I have a theological question

[Sebastian Flyte]

As I understand it - Catholics believe that doing good works gets you into heaven & protestants that faith gets you into heaven. In that case, what happens to a protestant who doesn't believe but does good works & lives like a monk?

[tiger_rascal]

Would that really be a protestant?

[gggggg]

if you don't believe in heaven, how could you possibly go there? if you don't believe in hell, how could you possibly go there?

if that person didn't believe, then i'm sure he wouldn't worry about heaven or hell... and just do what makes that person happy... I expect anybody of any faith will give you a different answer to this "theological question"

[tiger_rascal]

Just because you dont believe in a place does not mean it does not exist. ;)

[Sebastian Flyte]

Originally posted by tiger_rascal
Would that really be a protestant?


I meant in the sense of being baptised a protestant

[gggggg]

Originally posted by tiger_rascal
Just because you dont believe in a place does not mean it does not exist. ;)

which is where the word "faith" comes into the equation, I would think...

I find it hard to believe that you can even GO to Heaven or Hell if you don't subscribe to that particular way of thinking...

maybe when you die, you go where you want to go...

[Sebastian Flyte]

Originally posted by tiger_rascal
Just because you dont believe in a place does not mean it does not exist. ;)


Thats another interesting question - if I don't believe in hell, is there no chance of me going there? Its like the question - if a tree falls down in a forest but no one hears it then does it make a sound?

[tiger_rascal]

Its all titles to me, really.

I believe in Jesus, some call me a Christian. I say, call me what you like, its more important for me to have a personal relationship with my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

[bekahbeans]

being baptised Protestant means nothing unless it's in your heart. You have to believe it for yourself or it does no good.

If you don't believe that I exist and that I live in MI, it doesn't make the fact that I do any less true.

[gggggg]

but I know you exist...

if I never heard of you, then it wouldn't even cross my mind whether you existed or not...


which is a slight difference when talking about Heaven or Hell... because then you're in the area where you have to pick which religion is the right one... ;)

[tiger_rascal]

Just because a human is not there to here it does not mean it does not make a sound. There are creatures that live in the forest. I would imagine the sound of the tree falling would carry rather far.

As for the other question, some of us take that on faith, but no one can really prove it, and it doesnt have to be proven.

[Sebastian Flyte]

Can something really exist without it being percieved? I mean I know that my computer exists because I can see it. I know that Italy exists, even though I've never been there, because I've percieved maps etc. But no one alive has percieved heaven or hell.

[tiger_rascal]

If you can use maps to percieve Italy, I can use the Bible to percieve Heaven. ;)

[Earl Purple]

i before e except after c, therefore it's perceived.

Anyway: Cheilek, opening Mishnah lists categories of people who do not get a share in the world to come, and one of those is people who deny its existence.

[Sebastian Flyte]

I don't 'deny its existance' - I simply don't know. What happens to the 'don't knows'?

[butterfly]

I believe you can go to Heaven if you don't believe in God, because God will forgive you for not believing. I mean, if I can forgive you for not believing, God can! ;) I did read somewhere that non-believers would be saved if they were prayed for by the righteous, so I prayed for you Adam, and all the atheists I know! OK, I'm not that righteous, but anyway... I kind of feel sad for you because I hated being an atheist, although maybe you're OK with it. I've never really understood how anyone can be OK with it, but I know some people are.

I don't hold with all this Protestant/Catholic thing, if religion is to mean anything, then all religions are the same, just different ways of looking at the same thing. I'm technically a Protestant, Lauren is a practising Catholic, we agree that we believe in the same God. I'd never be a Catholic, because I don't want to have to deal with middlemen. If I'm going to confess something, I'll talk to God one to one, not through some middleman in a booth. Seems a bit creepy to me.

[bekahbeans]

I suppose that depends on if it really exists. If it doesn't, then I would say nothing, if it does then you either go to heaven or hell.

Just because someone believes something doesn't mean it will just come into existance, just as if it does exist, one can't just disbelieve it away.

No one can really prove the existance of heaven or hell, we can only go on faith and by documents such as the Bible (which of course one has to choose to believe as well).

[Julie2]

Originally posted by Sebastian Flyte
Thats another interesting question - if I don't believe in hell, is there no chance of me going there? Its like the question - if a tree falls down in a forest but no one hears it then does it make a sound?

Truth is truth. It is not dependent on how many people believe in it.

[Julie2]

Originally posted by Sebastian Flyte
As I understand it - Catholics believe that doing good works gets you into heaven & protestants that faith gets you into heaven. In that case, what happens to a protestant who doesn't believe but does good works & lives like a monk?

Catholic or Protestant, it doesn't matter what a person might call his or herself. What matters is who they believe Jesus is. If Jesus is the Lord and Savior of your life, then good works will naturally follow (doesn't mean you'll not sin anymore though), but those good works don't count for anything to get into heaven. A changed life, seen by the good deeds which follow salvation, are a good indication that someone IS saved, but they won't MAKE someone saved.

