Heaven and Hell

Castiel said:
I would like to see the justification for claiming Christ resided in an Essene community, least of all a Church....which is something not associated with either Christ or the Essenes.....
Click to expand...

The way the writer explained 'the church' was that it was an open structure where there was a low level, medium level and then some steps leading a higher level called Heaven.
(I'll just get the Stairway To Heaven bit in now before anybody else)
 
Salsa said:
Have either of you ever read Haruki Murakami's book Hard Boiled Wonderland and the End of the World? Deals with a similar concept and explains it much better than I ever could.

/Salsa
Click to expand...

I haven't read it yet but I've just ordered it as I could do with some more reading material, thanks for the recommendation. :)

mrbell1984 said:
Religious threads
Click to expand...

Provided the discussion is civil then there's no problem with debating religious issues - it's where people don't respect the right of others to believe whatever they choose that it isn't acceptable.
 
Dimple said:
The way the writer explained 'the church' was that it was an open structure where there was a low level, medium level and then some steps leading a higher level called Heaven.
(I'll just get the Stairway To Heaven bit in now before anybody else)
Click to expand...

I'd have to dig out what literature I have on the Essenes, but the word Heaven, in almost all its etymological sources refers to the Sky, or in anglicanised old English as 'The place of God' or 'Where God dwells'. The Essenes were essentially jewish and as such they would have refered to Heaven (or at least their version of the concept) as Shamayim, which again, etymologically means Sky...

EDIT: had a look and I think the author has tried to associate the root hebrew word for high above or sky with the hebrew word for heaven...hence the room at the top of their equivalent on a monastery.

Our word Loft derives from the Germanic/Scandinavian word for sky which also gives us our word Heaven.

The concept isn't related to the room, but the the opposite. Essentially from a linguistic point of view every time you step into your loft, you are stepping in Heaven...;)

I'd be interested in seeing the literature if you can recall anything about it's author or title.
 
Last edited:
Not real.

Concepts created for control / to provide answers to questions they couldn't answer.

We are just monkeys who learned to talk, simples.
 
People can believe what they want to believe, I dont have an any issues with that, it's when they try to force their beliefs on others, or start persecuting those of another faith, or demand the separation of the genders and harass and bully them when they dont comply.

But personally no, I don't believe in Heaven or Hell, because theres not a shred of evidence to support the existence of a supreme being, such as 'God' or anything else that is claimed by Theists. However, there is plenty of evidence to support the theory of evolution, among other scientific areas of research into our past and where we are headed.
 
dirtychinchilla said:
Well he does fairly well.
Click to expand...

At making a fool of himself....Dawkins that is, not Hitchens. Richard Dawkins problem is that he is simply the atheists fundamentalist...even the Humanist Society distance themselves from his rhetoric these days, the older he gets the worse he gets. Dawkins is a Hitchens wannabe....he does more damage for the shift to Secularism than all the religious fundamentalists combined.
 
Castiel said:
At making a fool of himself....Dawkins that is, not Hitchens. Richard Dawkins problem is that he is simply the atheists fundamentalist...even the Humanist Society distance themselves from his rhetoric these days, the older he gets the worse he gets. Dawkins is a Hitchens wannabe....he does more damage for the shift to Secularism than all the religious fundamentalists combined.
Click to expand...

I disagree man. He's just fed up of people spouting crap at him. More than anything else tho, he's a Darwinist and loves to push it.

The reason why I enjoyed Hitchens so much was because he was enormously rude when appropriate; I think Dawkins holds back too much. He's literally just fed up of people's crap.

He said, about arguing with creationists (paraphrasing here) "For me, arguing with a creationist is like a geologist arguing with a flat-worldist" and frankly, I think that level of stupidity (the whole creationist error) deserves to be so odiously dealt with.
 
I can't remember who he said it about about but one of Hitchens quotes: ''If you gave ?? an enema he could be buried in a matchbox.' :D
 
dirtychinchilla said:
I disagree man. He's just fed up of people spouting crap at him. More than anything else tho, he's a Darwinist and loves to push it.

