• Hey guys I m 42 yrs old n I want to know before I die whether there is God,so what's ur answer n why?

    Best answer: I strongly don't think so. I was religious from childhood, and have always been interested in religions, mythology and science; I was a devout, practising Catholic; I read the Bible, both Old and New Testaments and the Apocrypha, several times; and was taught about it in school. After studying and thinking deeply about faith, I... show more
    Best answer: I strongly don't think so. I was religious from childhood, and have always been interested in religions, mythology and science; I was a devout, practising Catholic; I read the Bible, both Old and New Testaments and the Apocrypha, several times; and was taught about it in school. After studying and thinking deeply about faith, I realised in mid-teenage that faith was based upon nothing but itself, that science explained nature satisfactorily without needing supernatural beings, and that religious beliefs were no different to those of ancient beliefs in gods and goddesses. When I first had doubts about my faith I thought that maybe this was a test of it, which was an idea planted in my mind by those teaching us about our faith. So I made the effort to accept it even more so. But the doubts came again, and I wondered what would happen if we took faith out of the equation; the world and nature still made sense, so I saw no reason to get back into it. And my understanding is that there's no theoretical or mathematical need for a god or gods, and there's no valid evidence of it or them; so there's no reason to believe. At the time this was difficult intellectually and emotionally (I was a teenager, after all). That was nearly 50 years ago, and my escape from faith has freed me to embrace what science has to offer, which I consider far more plausible than belief in the supernatural, and is the nearest we can get to the truth about how nature and the universe work. I've felt a sense of freedom ever since, and am happy and at peace with this. And I've found the humility to admit that I don't know everything, rather than masking this by invoking a deity. I still have an interest in religions, mythology, folklore and related matters, and am fascinated that people still believe in things that to me are clearly just not true.
    24 answers · Religion & Spirituality · 2 years ago
  • Is atheism a choice, as the bible says it is?

    Best answer: I think it's very possible for someone to convince themselves of anything, or to be convinced. I think it is a choice, and it can work either way depending on reasons. I used to say that I respect peoples' religious beliefs. But now I think it's more accurate to say that I respect that they have those beliefs. I made the... show more
    Best answer: I think it's very possible for someone to convince themselves of anything, or to be convinced. I think it is a choice, and it can work either way depending on reasons. I used to say that I respect peoples' religious beliefs. But now I think it's more accurate to say that I respect that they have those beliefs. I made the choice in mid-teenage (some 45 years ago) to stop belief in God, accepting that scientific concepts explained things more satisfactorily and in more depth than religious beliefs, and that there was no need to believe in supernatural explanations that were based merely on faith. At the time this was difficult intellectually and emotionally (I was a teenager, after all), and it took a few years to come to my conclusion and make the decision that religious beliefs were based on ancient myth. So the choice wasn't as easy and quick to make as ice cream flavours or TV programmes to watch. I don't expect evidence of God's existence, because I know there isn't any, having considered the matter in some depth in my teenage. And believers wouldn't want to prove it in any case, because that would deny faith, although Paul says that faith is itself proof - "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1); this seems to be a way to convince people that faith is itself proof of what they believe in. I was religious from childhood, and have always been interested in religions, mythology and science; I was a devout, practising Catholic; I read the Bible, both Old and New Testaments and the Apocrypha, several times; and was taught about it in school. After studying and thinking deeply about faith, I realised in mid-teenage that faith was based upon nothing but itself, that science explained nature satisfactorily without needing supernatural beings, and that religious beliefs were no different to those of ancient beliefs in gods and goddesses. When I first had doubts about my faith I thought that maybe this was a test of it, which was an idea planted in my mind by those teaching us about our faith. So I made the effort to accept it even more so. But the doubts came again, and I wondered what would happen if we took faith out of the equation; the world and nature still made sense, so I saw no reason to get back into it. And my understanding is that there's no theoretical or mathematical need for a god or gods, and there's no valid evidence of it or them; so there's no reason to believe. At the time this was difficult intellectually and emotionally (I was a teenager, after all). That was over 45 years ago, and my escape from faith has freed me to embrace what science has to offer, which I consider far more plausible than belief in the supernatural, and is the nearest we can get to the truth about how nature and the universe work. I've felt a sense of freedom ever since, and am happy and at peace with this. And I've found the humility to admit that I don't know everything, rather than masking this by invoking a deity. I still have an interest in religions, mythology, folklore and related matters, and am fascinated that people still believe in things that to me are clearly just not true. I assume the Bible quote you refer to is in Romans 1, which describes God's punishment for worshipping "false" gods as making the men and women concerned gay.
    17 answers · Religion & Spirituality · 3 years ago
  • If God is omniscient, does that mean that he knows what he will do in the future at all times?

    Best answer: In Mere Christianity, the late C S Lewis explains his understanding that we experience time moment by moment, but that to God past, present and future are all one, so He experiences all times at once. Lewis claims that his view is based on Theology; it's amazing the lengths that theologians went to twist their powers of reasoning to... show more
    Best answer: In Mere Christianity, the late C S Lewis explains his understanding that we experience time moment by moment, but that to God past, present and future are all one, so He experiences all times at once. Lewis claims that his view is based on Theology; it's amazing the lengths that theologians went to twist their powers of reasoning to conclude what they intended to conclude from the start, however unreasonable that conclusion might be to someone who just follows the evidence. The Prima Mobile or Prime Mover goes back at least to 13th Century Theology, such as Summa Theologica by Tomaso Aquino (St Thomas Aquinas) who said something like everything needs a cause until you trace all causes back to the first cause that needs no cause, and we call that God. It seems to have been thought up to reflect Isaiah 57:15. To me the logic is fatally flawed - it assumes that despite all things needing a cause, there is an unexplained exception. Some also seem to have the concept that there's such a thing as "outside space and time". Whether that can be explained in objective terms seems doubtful. It also seems to be meaningless. They also seem to think that the "big bang" needed a cause outside of itself, without considering what that means in theory and mathematically or whether it actually has any real meaning. I also wonder how, if God existed eternally, He could have got around to creating things. The point of creation would have been an eternity away; so He wouldn't ever have got to it. One way to define time is by saying that it is motion through space. Before the expansion of the universe started, the dimensions of space (and some physicists think there could be as many as 11) were curved in upon themselves completely; 3 of them uncurled sufficiently for the universe to be the way that could lead to our existence. Motion and therefore time started at the Big Bang, and prof Stephen Hawking likens asking what happened before the big bang to asking what’s further north than the North Pole; the expansion mightn't have needed a cause, but if it did, that cause is part of the universe.
    10 answers · Religion & Spirituality · 2 years ago
  • God exists?

    Best answer: I strongly don't think so. I was religious from childhood, and have always been interested in religions, mythology and science; I was a devout, practising Catholic; I read the Bible, both Old and New Testaments and the Apocrypha, several times; and was taught about it in school. After studying and thinking deeply about faith, I... show more
    Best answer: I strongly don't think so. I was religious from childhood, and have always been interested in religions, mythology and science; I was a devout, practising Catholic; I read the Bible, both Old and New Testaments and the Apocrypha, several times; and was taught about it in school. After studying and thinking deeply about faith, I realised in mid-teenage that faith was based upon nothing but itself, that science explained nature satisfactorily without needing supernatural beings, and that religious beliefs were no different to those of ancient beliefs in gods and goddesses. When I first had doubts about my faith I thought that maybe this was a test of it, which was an idea planted in my mind by those teaching us about our faith. So I made the effort to accept it even more so. But the doubts came again, and I wondered what would happen if we took faith out of the equation; the world and nature still made sense, so I saw no reason to get back into it. And my understanding is that there's no theoretical or mathematical need for a god or gods, and there's no valid evidence of it or them; so there's no reason to believe. At the time this was difficult intellectually and emotionally (I was a teenager, after all). That was nearly 50 years ago, and my escape from faith has freed me to embrace what science has to offer, which I consider far more plausible than belief in the supernatural, and is the nearest we can get to the truth about how nature and the universe work. I've felt a sense of freedom ever since, and am happy and at peace with this. And I've found the humility to admit that I don't know everything, rather than masking this by invoking a deity. I still have an interest in religions, mythology, folklore and related matters, and am fascinated that people still believe in things that to me are clearly just not true.
    14 answers · Religion & Spirituality · 2 years ago
  • Christians...why is that old Serpent, who is the devil and Satan so dangerous? He's going to lose anyway, so, why get so worked up?

