused, therefore, of picking on an easy target just because it has all these obvious inconsistencies. It is an issue that cannot be satisfactorily reconciled, no matter how generous we are in allowing metaphors and interpretations. There are four different accounts of what happened after the resurrection. Imagine this: a man is publicly executed, then two days later he is seen by his friends and the dead man�s predictions about his own resurrection have come true. That is so incredible (where are italics and bold when you need them?) that it is in turn equally incredible that there is not a single reliable account of it. But just to show how generous I am, I shall say this. I shall allow that the stories are metaphors or have been subject to �Chinese whispers� over the years, or the writer could not bring himself to believe the story and wrote a more credible ending, or whatever. I shall concede that the true story is �in there� somewhere, behind the superficial accounts. Did JC go �up� when he ascended? Well, the prevailing knowledge of the time was that heaven was in or beyond the sky. If it was reported or assumed or deduced that JC simply �went� to heaven, then it would have to be assumed that he went �upwards�, because that is where the sky is.

[Merlin]

Heaven (2) OK, so JC went to heaven. This is a big part of the definition of �God� and one of the big problems that I have in accepting the definition. Heaven cannot be located within the physical universe. It is not hiding behind a distant galaxy far far away, it is not lurking beyond the range of radio telescopes, it is not drifting beyond the detection of the SETI labs. It simply cannot be located within the physical universe and cannot have physical dimension. Otherwise, God in heaven would be limited in space and time. Heaven, if it exists other than as a concept, must therefore necessarily be a �spiritual� environment (again, for want of a better word). So yes � how is that compatible with the ascension to heaven of JC in his physical form? We still have the outstanding question of what happened to that body if he ascended in spirit form. How are we to think of an environment that is outside of space and time? How does God communicate with individuals? How does God interact with the physical universe if he is not part of it? How shall we all be resurrected to heaven (well, most of you, perhaps) on judgment day � will we have our physical bodies? � but now I�m straying onto another stage. BTW � read John 20-21 � what happened to the ascension there then? An inerrantist must have a tough time picking and mixing bits and pieces from each of the versions of the Gospel in order to put together a definitive version. Having done that, he/she would thereby necessarily be saying that other parts of the accounts are false. To be a literal inerrantist is to deny one�s own belief. Perhaps Clanad can tell us which is considered to be the �correct� version of the Gospel. I think that Mark is generally considered to be the benchmark?

[I.R.]

"so you clearly think the scripture is false" Would that be me, el D? I'm sure u know the answer to that one. Remember the bible makes no mention of what happened to JC's body. What I'm simply saying is that I believe he went up to heaven as a spirit being. But of course I wasn't there when the whole thing happened, so I can't speak conclusively on this. I'm not just picking, I believe the bible is entirely true, and the supposed contradictions people often point to can be resolved by a more detailed study. Merlin, your question should read "which is the most 'detailed'(italics there!) version of the Gospel". You assume that there are contradictions when in actual fact, each Gospel account is corroborated by the other.

[el duerino]

still doesn't resolve the question thos does it? why ascend physically upwards if heaven is not physically up there? really there are a few scenarios 1.heaven physically exists 'up there' ans forms part of our physical universe, in whcih case it would suffer from the points merlin made. 2.heaven does not exist in the physical universe and the ascension of jesus is a metaphor, again this causes problems - did jesus actually ascend, id he disappear, the acceptance of this as a metaphor throws the whole jesus myth into problems - was his victory over death a metaphor also? how do we know? 3. it didnt actually happen and ascending upwards was the most convincing scenario conceived by biblical authors. if you believe another version IR I'm all ears. Merlin has made a very good point by the way - the conflicting accounts of teh gospels mean that they cannot all be right. by the way, metaphors are not the truth, they are used to illustrate the truth. i.e. a metaphor of jesus ascending if he did not ascend is not the truth, it cannot be true if it did not happen. not explained very well but you understand I hope.

[I.R.]

Also, Merlin, note what is written in John 20:30, "A number of other signs Jesus did before his disciples which are not recorded in this book" ...the Gospels do not give a minute-by-minute account of the events. Omissions in one gospel or the other are not necessarily contardictory.

[I.R.]

El D, heaven is "up" somewhere, a spiritual realm. Where exactly? well that's another issue and the answer is "i don't know"!! Never been there, see! Who knows, maybe God'll offer me an invitation someday, and I'll bring u a map when i get back! seriously, tho, the bible generally gives the impression that heaven is sort of beyond the sky. and don't forget, we cannot "see" spirits unless thay take up a physical form. That should explain why we can't see heaven. who knows, it might even be somewhere in africa (just kidding!)

[el duerino]

you are still missing the point IR, whether deliberately or not I have no idea. why did Jesus physically ascend upwards into the sky in the gospel accounts?

[Merlin]

I have to admit that I stand corrected by myself when earlier I said that in John, JC said �Don�t touch me!�. I see that later in John, he says to Thomas �Touch me!�. So there is no conflict here after all between the three accounts that mention whether there was physical contact. But this just confirms that JC had a physical body before the ascension. Having flipped through the four versions of the Gospel (!) I note that most of the differences are pedantic, about minor detail or irrelevant when you interpret to a common meaning. But there are, nonetheless, differences which mean that if one version is correct, the other cannot be. One episode, for example, is the appearance of JC to the disciples after the resurrection. See Matt 28.16-20: Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17When they saw him............. Mark 16.14 Later Jesus appeared to the Eleven as they were eating�.. Luke 24. 33-36: 33They got up and returned at once to Jerusalem. There they found the Eleven and those with them, assembled together...........36While they were still talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them���.(and later ascended) John 20.19: 19On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them�� John 20.26: A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them��. It is not possible to say that the bible is literal truth because there are four versions of the same story and if just one tiny detail in one version contradicts the same tiny detail in another version, then the bible is not ALL true. This does not mean, of course, that the Gospel is not true. The Gospel remains intact but you simply cannot say that every word in the bible is true.

[bobbyx]

IR Does the bible mention whether, when you get to heaven (presuming you're on the guest list) will you remember your time on earth?

[Merlin]

The nature and location of heaven, the ascension, the nature of God, the resurrection. These are all key issues in the Christian faith and key issues in my atheism. We are getting closer to the point where a theist will say �OK � it�s rational to be an atheist and I understand why�. Every time you say, of your beliefs, �I don�t know� or �I know it by faith� or �we cannot know�, then you leave a hole in the definition of �God�. The more you say it, the less definite �God� becomes and the better the case I have for rejecting �God� as an answer to anything. I am expected to believe that �God� did all this but cannot be told what �God� means. If the word was changed, you would probably agree with me: Me: Who built this house? You: It was Bumbee. Me: What�s Bumbee? You: I can�t really explain it properly; it�s all rather incredible. Me: That�s OK, I�ll carry on thinking that a builder built it. When you can tell me what a Bumbee is, I will reconsider. Doesn�t that make more sense?

[Merlin]

El D. I think it's a bit unfair to badger IR about that. IR doesn't know why JC ascended upwards - just that it happened because that's what the Bible says.

[el duerino]

not really. Im just forcing himself to question what the bible is saying. He believes it is the complete truth, Im just asking for qualification on why a certain passage would say something at odds with our current understanding of the universe and even his religion. If someone who studies it and has read it cannot understand it or make sense of it or even reconcile it with their own beliefs it simply highlights the absurdities of their belief system.

[el duerino]

Here is another ponderer I came up with. If heaven is perfect, yet evil can exist there (Lucifer rebellion) and so obviously does free will, why does free will on earth inevitably lead to evil. And if evil does exist there, how can it be paradise? Do we have free will in heaven?

[Merlin]

I see a difference between us emerging. In coarse angling terms, someone in IR's position is 'played out' and, I think, should now be let off the hook. The more that IR is unable to answer, the stronger is our case for atheism and the more reasonably our case is made. You, I guess, are a game fisher and will haul that fish aboard, smite it verily with the blackjack, slice it up and slam it on the BBQ until it's done. Just a different approach, that's all.

[I.R.]

I had some things to attend to, and now I present myself before u, ready to stand trial for my faith, lol! El d, I.R is a "she" (I hate being mistaken for a guy!) Now back to the point. Lucifer was created a perfect angel. He became evil when he took a stand against God. That doesn't make heaven an evil place, only goes to show that God didn't make his creatures zombies, but gave them all free will. more....

[Merlin]

Oh Nooooo!!, Not the 'free-will' debate - please no. Before we take an age to thrash out free-will, can we just all agree that we all have free-will to a certain extent. We do not have an entirely free will because there are so many influences on our choices - conscious and subconscious. The one Q I ask of IR (I just knew you were a she!) is this "Is God's will unopposable and do you act out God's will or your will?" OK, that's more like 2 questions and I guess the answer is that you freely choose to do God's will. End of the free-will debate? To be honest, I haven't really come down on either side of this one yet. Sometimes yes / sometimes no!!