The reason why I enjoyed Hitchens so much was because he was enormously rude when appropriate; I think Dawkins holds back too much. He's literally just fed up of people's crap.

He said, about arguing with creationists (paraphrasing here) "For me, arguing with a creationist is like a geologist arguing with a flat-worldist" and frankly, I think that level of stupidity (the whole creationist error) deserves to be so odiously dealt with.
Click to expand...

If you think Dawkins is polite then I can only imagine what you would hold to be sufficiently rude. He is a great scientist in his particular area of expertise but outwith it he frequently comes across as rude and displays a number of the traits he accuses fundamentalist Christians (normally Christians as they're the ones he's most likely to engage with) of having such as simply trying to shout down opposition and refusing to accept that he doesn't know it all in the area of theology.

I don't doubt for a second it's frustrating for him but my sympathy is limited as it's a position he chooses to put himself in. He is, or should be, aware that trying to use expertise in one area as supporting you in another is something of a fallacy yet he uses his pre-eminence as a scientist to push his cause as an anti-theist as if that should lend credence to his position.

Raikiri said:
I can't remember who he said it about about but one of Hitchens quotes: ''If you gave ?? an enema he could be buried in a matchbox.' :D
Click to expand...

Jerry Falwell was the recipient of that epithet.
 
semi-pro waster said:
If you think Dawkins is polite then I can only imagine what you would hold to be sufficiently rude. He is a great scientist in his particular area of expertise but outwith it he frequently comes across as rude and displays a number of the traits he accuses fundamentalist Christians (normally Christians as they're the ones he's most likely to engage with) of having such as simply trying to shout down opposition and refusing to accept that he doesn't know it all in the area of theology.
Click to expand...

I see what you mean. I don't think he's sufficiently rude, or perhaps I just haven't seen him being particularly rude, in which case I do apologise. He does avoid accepting that he might lack certain knowledge but overwhelmingly he is correct and therefore might not need to justify his arguments with theology. Also, with regards to him being a fundamentalist, I firstly disagree, my sig is what he says on the matter, and secondly it's once again my point about stupidity...he wants people to know the truth and finds their education lacking so I don't blame him for trying to tell people the truth forcefully.
 
dirtychinchilla said:
I disagree man. He's just fed up of people spouting crap at him. More than anything else tho, he's a Darwinist and loves to push it.

The reason why I enjoyed Hitchens so much was because he was enormously rude when appropriate; I think Dawkins holds back too much. He's literally just fed up of people's crap.

He said, about arguing with creationists (paraphrasing here) "For me, arguing with a creationist is like a geologist arguing with a flat-worldist" and frankly, I think that level of stupidity (the whole creationist error) deserves to be so odiously dealt with.
Click to expand...

However he doesn't limit himself to pushing Darwinism or combating Creationism...he makes the fundamental mistake of attributing extreme values to ALL aspects of religious thought as well as pushing Darwinism (if he is even doing that, as Darwinism is increasing seen as outdated) he seeks to associate Science, specifically evolutionally science with a basis for proof that there is not a God...something again that Science simply doesn't address. He needs to form his argument against religion in the language of religion, Theology.....Creationism is not representative of all Religion...it is a Biblical Literalist position, it has no basis in Science and he is quite right to address it as such, but it also has very little basis in theology which he ignores or doesn't understand....if he wants to attack Creationists and associate that interpretation with religion in general he has to understand both...he doesn't.

Like many fundamentalists who are trying to justify a personal agenda he not only misrepresents what he opposes, he misrepresents what he values at the same time.

It is a shame because at one time he was someone whose opinion I held in great esteem, but the older he becomes the more his argument is based in intentionally belligerent rhetoric and less in considered rationality....I don't know why, maybe in the face of criticism he feels he needs to defend himself with increasing belligerence, who can say.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom