Post-Mortem: A Discussion on the Afterlife

[ErasOmnius]

The point wasn't about "linguistics" (ask Chigger what that means), the point was about metaphor. The entire book of Revelations is an extended, highly-complex metaphor that was probably intended for a very specific audience. They don't exist any more. Whatever meaning was to be found there is likely to remain undiscovered by us, and it certainly does not lie in a facial acceptance of the literal words of the book. "Darmok" was merely a method of explaining that in short-hand. You apparently didn't "get it." Do you see the latent irony?

So, you're basically saying I'm right? About both religion and your attempt at trolling?

First off, I am not a Troll. If anything, I am an Ent. In the legendarium of Middle Earth, Trolls are quite possibly warped Ents who were most likely captured by the Dark Lord Morgoth. I could never be a Troll, because my intentions are always noble.

Secondly, what is it about Revelations that you don't understand? This is what I believe it says:

The Jews will rebuild their Temple.

Two prophets will emerge in Israel, many Jews will convert to believing Jesus is the Messiah.

The world will become one state, led by two men, from two supra-national states from different parts of the world.

Many, or most non-Jewish Christians will be killed; because of a world-wide paradigm shift that has occurred against the Book, and those who believe in it.

God is upset with the killing of Christians, and send devastations against the world.

The two men send two giant armies to Megiddo, Israel; to 'round up' Jews who believe that Jesus is the Messiah.

The Son returns to the Earth.

I have to go and help some people at the Center, will be back later.

[chatfsh]

I cannot stand this reasoning. The people calling Jesus the Messiah knew what needed to be fulfilled for others to accept him as the Messiah, and thus wrote that he did, years after his life and death. It's called self-fulfilling prophecies (well one off anyway). 

What I find inconceivable is that a group of Jewish men from the 1st century would intentionally fabricate stories about an obscure Jewish rabbi and then stand by these stories and their faith in the Messiah even under the threat of gruesome deaths experienced by most of the apostles.  You see, at that time their message was extremely unpopular.  Many Jewish Christians were banned from the  cultural centers of Jewish  life,  the temple and synagogues,  for claiming faith in Christ.  Many were murdered for their belief.  At that early stage of the Church, the disciples had nothing to gain by promulgating any fiction about Christ, if anything, it condemned them to a life of pain and suffering.  Therefore, there is no reason to believe that the accounts recorded by them were anything less than accurate accounts based upon the actual events that took place concerning Christ.

Also during the history of Israel it was common practice for followers of a prophet to record and preserve the sayings of the prophet in question.  Jesus

[Acriku]

What I find inconceivable is that a group of Jewish men from the 1st century would intentionally fabricate stories about an obscure Jewish rabbi and then stand by these stories and their faith in the Messiah even under the threat of gruesome deaths experienced by most of the apostles.  You see, at that time their message was extremely unpopular.  Many Jewish Christians were banned from the  cultural centers of Jewish  life,  the temple and synagogues,  for claiming faith in Christ.  Many were murdered for their belief.  At that early stage of the Church, the disciples had nothing to gain by promulgating any fiction about Christ, if anything, it condemned them to a life of pain and suffering.  Therefore, there is no reason to believe that the accounts recorded by them were anything less than accurate accounts based upon the actual events that took place concerning Christ.

Also during the history of Israel it was common practice for followers of a prophet to record and preserve the sayings of the prophet in question.  Jesus

[athanasios]

Please do us a favor and have a Bible study. Especially about the Bible prophecies that were fulfilled on Jesus. Simply you cannot choose the date you are born to fit with the prophecy foretelling that date unless you ARE the Messiah.

Hwi: Nice thoughts. A small correction: YHWH does not make plans, He has purpose. People make plans and these may fail to be realized. But YHWH's purpose is always realized.

[Lord J]

Aww... prophecy... how quaint. :)

Here's a little something for everyone who believes in prophecy, or astrology, for that matter: the Barnum Effect. I know, it rocked my world when I first experienced it.