    Best answer: Satan was originally portrayed as under the orders of God, and testing mankind under God's direction (Book of Job). And this seems to have been his function when he tempted Jesus in the desert, but perhaps starting to be presented as an enemy. The figure became demonised by early Christians, along with the deities of other peoples... show more
    Best answer: Satan was originally portrayed as under the orders of God, and testing mankind under God's direction (Book of Job). And this seems to have been his function when he tempted Jesus in the desert, but perhaps starting to be presented as an enemy. The figure became demonised by early Christians, along with the deities of other peoples such as Ba’al Zebul (“Lord of the High Place”, corrupted to Beelzebub “Lord of the Flies” when demonised). The writer of Revelation’s identification of the Dragon with Satan and the Serpent from Eden seems contrived. The word Devil comes from Greek Diabolos and means Accuser/Advocate, as does Satan; so it's probably just a translation of Satan into Greek. They were originally different myths: Genesis 3:1: "Now the serpent was more subtile than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made." Job 1:6: "Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them." The myth of the adversary/accuser probably became fearful over time. Perhaps originally fear of being found out by someone (though mythical) whose job was to do so. It might have become more comforting, by degrees, to demonise him and turn him into an enemy rather than servant of God. And in the 1st century, Greek culture was influential, so early Christians may have conflated Satan with the Greek god Pan, which explains the goat-like image often portrayed. Jesus is quoted as reproving the Jews who don't believe that He is from God and are looking for a way to kill Him. He tells them that they aren't Abraham's or God's children: "You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies." (John 8:44). So it looks like aggression toward them, perhaps calling them liars, or even lies, themselves. Christians have for some reason identified Lucifer (Latin: Light Bearer) with Satan. Lucifer was applied to Venus as it appeared as the Morning Star. But Christians seem to see the fall of Satan in Isaiah 14:12, "How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star (Lucifer), son of Dawn! How you are cut down to the ground, you who laid the nations low!" But if you read Isaiah 14:3 onwards, you'll see that the passage is a taunt against the King of Babylon. And Ezekiel 28 is about the Prince of Tyre, not the devil or any other angel or demon. Even in a religion like Christianity, Satan is a god albeit evil. Perhaps in a similar way that in Zoroastrianism Ahura Mazda is the good god while Angra Mainyu or Ahriman is the evil god. In fact, in Christian scripture Satan is called "the god of this world (or age)" (2 Corinthians 4:4). But Christians don't like to admit that the supernatural entities in which they believe other than God are gods, goddesses or demi-gods, like angels, saints and the 3 persons of the Trinity. Some of the Gnostics believed that the Creator wasn't supreme and not fully virtuous. So there might be those who would consider a god that one branch of a religion might consider to be less than a god.
    8 answers · Religion & Spirituality · 2 years ago
  • Do we become angels when we die?

    Best answer: The synoptic gospels suggest that those selected for resurrection become like angels, and have Jesus saying: Matthew 22:30 “For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.” Mark 12:25 "Jesus said to them '....When they rise from the dead, men and women do not... show more
    Best answer: The synoptic gospels suggest that those selected for resurrection become like angels, and have Jesus saying: Matthew 22:30 “For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.” Mark 12:25 "Jesus said to them '....When they rise from the dead, men and women do not marry; they are like angels in heaven." Luke 20:34-38 "Jesus said to them 'The men and women of this world marry; but those who have been judged worthy of a place in the other world and of the resurrection of the dead, do not marry, for they are not subject to death any longer. They are like angels; they are sons of god, because they share in the resurrection."
    16 answers · Religion & Spirituality · 2 years ago
  • Did God support slavery in the Book of Leviticus?

