Proselytizing

[BillM]

The other aspect of the negative form of proselytizing is, what evidence is there for the claims?

 

What evidence is there for the belief of an everlasting or eternal soul or spirit? Granted, this is a long-standing belief. But so was the notion that the earth was the center of the universe and that women contributed nothing to the fetus except a womb for it to grow in. Is there any verifiable evidence that there is some component within us that is immortal, that cannot cease to exist?

 

What evidence is there for a literal heaven or hell? Of course, there are popular accounts of "My Seven Minutes in Heaven" or "My Ten Minutes in Hell" that always seem to appeal to mass audiences. But are these subjective experiences proof or evidence?

 

And even if the formula of "believing in Jesus" is what is necessary for God to change our destination from hell to heaven, what exactly does that mean, to believe in Jesus? Is it as simple as the apostle Paul claims, just to give mental assent to Jesus' death and resurrection? Or does believing in Jesus require more, like perhaps obedience? What exactly must be believe about Jesus or his teachings in order for God to throw the switch so that our "soul train" arrives at the desired destination? Should we believe in Jesus the way the Eastern Orthodox do, or the way that the Catholics do? Or which of 38,000 Protestants have the right view of Jesus that, believing in that view, enables him to save us?

 

Lastly, how does one make a literal hell believable? There's fire but no light? There's fire but nothing burns up? It's a place where the omnipresent Spirit is not present? What kind of finite sin would merit everlasting torture? And how could the God who so loves the world do such a thing?

 

I can work with the "proselytizing" of warning a neighbor that their house is on fire. I've seen what fire can do. I know it destroys homes and people's lives. It is a "real world" possibility with plenty of evidence to validate a warning.

 

I can work with the "proselytizing" of warning a person not to step in front of a moving bus. I've seen what tons of moving metal can do to a human body. The bus will win. It is a "real world" possibility with plenty of evidence to validate a warning.

 

But proselytizing about immortal souls and their possible destinations, with the warning to avoid hell and to go to heaven -- where is the "real world" evidence for the claim? Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence, and I find the evidence lacking.

[matt67]

I am not into being PC. Never have and never will be. I also never had a problem with diversity, just my own personal taste in things. As Christians, I believe that we are supposed to make preach the good news to ALL CREATION, not just the world, and reclaim our roles as stewards of the earth - as humans, not Christians.

 

Now, when I say that does anyone think I mean "proselytize" in the traditional sense? Probably. Well, I have met many Hindus, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and even someone who practices Zoroasterism (she was a beautiful Persian woman) who are better Christians than myself. All seems to have a relationship with God that taught me something. Who do I need to proselytize? The person who has no hope of redemption, who is a slave to their own sins, who don't think they're worthy, and to those who think that God doesn't love them. I have to admit that those who say they are atheists are the hardest bunch to get through because they are so angry with false ideas of a god they say they don't believe in. I agree with what the New Atheists says about alot of things, and frankly they seem more like religious fundamentalists in their outlook. I think those types need the most work to come into the light. If only we could really be the light and the salt that Jesus expects from us.

[Hornet]

And even if the formula of "believing in Jesus" is what is necessary for God to change our destination from hell to heaven, what exactly does that mean, to believe in Jesus? Is it as simple as the apostle Paul claims, just to give mental assent to Jesus' death and resurrection? Or does believing in Jesus require more, like perhaps obedience? What exactly must be believe about Jesus or his teachings in order for God to throw the switch so that our "soul train" arrives at the desired destination? Should we believe in Jesus the way the Eastern Orthodox do, or the way that the Catholics do? Or which of 38,000 Protestants have the right view of Jesus that, believing in that view, enables him to save us?

 

To believe in Jesus means to depend upon or to rely on Jesus for salvation from sin.

[NORM]

Norm, every person's case is unique. Yes, indoctrination and conditioning, called religious or otherwise, can cause psychosis. Even if begun early enough, actually permamently affect developing structures of the brain.

But it can be many different combinations, Early child abuse and severe family dysfunction, religion, social condtions, and yes, no doubt, genetics. Then, there are things like brain injuries, many subtle brain injuries are manifested in mental and psychological disorders. In my own mother's case, I can't know all the reasons and causes, but I know severe child abuse, physical, emotional, and sexual...severe crushing poverty, her father's leg was crushed by a falling load of bricks, ending his careers as a brick mason and as a Shriner circus performer, the year she was born, rendering him an invalid the rest of his life, no SS or disablity income or any kind of public assistance for the poor and needy back then, then her mother, silbings and herself spotty education and loss of childhood, as they had to become family bread winners, going through the Great Depression, and then adult life traumas i wont go into, but so much, so much, and added to, I have reasons that support, some genetics, a family history of mental illness. Then, mix in the religion, that first began in her early 30's, as between my birth and my sister's 4 yrs later, she suffered through 3 miscarriages, at home, without medical assistance, again because of poverty. Just so much working together, interacting, lots of chicken and egg cycles all going on together.

 

For what I hear you saying here, suggested reading, I think could help a lot. John Bradshaw, I'm mainly thinking, Healing the Inner Child.

 

Jenell

 

My sister actually went to counseling. They told her that what the church did to us was borderline child abuse.

 

Thanks for the recommended reading.

 

NORM

[Angel Whispers]

Many years ago I had an outside job. And when I'd be sitting on my break on occasion and reading a favorite book in the shade, strangers would ever so often come up to me and say something like; I don't know what it is, but something told me to offer you this.

And then they're proceed to offer me a little red book of the NT.

 

I remember thinking firstly, how is it you just happened to have that in your purse? As these were always women that made that offer. Followed by, how dare you presume just by the looks of me that I'm damned!

 

I'd always politely refuse and they'd gently go on their way.

 

I have a No Proselytizing sticker affixed to the door of my house just to send the message the No Trespassing sign on my driveway didn't sink in. To date I've had only one visit by two JW's, who were politely turned away. The Watchtower, gently refused.

 

I think when one considers themselves a Progressive Christian, at least speaking only for myself as is only possible, it affords a creed of respect, honor and integrity for one's self. Living the gospel, the doctrine of the Christ by example, rather than marketing it in a presumptive way that imparts the message; here, you need this else you're living your personal life in peril of being judged by my god and damned for eternity for being that imperfect human he created in his image and likeness.

 

I'm of a mind to accept inclusive Christian doctrine.That what's described in the book, "The Gospel of Inclusion". I think that when the testament says that Yeshu died so as to take away the worlds sins, then the world is redeemed as a whole. Either that or he was a miserable failure in the intent. And that all souls, born from the power of spirit, god, a higher consciousness, however one see's their relationship with the source of self, alive in the flesh and present by the energetic will of that creator of them are here delivering the message of purpose and grace manifest.

 

Because for me, imagining my creator made me to begin this life found guilty of being imperfectly human and as a consequence bearing the burden of a sin that I was anointed with because a story that imparts an unmerciful god cursed all humanity for infinity for the one mistake made in the garden by two people not possessed of the Gnosis to make an informed choice about an apple, and failing to forgive them for that one error and thus condemn with sin all who followed from their loins forever, is bunk.

 

A self-deprecating yoke, offered and affixed if one believes themselves worthy of the condemnation that they have to strive to shirk off, by believing they're now worthy of being forgiven if they only accept that sadistic torture and suicide of a god manifest in flesh, is proof the creator that set it all into motion from Genesis until now, loves them.

 

Therefore, my Proselytism is my personal life. How I comport myself in this world of strangers, family and friends. The best example of Christ like, for me, is to remember grace, humility, gentleness, love, peace, charity, righteous anger, self respect, pride, and self love. As Christ the sage of empires exampled in his life.

 

Live the doctrine. Because selling it believing everyone is in need of just it, is arrogance and elitism. And I don't see that as a testament of a god who created all that is, including the intellects that select different faiths to adhere to.