"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God--not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do." EPHESIANS 2:8-10

"What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, 'Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,' but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. But someone will say, 'You have faith; I have deeds.' Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do. You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that--and shudder." JAMES 2:14-19

[DoubleEdgeSword]

Originally posted by Julie2
Truth is truth. It is not dependent on how many people believe in it.

Truth is subjective, and its perceived value directly correlates with who and how many people believe it.

[Julie2]

Originally posted by DoubleEdgeSword
Truth is subjective, and its perceived value directly correlates with who and how many people believe it.

"Truth is subjective." This is an absolute statement implying truth is absolutely subjective. Suppose your statement is true.
Everything including your statement would be subjective. If a statement is subjective, it is not always true. If "truth is subjective" is not always true, sometimes truth is not subjective. This means there are absolutes, which means the above statement is false.

[Mattio]

Originally posted by Julie2
"Truth is subjective." This is an absolute statement implying truth is absolutely subjective. Suppose your statement is true.
Everything including your statement would be subjective. If a statement is subjective, it is not always true. If "truth is subjective" is not always true, sometimes truth is not subjective. This means there are absolutes, which means the above statement is false.

:manson:

And Back To The Future couldn't really happen.

[pinky]

Some "truths" are quite objective, regardless of how many people accept them.

As an example, you may not believe that gravity exists. So you jump from a 100-story building, believing you will not get hurt. For 99 stories, you seem to be correct. But one story later, the TRUTH becomes obvious.

Denial of something doesn't make it false. It only makes it denied.

[Julie2]

Originally posted by oxymoron

After all, what do you even mean when you speak of "truth?"

You are merely trying to force truth into the structure of human language. That is kinda scary if you ask me. It could even be thought of as a human attempt to steal the truth from God.


No, not stealing the truth from God. Merely acknowledging what truth really is.

"Jesus answered, 'I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.' " JOHN 14:6

That's the truth I'm speaking of. All else matters not.

[oldernow]

To say there are no absolutes is a contradictory statement, because it itself expresses an absolute.

[Julie2]

Originally posted by oxymoron
Your whole discussion is regarding the nature and structure of language. It says nothing to us about the outside world. Any absolute depends upon a premise. You will have no way of establishing an originary premise that is not arbitrary. Consequently, the whole foundation of the thought structure you just utilized--while common--is not absolute. In fact, dialectical logic would suggest that something can both be and not be.

You are playing a game that merely shows the limitation of human language. It is language that must speak in terms of absolutes. That says nothing about "truth." Except, of course, that truth is a linguistic concept in the first place. After all, what do you even mean when you speak of "truth?"

You are merely trying to force truth into the structure of human language. That is kinda scary if you ask me. It could even be thought of as a human attempt to steal the truth from God.

"Whereof that which we should not speak. Thereof we should remain silent."
--Ludwig Wittgenstein

"It is impossible that contrary attributes should belong at the same time to the same subject." ARISTOTLE in "Metaphysics"

The Law of Noncontradiction states: "A cannot be A and non-A at the same time and in the same sense."

[DoubleEdgeSword]

Originally posted by Julie2

"Jesus answered, 'I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.' " JOHN 14:6

That's the truth I'm speaking of. All else matters not.

That is your truth, not mine. You are talking about faith, not truth.

[leoslave]

well well well... things are completely different when we die than the way we try to analize...

[Mattio]

Originally posted by Julie2
"It is impossible that contrary attributes should belong at the same time to the same subject." ARISTOTLE in "Metaphysics"
Aristotle never studied quantum physics, OBVIOUSLY.

Theories suggest that EVERYTHING is in multiple states until it is measured at which point it goes one way or the other.

[DoubleEdgeSword]

Originally posted by Mattio
Aristotle never studied quantum physics, OBVIOUSLY.

Theories suggest that EVERYTHING is in multiple states until it is measured at which point it goes one way or the other.

That's what is so fascinating about quantum physics, that energy can be a particle or a wave depending on who views it. Wow. That just blows me away. Gives a whole new meaning to the old saying, "We create our own reality."

[Mattio]

The thing that really really messes with my head is the speed of light being the same no matter how you observe it.

[Julie2]

Originally posted by Mattio
Aristotle never studied quantum physics, OBVIOUSLY.

Theories suggest that EVERYTHING is in multiple states until it is measured at which point it goes one way or the other.

I'm not going to begin to pretend that I can argue quantum physics with you. My degree is in Elementary Education, so if you'd like to talk about something in that age range, I'm with you! LOL

I do want to point out to you a Christian site that is headed by scientists that you may be interested in however. They do address quantum mechanics, and maybe they will give you some insight into why the Christian view is a logical one. I know that if you were to contact them, they would love to dialogue with you through email. We've been getting their newsletter for several years, and I have a couple of Dr. Ross's books, but I won't pretend to you that I've read them yet. My husband, who is much more scientifically minded did.

Anyway, here is the site. Take a look and see if they can answer any of your questions.


http://www.origins.org/articles/ross_modgoliath.html

http://www.reasons.org/index.shtml

http://www.origins.org/index.html

[Mattio]

I will look later maybe tomorrow - I've got far too much of my own work to do right now!