    Best answer: Apparently so. Biblically slavery was part of the way people lived, took for granted, and believed was one of the practises ordained by God. Nowadays, of course, we are horrified by this (but only for the last 200 years). For the people who wrote the Bible, enslaving others was part of their culture. The Bible explains that conquered... show more
    Best answer: Apparently so. Biblically slavery was part of the way people lived, took for granted, and believed was one of the practises ordained by God. Nowadays, of course, we are horrified by this (but only for the last 200 years). For the people who wrote the Bible, enslaving others was part of their culture. The Bible explains that conquered peoples are to be enslaved (or just the virgins if all others are slain), other ways of enforced slavery, or people presenting themselves as slaves if they can't discharge debt. Here are just a few examples, including a couple from the New Testament: Leviticus 25:44-46, "However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way." Exodus 21:2-6, "If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever." Ephesians 6:5, "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ." 1 Timothy 2:1-2, "All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God’s name and our teaching may not be slandered. Those who have believing masters should not show them disrespect just because they are fellow believers. Instead, they should serve them even better because their masters are dear to them as fellow believers and are devoted to the welfare of their slaves." “Having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness” (Romans 6:18). “Act as free men, and do not use your freedom as a covering for evil, but use it as bondslaves of God” (1 Peter 2:16). While in prison, Paul met a runaway slave, Onesimus, the property of a Christian, presumably Philemon. He sent the slave back to his owner (Philemon 1:10-16). However, 1 Timothy 1:10 seems to go against most of the Bible and actually condemns “enslavers”.
    13 answers · Religion & Spirituality · 2 years ago
  • Is smoking a sin?

    Best answer: When I was in a Catholic school, a priest, who smoked, had come to give us a talk. One of the topics discussed was that harming yourself was a sin. I've since found what I think is the scriptural basis for this: "What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are... show more
    Best answer: When I was in a Catholic school, a priest, who smoked, had come to give us a talk. One of the topics discussed was that harming yourself was a sin. I've since found what I think is the scriptural basis for this: "What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's." (1 Corinthians 6:18-20). Someone asked the priest whether smoking is a sin. His response was that it isn't because people who smoke don't have the intention of harming themselves. That was nearly 50 years ago. Even then, I thought he was rationalising his own habit - the harm smoking does was just being publicised then. I've never smoked, and I'm a very fit 64-year-old. My sister, 18 months younger than me, did smoke and died of lung cancer about 12 years ago. Whether it's considered a sin or not, I recommend that you don't do it; or if you do that you give it up as soon as possible. Smoking kills, and in a very painful way from the inside.
    16 answers · Religion & Spirituality · 2 years ago
  • Will there be marriage in Heaven?

    Best answer: The synoptic gospels have Jesus describing Heaven, or the Kingdom of God, as a place where we won't marry: Matthew 22:30 “For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.” Mark 12:25 "Jesus said to them '....When they rise from the dead, men and women do not... show more
    Best answer: The synoptic gospels have Jesus describing Heaven, or the Kingdom of God, as a place where we won't marry: Matthew 22:30 “For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.” Mark 12:25 "Jesus said to them '....When they rise from the dead, men and women do not marry; they are like angels in heaven." Luke 20:34-38 "Jesus said to them 'The men and women of this world marry; but those who have been judged worthy of a place in the other world and of the resurrection of the dead, do not marry, for they are not subject to death any longer. They are like angels; they are sons of god, because they share in the resurrection." It seems to say that marriage and the act of making love are purely for producing children, which won't be needed where those who have been resurrected live forever.
    11 answers · Religion & Spirituality · 2 years ago
  • Have you heard about the latest scam called religion?

    Best answer: The idea that poverty and suffering is somehow good for you probably arose as a way to keep the rich and privileged where they are while making the poor and downtrodden, as well as those sent to war as "cannon fodder", accepting of their lives in the false hope of something better after death. Jesus talks about it being... show more
    Best answer: The idea that poverty and suffering is somehow good for you probably arose as a way to keep the rich and privileged where they are while making the poor and downtrodden, as well as those sent to war as "cannon fodder", accepting of their lives in the false hope of something better after death. Jesus talks about it being easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 19:24 and Mark 10:25). The story of Lazarus the beggar and the rich man (Luke 16:19-31), seems to be to help the poor become happy with their downtrodden lot in life, while the rich live in luxury, in the hope that the tables will be turned in the next life. By planting this false hope, the rich will be able to continue to enjoy the luxuries they have become accustomed to, while the poor remain willingly downtrodden. However, this isn't the way things have happened historically; the downtrodden do eventually rise up against their oppressors, either violently or by striking, or civil disobedience. Hopefully, the democracies we now have make this story outdated and enable fairer (if not fully fair) distribution of wealth and social mobility.
    7 answers · Religion & Spirituality · 2 years ago
  • If gays would apologize to Christians for trying to get married, would we at last have peaceful relations between gays and Christians?