 

*edit double and missing word fix*

[GeorgeW]

Therefore, my Proselytism is my personal life. How I comport myself in this world of strangers, family and friends. The best example of Christ like, for me, is to remember grace, humility, gentleness, love, peace, charity, righteous anger, self respect, pride, and self love. As Christ the sage of empires exampled in his life.

 

"Preach the Gospel at all times; when necessary use words" - Francis of Assisi

 

George

[BillM]

My sister actually went to counseling. They told her that what the church did to us was borderline child abuse.

 

I don't doubt that, Norm. The kind of Christianity that I grew up with and which does most of its proselytizing is, imo, rooted in fear. "Be afraid, be very afraid."

 

Interestingly, Jesus' most often-repeated phrase is "Fear not" or "Don't be afraid."

 

I can't help but think that the Church could learn a thing or two from Jesus.

[NORM]

 

 

I can't help but think that the Church could learn a thing or two from Jesus.

 

Well said, my friend; well said!

 

NORM

[romanpantera]

Hello George W,

 

Your post interested me and set me thinking about when I was a new christian. I had never read a bible and had no previous knowledge of the christian faith, so everything was very new to me and I had difficulty processing the bulk of information that you get in sermons, books and teaching. Every so often we would get teaching on evanglism and witnessing, though it was never referred to as proselytising, that is what it was in the end. It was always said to us that this was an imperative and that we should all be sharing our faith.

I can remember feeling very guilty because I was quite shy and not used to talking to people just at random, even to talk with those that I knew was a struggle. I did get more confident in later years with witnessing in public, however I eventually stopped because it was more about me finding acceptance through being seen witnessing by other christians than about sharing my faith.

I now see that sharing your faith is more of a two way conversation than an act of proselytising and proclaiming Jesus to people, proselytising seems to suggest a sort of, 'bagging and tagging,' of converts to see how many you can get. After our church had done missions in other cities we used to announce how many people had converted, attended meetings or taken literature.

From my point of view conversations are more fun and more natural.

[Angel Whispers]

 

 

I can't help but think that the Church could learn a thing or two from Jesus.

Indeed. And particularly those ministers who have a fleet of private jets at their disposal. Are chauffeured around in limo's, or drive top of the line Bentley's and/or call a 10.5 million dollar mansion in a gated community, home.

[JenellYB]

To perhaps take this topic in a slightly different direction, I refer back to the original post...what if the person really does believe what they are trying to tell others, such as that they really are in danger of going to hell if they dont believe or do this or that? Don't they really have a responsiblity to try to warn, and therefore save others from that horrible fate?

 

Let's look at this from a different perspective. From that of, what if we, the target of the proselyzer, really believe they are not only wrong about that, but that their continued belief in that actually caused harm to THEM and those others they might convince to believe it? such as, little children that may be traumatized by it?

 

More thoughts later, if I don't get something done around here beside play on the internet.....

 

Jenell

[Neon Genesis]

I just don't understand why evangelical Christians feel the need to warn us about going to hell that their god intentionally created by getting us to worship the very god that started the whole thing. If hell is such a bad place that you would want to avoid it, shouldn't you run in the opposite direction of the person who created it? And if they turned out to be right and there is a hell, I'll just get myself an iron chariot since according to the book of Judges, God can lose a fight against an iron chariot.

[BillM]

To perhaps take this topic in a slightly different direction, I refer back to the original post...what if the person really does believe what they are trying to tell others, such as that they really are in danger of going to hell if they dont believe or do this or that? Don't they really have a responsiblity to try to warn, and therefore save others from that horrible fate?

 

To me, not if their warnings are based only in faith with no real world cause and effect ramifications.

 

Let's look at this from a different perspective. From that of, what if we, the target of the proselyzer, really believe they are not only wrong about that, but that their continued belief in that actually caused harm to THEM and those others they might convince to believe it? such as, little children that may be traumatized by it?