And I like to think of myself as nearly the ideal Taurus....

Anyway, thanks Wolf, I need to put some time into thinking about what you've said. I strongly agree with your take on religion being a tool to control behavior, though it does so (typically) through fear and social acceptance. My argument is that social punishers are just as real as a stone, stick, knife or gun. "Sticks and stones" and all that (speaking of Darmok and Jalad... ;) ). I really like to think of religion as a form of government (in fact, it pretty much always has been). With the more recent secularization of the national government, I think people that cling to religion feel that they are being told to serve two masters (and we all know what the Bible says about that, eh?), which creates conflict that I'm pretty sure you are aware of (being a libertarian and all). Tea Partiers, for example, are just representatives of their own (mostly religious, I would argue, regardless of what Eras has to say) government that fears the secularization of the federal government because it undermines their own values.

Anyway, back on topic. I would agree strongly with the argument for the biological basis of the concept of "justice." Essentially, we as humans are resistant to any attempt to control our behavior through aversive means, such as punishment or withholding rewards. Actually there is a whole list of problems caused by the control of behavior by aversive means. Countercontrol is most likely in those settings. But I am hesitant to believe that our concept of justice and order comes from some higher level. Why would justice or (I'm guessing the next step in this line of logic would involve: ) altruism require intervention at some higher level when there is a clear basis for both of these concepts built into natural selection? I'm also intrigued to hear a libertarian talk about justice (or, at least, social justice) ;) . To be fair, I am very strongly liberal, and have considered myself communistic at a few points in my history (less so lately, though starting Walden Two has me reconsidering my stance).

[ErasOmnius]

The whole point of this discussion is:

Do you believe that anyone is going to hold you accountable for your actions after you die?

Secular humanist evolutionary-thinking people do not. That's why in their minds:

1. Their own children before birth are choices, not people.

2. The Book can mean anything, and it certainly doesn't mean what it says.

3. All religions are good, until it asks them to change their moral behavior.

4. That our bodies can be used sexually however they want, even if it spreads horrible VDs amongst the population.

5. That anyone who asks us to restrain their behaviors, is the worst sort of person.

BTW, just to stick in a comment about DUNE. It's fiction, because House Iran would always use it's atomics.

[Dante]

You really didn't understand a thing that was said in the previous thread, did you?

[ErasOmnius]

You really didn't understand a thing that was said in the previous thread, did you?

What is bothering you today?

[Dante]

You. Perhaps tomorrow I'll catch scabies and be bothered by that instead. That'll be a relief.

So, life-after-deathers. You realise how much y'all sound like scientological cults right now, right?

[chatfsh]

You misunderstand. The authors probably wholeheartedly believed in what they wrote. That doesn't make them any less culpable for fudging the lines and wanting to have it true so badly that they end up convincing themselves their own stories. A group of people see an empty grave and mix that with wishful thinking and you can get some very devoted people that will suffer for their resurrected Christ.

No, as I explained in my previous post, there really was no room for fudging the facts concerning Jesus

[Dante]

And another thing, if you've already admitted that governments-as-beasts is metaphor, then surely that negates the earlier point about taking everything in the bible literally? Or is the lamb meant to be a literal lamb? Is the lion really Panthera leo?

[ErasOmnius]

And another thing, if you've already admitted that governments-as-beasts is metaphor, then surely that negates the earlier point about taking everything in the bible literally? Or is the lamb meant to be a literal lamb? Is the lion really Panthera leo?

Revelations is a way that God, using a simple Jewish man named John, who was sitting on a jail-island in the middle of the Aegean Sea, tried to communicate with us. It can be difficult, because the guy was a simple fellow [probably a farmer] in his younger days.

Trying to describe giant skyscrapers, and nuclear explosions, and the like. A lot of it is metaphor. Obviously you're not going to see a ten-headed animal walking around the sea-shore. The wild animals are Empires of Man.

[Dante]

So if that is metaphor then why isn't, for example, the thousand year reich?

