Jump to content

Are you going to hell?

bolverk

By bolverk
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

ndawg

ndawg 1,242

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Bat Guano said:

If it really bothers you, there's an app for that. No, seriously: https://www.wecroak.com/

All it does is remind you, 5 times a day at random times, that you're going to die. Then there's a pithy quote about death, or how to properly value your life while you have it, or some such semi-uplifting claptrap (actually some of them are pretty good). It's based on the Bhutanese idea that you should contemplate death 5 times a day. I thought it was silly at first, but after a few days it sort of worms its way into your brain, and really helps reconcile you to the idea that you're going to die, there's not a damn thing you can do about it, so you might as well get used to it. It probably won't be as bad as you think, either. If you're really as bothered by the concept of death as your post indicates, I think it would help.

No doubt, I agree with you about confronting death regularly. I do it too, but I still get freaked out by it from time to time.

I was just responding to someone who suggested that the faithful are the only ones that fear death, or that their faith is a just a tool to stave of the fear of death because they're weak. We're all weak piles of matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JBJ

JBJ 3,721

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, BrickHorn said:

Jesus was a myth from the get-go.  Just read the earliest Christian writing we have, Paul’s First Letter to the Corinthians.  He really knows nothing about Jesus’s supposed life and his whole argument that Jesus rose from the dead is “Well if he didn’t, then why are we even Christian?”  Not very persuasive logic.

1 Thessalonians is thought to be written first, but those two are written in a tight time frame, so whatever.

You don't hear a story on Jesus's life because the conversation we are having now would be utter nonsense to people who saw him and heard about him.  The idea that he didn't exist would been seen as silly.  As much as us arguing over whether James Street is real or what he did.  Plenty of us saw him, those that didn't have heard about him from many sources and accept his existence as fact.  There was no debate back then.

And you are misrepresenting chapter 15: The argument is that if there is no life after death, then Jesus rising from the dead is nonsense.  Death would be final.  And that they are also ignoring Jesus's teachings.  One can't be both a Christian and not believe in life after death.  He is dispelling a belief that this particular group had.

I doubt even atheists would disagree on the logic, they just stand on the other side of the fence.

Edited by JBJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhatTheBuck

WhatTheBuck 28,852

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, JBJ said:

Why do you think this?  The only one not alive during the same time frame would have been whoever wrote John.

Most biblical scholars agree. At least the ones motivated by scholarship and not theology. If you google who wrote the gospels and when they were written you'll find a lot of consensus. And some religious sites that peddle the 'it's in the bible so it must be true' interpretation. 

Bart Ehrnan is a professor of religious studies at UNC and has written a lot of books, only two of which I've read. He wrote a very good introduction to the 'science' (not an exact science) of textual criticism for the layperson. You have to remember that these were oral traditions passed along for generations before they were ever written down. They weren't started by one man writing his thoughts on a tablet or scroll. 

content?id=xmJjSUiJtuQC&pg=PP1&img=1&zoo

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhatTheBuck

WhatTheBuck 28,852

Posted
Posted
22 minutes ago, JBJ said:

You don't hear a story on Jesus's life because the conversation we are having now would be utter nonsense to people who saw him and heard about him.  The idea that he didn't exist would been seen as silly. 

What the fuck are you talking about? That makes no sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JBJ

JBJ 3,721

Posted
Posted

I've read that one and one other of his books.  I disagree that he is not motivated by theology.  His method is to focus on the physical historical manuscripts.  In that manner he is like the anti-McDowell. In my opinion, both are fair while presenting the same evidence in their own cases (which usually are overstated by others).  I've heard both Ehrman and Sean McDowell (Josh's son) speak, both are quite aware of their own faults and self-critique more in person than in their books.

It's also outdated despite even it's recent publication.  It's very likely that we've discovered a first century manuscript of Matthew since then along with half of the new testament in the second.  One of Ehrman's main thrusts was that the works signifcantly changed after they were originally written but before we have written copies (ironically, an argument of the gaps).  As the gaps are filling in and earlier manuscripts are salvaged, the evidence is lacking.