 

In my situation, it did me no good to tell them that Jesus never threatened children with hell. They held to the Pauline/Calvinistic notion of "total depravity" (citing Romans 3:23) and that children are born destined for hell until/unless they come to faith in Christ. Therefore, they had a God-given responsibility to threaten my child with hell, and my suspicion is that if I had gone the route of asking them to consider what such theology might do to children, they would have said that preaching the truth takes precedence over anything else.

 

Therefore, we left the church.

[Neon Genesis]

Let's look at this from a different perspective. From that of, what if we, the target of the proselyzer, really believe they are not only wrong about that, but that their continued belief in that actually caused harm to THEM and those others they might convince to believe it? such as, little children that may be traumatized by it?

I approach it the same way I do alcohol. I might think too much of it is dangerous and risky and not very good for you, but as long as it's not influencing them to cause physical harm to others, then I won't try to keep them from it and I won't talk about it unless they bring it up.

[JenellYB]

WS, the first part of my post you quoted above was my stating the question as I understood it at the beginning of this, not that i was stating that opinion myself, or agreeing with it.

 

 

From there, you, I know you found it did no good, and yes, I know about those Calvinisitc views of children, was raised in it myself remember? I've been there myself. BUT, if the initial statement above ,from the orginal question posted here is accepted as valid 'excuse' for their imposing it others that don't want to hear it, then I am suggesting it valid we fell the same responsibility in turn to respond in a way that argues the vailidy of their belief, on the same basis, that we beleive it really hurts them and others to hold that, whether they want to hear it or not.

 

Jenell

 

PS WS...I was raised in it, and can tell you ways that stuff can hurt chldren few people would ever think of....such as, my mother had been married/divorced, with 2 older children, before marrying my father. She "got religion" between my own birth and that of my younger sister. By then, she had learned, "been convicted of", her double "sin' of divorce from her first husband and remarriage, to my father. Which made her guilty of adultery and fornication with my father, and worse, remaining in adultery and fornication for STAYING with him! But since she also didn't by then beleive in divorce, either, she was stuck, stay with him and live in sin. she blamed him (my father) for that, thought he being raised in a "Christian" family should have "known better", that it was "wrong" to marry her.

 

Now add to that, from 1 Cor Ch 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your

CHILDREN

unclean; but now are they holy.

 

Now lets take that to the "logical conclusion: Since she "realized" her marriage to my father was invalid in the eyes of God, she an adultress and fornicator for being with him, compounded by she didn't see him as "saved", made myself and my sister therefore NOT 'clean' (old KJV uses here "Holy") children! My 2 older half brothers, being born in her first marriage,may not of been "clean"/"holy" children when bornm but became so when SHE later became a believer, even those her ex-husband, their father never did, HER being a beleiver "sanctified" him, and my brothers, BUT since her remarriage to my father was sin, neither my father nor me and my sister were "sanctified" by her faith.

 

Does this give, too, a little more insight into what i mean, when i've said i grew up with a parent in which serious mental illness was all mixed up with fanatical religion?

[Angel Whispers]

I just don't understand why evangelical Christians feel the need to warn us about going to hell that their god intentionally created by getting us to worship the very god that started the whole thing. If hell is such a bad place that you would want to avoid it, shouldn't you run in the opposite direction of the person who created it? And if they turned out to be right and there is a hell, I'll just get myself an iron chariot since according to the book of Judges, God can lose a fight against an iron chariot.

 

 

Judges 1:19 (KJV)

 

19 And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.

 

Interesting passage to reference.

 

Perhaps, as some say, the Bible is all allegory. As others have also noted, salvation asks the believer in it to save themselves from the judgment of the god that will otherwise damn them to the hell of his own creation, for not repenting of the sin he affixed to them the day they were born sinner.

So what then is worship of that god? Masochism? The adoration afforded the sadistic nature described when omniscience first creates his own adversary and then makes the first born from his image and likeness imperfect, so as to then judge them for exercising their own failings due to his free will in creating imperfect beings. And can perfection create imperfection and still hold his title?