    Best answer: There's a very uncharitable suggestion in this question. Same-sex marriage will mean that more people in our society will be able to lead happy and fulfilled lives, like the rest of us I don't accept that someone can "hate the sin but love the sinner", although I did think it made sense when I was religious. I now... show more
    Best answer: There's a very uncharitable suggestion in this question. Same-sex marriage will mean that more people in our society will be able to lead happy and fulfilled lives, like the rest of us I don't accept that someone can "hate the sin but love the sinner", although I did think it made sense when I was religious. I now think that if a believer seeks to make people feel uncomfortable, or even under threat, or deprive them of personal freedoms and human rights, that behaviour is hatred of their fellow humans, and persecution of a minority, whatever else is claimed. And I also wonder why anyone would want to be associated with beliefs that are based on a lack of compassion.
    11 answers · Religion & Spirituality · 3 years ago
  • What would you consider to be the purpuse of live for an individual human being?

    Best answer: I don't think there's any objective purpose of life. We adopt or are given our own purposes as we go through life, although we don't think of them in those terms, nor are they always planned or decided consciously. I have plenty of purpose in my life. How I live involves caring for my wife, child, parents, and extended... show more
    Best answer: I don't think there's any objective purpose of life. We adopt or are given our own purposes as we go through life, although we don't think of them in those terms, nor are they always planned or decided consciously. I have plenty of purpose in my life. How I live involves caring for my wife, child, parents, and extended family. As well as that, I have friends and acquaintances, and my job. I keep myself fit by going to the gym several times a week; I'm generally happy and get on with people, and like to think I behave towards others with compassion and mutual respect. I've been in the forces and been a scout leader. I consider myself lucky and excited at the way my personal and professional life has turned out. And the future is full of hope. I analyse problems and take whatever action is needed to avoid difficulties to me and my family, and to help others. Most, if not all, of us have the resources within our brains to cope with problems, and hope is the behaviour that drives us to work towards a good result, though not of course a guarantee; we evolved that way, and that's where encouragement, confidence, happiness and hope come from. And this applies to the grieving process, as well as the mutual support and sympathy of relatives and friends. Some project these resources onto a mythical deity or spirit; but it's us that are doing the coping really, not any outside agency. Life's an emergent property of the way natural components have interacted and come together. I don't think it's anything separate, and it doesn't carry on after death. Personality doesn't survive death; it is a function of the body; the mythical concept of the soul seems to have come from ancient Greek religion. In fact, personality doesn't even always last while the body lives. We will return to the way we were before we were conceived. And the molecules that made up our bodies will be recycled by nature. If we have children, then our genes persist in later generations. People we leave behind will be left with memories, emphasising the happy ones hopefully, once they have come through the grieving process. I've accepted that things are the way they are, and have come to terms with the reality of this quite some time ago. And I'm happy and at peace with that. Heaven and Hell, and other lands of the dead, are mythical places. So we can take comfort from knowing that we don't risk eternal torment.
    9 answers · Religion & Spirituality · 3 years ago
  • Ok i am TIRED!! should i become an ATHEIST!!? and leave my catholic religion?

    Best answer: I faced up to that problem in my teenage. I'm now in my 60s. I was religious from childhood, and have always been interested in religions, mythology and science; I was a devout, practising Catholic; I read the Bible, both Old and New Testaments and the Apocrypha, several times; and was taught about it in school. After studying and... show more
    Best answer: I faced up to that problem in my teenage. I'm now in my 60s. I was religious from childhood, and have always been interested in religions, mythology and science; I was a devout, practising Catholic; I read the Bible, both Old and New Testaments and the Apocrypha, several times; and was taught about it in school. After studying and thinking deeply about faith, I realised in mid-teenage that faith was based upon nothing but itself, that science explained nature satisfactorily without needing supernatural beings, and that religious beliefs were no different to those of ancient beliefs in gods and goddesses. When I first had doubts about my faith I thought that maybe this was a test of it, which was an idea planted in my mind by those teaching us about our faith. So I made the effort to accept it even more so. But the doubts came again, and I wondered what would happen if we took faith out of the equation; the world and nature still made sense, so I saw no reason to get back into it. And my understanding is that there's no theoretical or mathematical need for a god or gods, and there's no valid evidence of it or them; so there's no reason to believe. At the time this was difficult intellectually and emotionally (I was a teenager, after all). That was nearly 50 years ago, and my escape from faith has freed me to embrace what science has to offer, which I consider far more plausible than belief in the supernatural, and is the nearest we can get to the truth about how nature and the universe work. I've felt a sense of freedom ever since, and am happy and at peace with this. And I've found the humility to admit that I don't know everything, rather than masking this by invoking a deity. I still have an interest in religions, mythology, folklore and related matters, and am fascinated that people still believe in things that to me are clearly just not true.
    12 answers · Religion & Spirituality · 2 years ago
  • Do people really go to hell or do their sins really go to hell ?