Historical manuscripts aren't the main method of dating, though.  They only give evidence for literary dating.  For example, if I read a critique of Mack Brown's coaching ability.  I can determine within itself when it is written.  If the author says he can't win a big game, I say it was written prior to 2005.  If the author says he can't develop an O-line, it is after 2007.  If he is mentioned as a commentator it's very recent.

The consensus always has been the same: that Mark was being written around Peter's execution and during the First Judeo-Roman War (to Romans), that Matthew was being written during the First Judeo-Roman War but after Mark (to Jews) and completed after the destruction of the Jewish temple,  and that Luke was written in response to Paul's sentencing or eventual execution (but after Mark).  They've always been thought to be written there because the works date themselves there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JBJ

JBJ 3,721

Posted
Posted (edited)
46 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

It’s the same reason there’s no such thing as a biography.  It’s silly to talk about an important person’s life.  

It's silly to want a discussion on the economics of slavery to be a biography of Lincoln.

Edited by JBJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RollLeft

RollLeft 5,053

Posted
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, BrickHorn said:

For those of you who don’t believe in Hell, I ask the following: if there is no Hell, where do you propose Satan lives?  And where do you think Jesus spent the three days between His death and resurrection, if not the fiery underworld of Hell?

 

Well, thats easy.  The Man said it Himself, on the cross to the Barabas in Luke 23, "today you will be with me in Paradise" and earlier to His disciples in Luke 16, "...man died and went to the bosom of Abraham in Hades."  Given those two portions, according to the Bible and Jesus Himself, when we die we go to Hades.  In Hades there is both paradise and a place of regret, again, not my opinion, just an answer based upon the text. 

What happens later and with everyone else is another story.  The Hell or Heaven story is misunderstood by even most Christians, sorry to say.  

To the OP, sorry man, not that my opinion is anything but for what its worth i don't believe you will go to hell.  Like someone else stated, Calvin has damaged many good people and their families.  We'll all see in the end, i believe at least that.

Edited by RollLeft
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BrickHorn

BrickHorn 18,333

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, JBJ said:

It's silly to want a discussion on the economics of slavery to be a biography of Lincoln.

That’s a really poor analogy.  The economics of slavery is not a religion, and its principles are not derived from the life and acts of Abe Lincoln.  

Christians worship Jesus Christ as god.   His every word and every act are considered sacred.  He was literally God on Earth in their view.  To say his biography is irrelevant to a discussion of Christian doctrine, principles, or behavior is ludicrous.  The fact that God walked on earth, and the shit He purportedly did here,  is the whole fucking point of the religion.   When a guy like Paul is writing to persuade other Christians about how to behave, the single most important evidence he should be citing would be the acts and words of Jesus.  The guy who supposedly founded the Church that bore his name some 20 years prior.  

But Paul doesn’t say dick about it, even when Jesus’s own teachings would be directly on point.  Paul never says “Hey, as you all know, God was actually here a few years ago, and He said to do X.  So fucking do X like God told you.”  The only thing that even approaches that type of argument is his discussion of the Lord’s supper, which reads like a myth.  And which Paul claims he received directly from Jesus.  Since he admits he never met Jesus in real life, he is clearly claiming a revelation from a supernatural Lord (not a real dude).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bolverk

bolverk 29,847

Posted
  • Author
Posted
4 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

But that’s definitely how mama bolverk sees you

There's no doubt they see me as the lost black sheep of the family who's "too smart for his own britches" which I heard a lot growing up.

That isn't saying much considering my family. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
F250

F250 28,991

Posted
Posted
23 minutes ago, El Diablo said:

Sorry I'm late, I've been really, really busy this week. What was the question?

Would you like to make 300k a year working in your pajamas in the comfort of your own home?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...