 

All interesting questions I think. Which go even further to explain faith and aspiration.

[JenellYB]

I've found I can go in all these different directions about why they would expect anyone to believe any of it, but the place that still evades me is short of outright mental illness, they really can believe it themselves, or perhaps the greater mystery, how anyone came up with it all to begin with. Maybe if we understood that...?

 

By the time I finally tried to return to the religious/church environment well into middle age, having left it mostly behind when i left home, I had managed to convince myself that all the craziness of my mother's religion WAS just her, and her troubled mind, her mental illness. That it really wasn't like that. Until then, i really hadn't thought much of attibuting her dysfunctional thinking, so much mized up with her religion itself, but had come to think they other way around, that it was her own mental and emotional problems that had twisted it into such a mess. Thought of course, despite the fading of the years passed, the memories of others encountered that were caught up in ot too, still nagged at me.

 

i knew that my mother had not always been so messed up, quite the opposite. she had been indepenent, caring for my 2 brothers some years before remarrying, seemed to have made good choices, handled life responsibly. and people that had known her said she was really a sweet and sensible person. I of course cannot remember that, because it wasn't until after I was born that she both got religion, and started "changing" as others said of it. I know she suffered grief over the 3 miscarriages between my birth and my sisters, but its still a mystery to me what all might have been involved in that time of change. But from there, I simp[ly cannot untangle what was the religion, from what was something else.

possilbity, it doe

Maybe it really was the religion that drove her into madness. I've tried to reject that as a real possibility, that doesn't seem very rational to me. But when I did return to that environment some years ago, having at least somewhat convinced myself the craziness i remembered was how she had twisted it, I was soon hit by the reality that no, so much of it really WAS that crazy, was just as she had it 'figured out'...she really hadn't 'perverted' it that much, though some of her applications were pretty off. Though even in those, i could see much of how she might have found those things to explain other things she had to deal with. O actually came back to feeling more and more it actually WAS the religion that drove her into madness, or at least, contributed signficantly.

 

I know that a very basic problem she had was a kind of crave-reject love thing...she wanted to be loved, she wanted to love, but at the same time seemed to have such a distrust, such a determination that those she loved or that loved her were not "true", we really just after what they could get, would really betray her, were really out to get, or hurt her. And you know, both in my experience of that kind of religion, and what she and so many others in it seem to manifest, is something of that very thing.

 

To explain that, i mean, if you have that back ground, think of the music, the gentle hymns, the tender lyrics, that draw you with such a sense of tender love, the Lord's love for you, and your love for god, this beyond human celestial kind of mutual love relationship...and that forms much of the 'first' gospel one experiences there, at least for a child, Jesus loves me, jesus accepts me just as i am, Jesus will never forsake me. And then, at some point, the other shoe drops. You are worthless, wicked, sinful, doomed and damned, you are not and can never be good enough, be worthy of that love. And you are expected to continue to hold onto the one even as you are having to take hold of the other, to hold both at once. How like a typical domestic abuse relationship, whether parent/child or toward a spouse. sometimes both spouses back and forth at each other the same way?

 

My first marriage was to an abusive man that very much followed that pattern, and had a very brief relationship with a man a few years ago, that did that too. Loved me so much they adored me, couldn't live without me, i was the most wonderful and beautiful woman on Earth, would do anything for me, give me anything, then, bam! I'd be called horrible names and accused of awful things, told I was ugly and worthless and no other man would want me, told he was sick and disgusted of me, didn't want me, threatened with being thrown out on the streets with only the clothes on my back and all my belongings destroyed, bullied, threatened, even beaten in the first one, I didn't let that later one go that far, i knew enough to know what i had gotten into, got out fast. It really is enough to make your head spin, totally disorient you, especially when, like in my first early marriage, I was really just a kid myself, and had never been around open domestic abuse like that. My parents had their problems, but if anything like that went on, I never saw it.