    Best answer: The Christian idea of hell seems partly to have come from the Greek Gehenna from Hebrew Gehinnom, the valley outside Jerusalem. This became a symbol of condemnation because child sacrifices had been offered there (2 Chronicles 28:3 and 33:6). “They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings... show more
    Best answer: The Christian idea of hell seems partly to have come from the Greek Gehenna from Hebrew Gehinnom, the valley outside Jerusalem. This became a symbol of condemnation because child sacrifices had been offered there (2 Chronicles 28:3 and 33:6). “They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind: Therefore, behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that this place shall no more be called Tophet, nor The valley of the son of Hinnom, but The valley of slaughter.” (Jeremiah 19:5-6) As Sheol, hell is just lying dead in the grave, and not selected for eternal life in the new theocracy or kingdom of God. But there is also the picture of darkness and unquenchable fire (Mark 9:43/Isaiah 66:24 and Matthew 8:12). "... cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched." and " But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." And in the parable of Lazarus and the rich man, it says: "The rich man also died and was buried. In hell (Hades), where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. So he called to him, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.' (Luke 16:22-24). And there's the Lake of Fire in Revelation. Greek culture was plainly influential in the eastern Mediterranean at the time, so would have been adopted and adapted among the beliefs of the time. Apart from this there's the imaginative picture given in Dante's Inferno. The more modern re-interpretation of hell as an emotional or mental state, or the unhappiness caused by the absence of God, seems to be re-interpretation by church leaders embarrassed by the obvious mythical nature of the belief. But emotions are caused by chemical changes in the brain, as is our mental state, so after death these just won't exist. Like all myths, people re-interpret the meaning to fit in with what is believed over time, and the later beliefs are read back into older scriptures to re-interpret them in ways that the original writer or prophet could not have meant. But being myth, we know that we don’t have anything like hell to fear. Paul explains in Romans 5:12, "When Adam sinned, sin entered the world. Adam's sin brought death, so death spread to everyone, for everyone sinned." But he blames women more: "...I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety." (1 Timothy 2:9-15). The Adam and Eve story was a myth that tried to explain how death, toil and other woes came into the world and why we aren’t immortal; and like the Greek Pandora myth, a woman is blamed (and by extension, in a patriarchal society, all women).
    5 answers · Religion & Spirituality · 2 years ago
  • Do you believe in your heart that Jesus beat death?

    Best answer: That's the Christian view as I understand from my religious upbringing as a child. But Paul's epistles seem to point to the probability that Jesus' resurrection wasn't believed by all early Christians. In 1 Corinthians 15:12-15, Paul says: Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that... show more
    Best answer: That's the Christian view as I understand from my religious upbringing as a child. But Paul's epistles seem to point to the probability that Jesus' resurrection wasn't believed by all early Christians. In 1 Corinthians 15:12-15, Paul says: Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. In Romans 10:9 he says that that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. So the doctrine of the risen Christ is considered by Paul essential to the Faith and the belief in the resurrection of the dead. Rather than deny that Christ rose, and thereby deny their faith as Paul states, they strengthen their belief in it so that they can claim that their faith is true. That Paul said this implies that there were different beliefs and practises within the Way that became Christianity, even in the early days. Things have been that way ever since.
    17 answers · Religion & Spirituality · 2 years ago
  • Does Satan actually exist? I'm just wondering because People get in illuminati by signing a contract with the devil but they don't see him.?