[chatfsh]

Concerning the matter of metaphors in the Book of Revelation, let us consider a passage from Revelation 17 (The Apostle John

[Dante]

In which case, why bother with metaphor at all?

[chatfsh]

You know, I wondered the very same thing.  The quick, instinctive answer - God is a poet at heart with a flair for the dramatic and this was the manner by which He chose to express Himself.  One must admit that the metaphors make far more of an impression than just reading,

[Dante]

Because when you couch lies in flowery language they sound less ridiculous. Or at least, no less ridiculous than the language itself.

[chatfsh]

Thank you for offering your opinion.  But as the Scriptures do not lie, I will stick with my explanation until a more logical explanation comes along.

[athanasios]

Here's a little something for everyone who believes in prophecy, or astrology, for that matter: the Barnum Effect. I know, it rocked my world when I first experienced it.

I fail to see what does this have to do with Biblical prophecy.

And it didn't rock my world. I never believed in astrology.

[Wolf]

Let me explain exactly what it is that I welcome.  I welcome the end of war, violence, crime, poverty, hatred, injustice, tolerance of evil, disdain for God, the celebration of immorality, and the general disregard for righteousness.  If achieving this objective involves Christ permanently removing those who promote these evils, then so be it.  It

[Lord J]

I fail to see what does this have to do with Biblical prophecy.

And it didn't rock my world. I never believed in astrology.

Hahahahahahahahaha.... Thanks Ath, that just made my day.

Also thanks, Wolf, for mentioning critical thinking. I think that is the biggest problem we face here.

[chatfsh]

So, you welcome murder? As far as I understand it, Revelations concerns Christ returning to Earth and killing virtually all of the human population through war, famine, disease and, apparently, planetary bombardment. Revelations 7:1-4 indicates that only 144,000 Jews will be spared from the scouring. (Yes, not 88,000. I got the numbers mixed up. 88,000 is something else: the 144,000 comes from 12,000 members of each tribe of Israel to be saved, I suppose for tradition's sake--no mention of their "righteousness").

If that were true that only 144,000 Jews are to survive the scourge, how do you explain Revelation 7:9-14?

[Acriku]

No, as I explained in my previous post, there really was no room for fudging the facts concerning Jesus

[Wolf]

If that were true that only 144,000 Jews are to survive the scourge, how do you explain Revelation 7:9-14?

The book of Revelation is inconsistent. For numerous reasons, there ought to be no other survivors save for the 144,000, because God does not intervene to prevent anyone else from suffering a painful death. Where do they come from? If they are among those murdered in the tribulation, then how do you square righteous individuals suffering death from mutilation, starvation, disease and violence?

Yes, this is true.  This would still leave around 2 billion people on the earth.

No, actually, it's not. You really haven't actually read all of Revelations, have you? See I declined to mention the part where God boils the seas because I thought it was redundant. And the part where he subjects Earth to fully a third round of fiery bombardment. But, let's think about it. All we really need is Revelation 8:1-7, where God burns a third of the Earth's surface. Think about it. If a third of the Earth's surface is set on fire, then a significant change would occur in the environment of the Earth. First of all, an appreciable amount of oxygen would be burned, significantly thinning the atmosphere for carbon-based life. Secondly, there would be a dramatic increase in greenhouse gases, mainly carbon and sulfur dioxide, resulting in a cataclysmic effect on the environment--literally, the rest of the planet would boil in a relatively short amount of time. Thirdly, unless God picks the most useless parts of the Earth's surface, much of the planet's food production (which is centralized) and its transportation infrastructure (which is a network) would be lost and populations that survive, by luck, would be rendered isolated from necessary resources. Try to imagine it: burning a third of the Earth's surface is enough to kill virtually all humans who are not immediately incinerated who also do not have access to self-sustaining, insulated environments.

By the way, Revelation chapter 20 consists of only 15 verses, so I

[Dante]

"Yet, that is what you tried to pedal with your