 

and I saw in her much the same kind of "mode swings", she'd be bright and cheerul and kind and considerate, all happy with her "joy in the Lord", and then Bam! there's come the other shoe to kick her and whomever was nearby in the teeth, with religious based judgments and condemantions.

 

And that really is, if you think about it, how so much is in that kind of religion. So what's the common thread? What's the connection? I don't know. but i'm sure still chewing at it.

 

Jenell

[Angel Whispers]

Sorry to read of your mothers suffering. Perhaps back then it was what is now diagnosed as postpartum depression.

 

I too would like to know who decided to compile the Bible as it stands today and why. What was the motive, if it was indeed to be read as allegory? Given allegory was prevalent in the middle ages.

And yet, would that have been wise so as to deliver the intended orthodox scripture to the masses who in large part were already illiterate peasants attending church, having scripture read to them, and as such perhaps incapable of identifying and translating the deeper meaning of the allegorical import of the word.

 

Or, if that was under consideration during the canonization process, was it then a matter of scripture being intended to speak to the authority, the monarchy, in such a way that empowered them even more? As the inerrant words of god would then further bestow upon them the notion that they were to be the shepherds of the flock of the peasant class. As god's word was said and absorbed by the peasantry and understood as further anointment by god, who was believed to have anointed the King over them, to govern and rule them as well.

 

So maybe it was all political, as church and state were one back then. One of those, it's not us! God said it! And of course the fear paradigm implanted and witnessed in horrific scenes of hangings, guillotining, burning at the stake, depending on which part of Europe one resided in, further imparted the message as to the penalty, by god's will, for disobedience and unrighteousness.

 

Remembering, if I'm correct, that at one time during the Middle Ages, it was considered heresy to even question one iota of scripture. Thereby imparting the message, listen, obey, without question or else.

 

Maybe that was the motive behind it all. Control.

 

I was talking with a priest some years ago about this very thing and he said he believes religion came about because the human population needs order, and a bit of fear, in order to contain their otherwise carnal nature. That even if it wasn't all true, the thought that it was and that obedience unto it would garner one rewards in Heaven, acted as a salve for the suffering endured in the flesh. And appealed to the materialistic nature of the human ego across all strata of classes in thinking, no matter one's status in this life, that they'd be greatly rewarded for all that they endured in the next.

 

"Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones." Marcus Aurelius

[GeorgeW]

I too would like to know who decided to compile the Bible as it stands today and why.

 

Yes, I think this is an important question. If one makes claims about the inspiration of a text, on what basis is this claim made? So, who said so? What is their knowledge and authority? On what basis does a Christian reject the inspiration of the Qur'an? Do they apply the same methodology to the Bible?

 

The truth is we don't know. It is generally thought that the OT was canonized by a group of rabbis in Jamnia cir. 90 CE. I have read that the criterion seemed to be Jewish religious or historical literature written in Hebrew which included Ester (historical but not religious) and excluded the Apocrypha.

 

To my knowledge there is no information on exactly who canonized the NT. From what I have read, the present configuration (which varies somewhat from one denomination to another) gradually came to be accepted.

 

George

[JenellYB]

Angel, while your observations of how religion and the bible andthe church interacted withthe mass is the middle ages may ve potentially valid, the bible in the form,the canon, as we have it had been established long before that, in the earliest centuries after Jesus' life and death.

 

jenell

[JenellYB]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_New_Testament_canon

[Angel Whispers]

Not to my knowledge, Jenell. Not if we take what is considered today's "Bible" as a whole, from all books in the OT up to and including the NT.

The Septuagint, those 46 books of the Jews. Which still was not a Canonization.

And unto the New Testament. Which is when that process was undertaken to include for consideration what is todays amassed OT & NT together.

 

DEVELOPMENT OF THE BIBLICAL CANON

 

 

Timeline: The Development of the Biblical Canon )NT)

 

 

 

Of course I could be reading wrong. StrangIEr things have happened!

 

*edit as I just saw your Wiki reference/reply*

Wiki is interesting however it is easily edited by readers at their discretion. Sometimes not always for the best at that, given the number of IP's Wiki has banned due to intentional misleading information being added to entries.