    Best answer: No. Satan was originally portrayed as under the orders of God, and testing mankind under God's direction (Book of Job). And this seems to have been his function when he tempted Jesus in the desert, but perhaps starting to be presented as an enemy. The figure became demonised by early Christians, along with the deities of other... show more
    Best answer: No. Satan was originally portrayed as under the orders of God, and testing mankind under God's direction (Book of Job). And this seems to have been his function when he tempted Jesus in the desert, but perhaps starting to be presented as an enemy. The figure became demonised by early Christians, along with the deities of other peoples such as Ba’al Zebul (“Lord of the High Place”, corrupted to Beelzebub “Lord of the Flies” when demonised). The writer of Revelation’s identification of the Dragon with Satan and the Serpent from Eden seems contrived. The word Devil comes from Greek Diabolos and means Accuser/Advocate, as does Satan; so it's probably just a translation of Satan into Greek. They were originally different myths: Genesis 3:1: "Now the serpent was more subtile than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made." Job 1:6: "Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them." The myth of the adversary/accuser probably became fearful over time. Perhaps originally fear of being found out by someone (though mythical) whose job was to do so. It might have become more comforting, by degrees, to demonise him and turn him into an enemy rather than servant of God. And in the 1st century, Greek culture was influential, so early Christians may have conflated Satan with the Greek god Pan, which explains the goat-like image often portrayed. Jesus is quoted as reproving the Jews who don't believe that He is from God and are looking for a way to kill Him. He tells them that they aren't Abraham's or God's children: "You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies." (John 8:44). So it looks like aggression toward them, perhaps calling them liars, or even lies, themselves. Christians have for some reason identified Lucifer (Latin: Light Bearer) with Satan. Lucifer was applied to Venus as it appeared as the Morning Star. But Christians seem to see the fall of Satan in Isaiah 14:12, "How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star (Lucifer), son of Dawn! How you are cut down to the ground, you who laid the nations low!" But if you read Isaiah 14:3 onwards, you'll see that the passage is a taunt against the King of Babylon. And Ezekiel 28 is about the Prince of Tyre, not the devil or any other angel or demon. Even in a religion like Christianity, Satan is a god albeit evil. Perhaps in a similar way that in Zoroastrianism Ahura Mazda is the good god while Angra Mainyu or Ahriman is the evil god. In fact, in Christian scripture Satan is called "the god of this world (or age)" (2 Corinthians 4:4). But Christians don't like to admit that the supernatural entities in which they believe other than God are gods, goddesses or demi-gods, like angels, saints and the 3 persons of the Trinity. Some of the Gnostics believed that the Creator wasn't supreme and not fully virtuous. So there might be those who would consider a god that one branch of a religion might consider to be less than a god.
    9 answers · Religion & Spirituality · 2 years ago
  • Doesn't the billboard near my home claiming "There is evidence for God" shed a doubt just by its needing to be stated?

    Best answer: And I bet it doesn't say what or where that evidence is... I don't require evidence of God's existence, because I know there isn't any, having considered the matter in some depth in my teenage. And believers wouldn't want to prove it in any case, because that would deny faith, although Paul says that faith is itself... show more
    Best answer: And I bet it doesn't say what or where that evidence is... I don't require evidence of God's existence, because I know there isn't any, having considered the matter in some depth in my teenage. And believers wouldn't want to prove it in any case, because that would deny faith, although Paul says that faith is itself proof - "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1); this seems to be a way to convince people that faith is itself proof of what they believe in. I also don't agree with him that "that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse" (Romans 1:19-20). This seems to work only for people who believe, and is a flawed way to confirm their belief. I was religious from childhood, and have always been interested in religions, mythology and science; I was a devout, practising Catholic; I read the Bible, both Old and New Testaments and the Apocrypha, several times; and was taught about it in school. After studying and thinking deeply about faith, I realised in mid-teenage that faith was based upon nothing but itself, that science explained nature satisfactorily without needing supernatural beings, and that religious beliefs were no different to those of ancient beliefs in gods and goddesses. When I first had doubts about my faith I thought that maybe this was a test of it, which was an idea planted in my mind by those teaching us about our faith. So I made the effort to accept it even more so. But the doubts came again, and I wondered what would happen if we took faith out of the equation; the world and nature still made sense, so I saw no reason to get back into it. And my understanding is that there's no theoretical or mathematical need for a god or gods, and there's no valid evidence of it or them; so there's no reason to believe. At the time this was difficult intellectually and emotionally (I was a teenager, after all). That was nearly 50 years ago, and my escape from faith has freed me to embrace what science has to offer, which I consider far more plausible than belief in the supernatural, and is the nearest we can get to the truth about how nature and the universe work. I've felt a sense of freedom ever since, and am happy and at peace with this. And I've found the humility to admit that I don't know everything, rather than masking this by invoking a deity. I still have an interest in religions, mythology, folklore and related matters, and am fascinated that people still believe in things that to me are clearly just not true.
    7 answers · Religion & Spirituality · 2 years ago
  • Atheist, do we even look like a chimpanzee ?

    Best answer: We and other primates are modern animals. We descended, branched off, from a common ancestor; and there will have been many such branchings of species - some of which will have survived and some will have become extinct - eventually resulting in humans, monkeys and other primates, and other classes. We're all still here because... show more
    Best answer: We and other primates are modern animals. We descended, branched off, from a common ancestor; and there will have been many such branchings of species - some of which will have survived and some will have become extinct - eventually resulting in humans, monkeys and other primates, and other classes. We're all still here because we've all survived so far - who knows whether we'll be able to adapt and continue to survive if the world changes beyond our ability to adapt, in a million years or less or more.
    8 answers · Religion & Spirituality · 2 years ago
  • Don't you feel a WARM,PLEASANT SENSATION inside when you think that all the SINNERS, ATHEIST and UNFAITHFUL HERETICS will BURN IN HELL?

    Best answer: At least someone seems to be getting some benefit from the belief. :) The Christian idea of hell seems partly to have come from the Greek Gehenna from Hebrew Gehinnom, the valley outside Jerusalem. This became a symbol of condemnation because child sacrifices had been offered there (2 Chronicles 28:3 and 33:6). “They have built also... show more
    Best answer: At least someone seems to be getting some benefit from the belief. :) The Christian idea of hell seems partly to have come from the Greek Gehenna from Hebrew Gehinnom, the valley outside Jerusalem. This became a symbol of condemnation because child sacrifices had been offered there (2 Chronicles 28:3 and 33:6). “They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind: Therefore, behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that this place shall no more be called Tophet, nor The valley of the son of Hinnom, but The valley of slaughter.” (Jeremiah 19:5-6) As Sheol, hell is just lying dead in the grave, and not selected for eternal life in the new theocracy or kingdom of God. But there is also the picture of darkness and unquenchable fire (Mark 9:43/Isaiah 66:24 and Matthew 8:12). "... cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched." and " But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." And in the parable of Lazarus and the rich man, it says: "The rich man also died and was buried. In hell (Hades), where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. So he called to him, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.' (Luke 16:22-24). And there's the Lake of Fire in Revelation. Greek culture was plainly influential in the eastern Mediterranean at the time, so would have been adopted and adapted among the beliefs of the time. Apart from this there's the imaginative picture given in Dante's Inferno. The more modern re-interpretation of hell as an emotional or mental state, or the unhappiness caused by the absence of God, seems to be re-interpretation by church leaders embarrassed by the obvious mythical nature of the belief. But emotions are caused by chemical changes in the brain, as is our mental state, so after death these just won't exist. Like all myths, people re-interpret the meaning to fit in with what is believed over time, and the later beliefs are read back into older scriptures to re-interpret them in ways that the original writer or prophet could not have meant. But being myth, we know that we don’t have anything like hell to fear.
    11 answers · Religion & Spirituality · 2 years ago
  • Will I be with the woman I love in the Other World?

    Best answer: Not according to the synoptic gospels. After answering a question about divorce and remarriage with "What God has put together let no man put asunder",, the synoptic gospels have Jesus describing Heaven, or the Kingdom of God, as a place where we won't marry: Matthew 22:30 “For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor... show more
    Best answer: Not according to the synoptic gospels. After answering a question about divorce and remarriage with "What God has put together let no man put asunder",, the synoptic gospels have Jesus describing Heaven, or the Kingdom of God, as a place where we won't marry: Matthew 22:30 “For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.” Mark 12:25 "Jesus said to them '....When they rise from the dead, men and women do not marry; they are like angels in heaven." Luke 20:34-38 "Jesus said to them 'The men and women of this world marry; but those who have been judged worthy of a place in the other world and of the resurrection of the dead, do not marry, for they are not subject to death any longer. They are like angels; they are sons of god, because they share in the resurrection." It seems to say that marriage and the act of making love are purely for producing children, which won't be needed where those who have been resurrected live forever.
    11 answers · Religion & Spirituality · 2 years ago