I like to show non-Wiki sources that may be more credible on their face.

[Hornet]

What evidence is there for the belief of an everlasting or eternal soul or spirit? Granted, this is a long-standing belief. But so was the notion that the earth was the center of the universe and that women contributed nothing to the fetus except a womb for it to grow in. Is there any verifiable evidence that there is some component within us that is immortal, that cannot cease to exist?

 

The Bible teaches that human beings have a soul and that it will continue to exist after we die. There are philosophical arguments that show that human beings have a soul, but the fact that our souls will continue to exist after we die is only known through the Bible.

 

Three philosophical arguments that are used to prove the existence of the soul.

 

1. The Argument from Intentionality

All of us have thoughts and those thoughts are about something. For example, if you are thinking of baseball, then you are having thoughts about baseball. The idea that your thoughts are about something is called “intentionality.” In other words, your thoughts have the quality of “aboutness” and “aboutness” is called “intentionality.” Your thoughts refer to things outside of themselves. Your thoughts transcend themselves and your mind as they refer to people, places, or things. This quality of aboutness or intentionality is something that physical objects do not have. Physical objects do not refer outside themselves in the same way that thoughts do.

 

2. Mental phenomena are not identical with physical entities

There are things that are true of mental phenomena, which are not true of physical entities like neurons. Physical entities like neurons are spatially located, but one’s beliefs, thoughts, and desires are not. Physical entities have physical properties such as electrical charge, mass, volume, and so on, but mental phenomena do not have those properties. It makes no sense to say that my thought of San Francisco is two millimeters long or that it is located one millimeter away from my right ear or that it has a certain weight and smell.

 

3. The Knowledge Argument developed by Frank Jackson

Suppose there is a scientist who spends her entire life in a black and white room and she never sees color. She learns everything there is to know about how people perceive color. She learns about all of the brain states that are related with perceiving color. If she were to step out of the room and observe colorful things such as a rainbow, a multi-colored jacket, and so on would she learn something new? The answer is “Yes.” Having firsthand experience of seeing color is not identical with knowing the physiology of seeing color. One’s subjective experience of what color looks like does not have the same properties as one’s knowledge of the physiology of seeing color. If they had the same properties, then the scientist would not learn anything new upon leaving the room and seeing different colors.

 

What evidence is there for a literal heaven or hell? Of course, there are popular accounts of "My Seven Minutes in Heaven" or "My Ten Minutes in Hell" that always seem to appeal to mass audiences. But are these subjective experiences proof or evidence?

 

The fact that there is a heaven or hell is only known through the Bible.

 

Lastly, how does one make a literal hell believable? There's fire but no light? There's fire but nothing burns up? It's a place where the omnipresent Spirit is not present? What kind of finite sin would merit everlasting torture? And how could the God who so loves the world do such a thing?

 

Some evangelical Christians believe that hell is a real place, but not all of the descriptions about hell in the Bible are meant to be taken literally.

 

Evangelical Christians believe that if we saw how holy God is and how bad our sin is, then we would realize that our sin would merit everlasting punishment.

 

If people go to hell because they actually deserve it, then this would not mean that God is unloving.

[BillM]

The Bible teaches that human beings have a soul and that it will continue to exist after we die.

 

I'll grant you, Hornet, that the notion that humanity has an "immortal soul" is a long-standing tradition in Christianity, the doctrine that souls exists forevermore, that there is a part of us that can never die.

 

But what are we to make of 1 Timothy 6:16?

 

"(God) who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen." - NIV

 

If I were to go *strictly* by what the Bible says here, Paul says that God alone (not humans) is immortal (existing forevermore), doesn't it?

 

And what are we to make of references like Ezekiel 18:4,20 that say that the soul that sins shall die?

 

If humans are born with "immortal souls", how can they, according to the scriptures, die?

 

And if the Christian scriptures say that God alone is immortal, why is there a Christian doctrine that says that we are immortals?