[DoubleEdgeSword]

Originally posted by Julie2
I'm not going to begin to pretend that I can argue quantum physics with you. My degree is in Elementary Education, so if you'd like to talk about something in that age range, I'm with you! LOL

I do want to point out to you a Christian site that is headed by scientists that you may be interested in however. They do address quantum mechanics, and maybe they will give you some insight into why the Christian view is a logical one. I know that if you were to contact them, they would love to dialogue with you through email. We've been getting their newsletter for several years, and I have a couple of Dr. Ross's books, but I won't pretend to you that I've read them yet. My husband, who is much more scientifically minded did.

Anyway, here is the site. Take a look and see if they can answer any of your questions.


http://www.origins.org/articles/ross_modgoliath.html

http://www.reasons.org/index.shtml

http://www.origins.org/index.html

Okay, I read some of Ross's work. And while I agree that there are seeming inconsistencies in quantum mechanices, he deduces that those inconsistencies prove the Christian creation theory. His logic is flawed. First, he is making the assumption that God exists. This is not proven. Secondly, if the inconsistencies point to another theory of creation, which I'm not convinced by his writing that it does, then the other theory could just as well be the Chinese creation theory of a dragon creating man, if one were to believe that the dragon exists.

[Julie2]

Originally posted by DoubleEdgeSword
Okay, I read some of Ross's work. And while I agree that there are seeming inconsistencies in quantum mechanices, he deduces that those inconsistencies prove the Christian creation theory. His logic is flawed. First, he is making the assumption that God exists. This is not proven. Secondly, if the inconsistencies point to another theory of creation, which I'm not convinced by his writing that it does, then the other theory could just as well be the Chinese creation theory of a dragon creating man, if one were to believe that the dragon exists.

The opposite position would be that God DOESN'T exist, and THAT hasn't been proven either. In my opinion there is much more evidence that points to a creator than not. Once a person is convinced of a creator, then the next step is to establish who that creator is. There are a lot of publications out there to that end.

[DoubleEdgeSword]

Yes, I agree absolutely. His premise is that if A does not equal B, then A must equal C. That's just not logical. If A does not equal B, then A equals X where X is the unknown.

I hope that made sense. lol

What I'm saying is that you cannot prove a negative. You cannot say that there is no proof God doesn't exist, so he must exist, and vice versa. But he is operating under the first assumption, God does exist. That makes the rest of his argument illogical.

[tiger_rascal]

I found this at the first link to be rather interesting.

The first such scientific breakthrough arose from Einstein's theory of general relativity. Subtracting one set of his famous field equations from the other yielded the surprising result that everything in the universe is simultaneously expanding and decelerating. The only physical phenomenon satisfying simultaneous expansion and deceleration is an explosion. But, if the universe is the aftermath of an explosion, then sometime in the past it must have had a beginning. If it had a beginning, then there must be a Beginner.

Einstein's own world view initially kept him from adopting such a conclusion. Rather he proposed a new force of physics that would perfectly cancel out the deceleration and expansion induced by gravity. However, Edwin Hubble soon proved that the galaxies indeed were expanding away from one another in the manner predicted by Einstein's original formulation of general relativity. Confronted with this, Einstein gave grudging acceptance to "the necessity for a beginning,"1 and to "the presence of a superior reasoning power. "2

[tiger_rascal]

Assumptions must be made in theories. Many theories hold things that we cant prove. Both religion and science play on faith. Science tries to prove their faith, whereas religion does not need proof to back up their faith.

[Mattio]

To suggest the universe requires a creator also requires a creator for that creator.

Science, practically, disproves things so as to allow a high probability for its theories.

[DoubleEdgeSword]

Originally posted by tiger_rascal
Assumptions must be made in theories. Many theories hold things that we cant prove. Both religion and science play on faith. Science tries to prove their faith, whereas religion does not need proof to back up their faith.

I'm not sure what you mean, Chad. A scientific hypothesis does not rely on faith. A susposition or propostion is made without assuming its truth and then is logically proven or disproven.

Yes, you can begin with "God exists," and try to prove or disprove that statemtent through scientific method. What you cannot do is assume that "God exists" is a truth and then negate another argument based on that assumption. You cannot say that because there may be inconsistencies in quantum physics that proves that God created the universe. First, prove to me that God exists, then show me how quantum physics proves that he created the universe.

Ptolomy made many observations about our planetary system based on his "truth" that the earth was the center of the system. Then Copernicus came along and said.. well, wait a minute. Your premise is wrong. The earth is not the center, therefore the rest of your evidence is wrong. When someone can show me that God does indeed exist, then I will consider any argument that may follow.

[butterfly]

Originally posted by Mattio
To suggest the universe requires a creator also requires a creator for that creator.

And a creator for the creator's creator, right?

The thing is, if God is powerful enough to create the universe, He could create Himself. He exists outside time. He is existence itself.

[dramaqueen]

Catholic or Protestant, it doesn't matter what a person might call his or herself. What matters is who they believe Jesus is. If Jesus is the Lord and Savior of your life, then good works will naturally follow (doesn't mean you'll not sin anymore though), but those good works don't count for anything to get into heaven. A changed life, seen by the good deeds which follow salvation, are a good indication that someone IS saved, but they won't MAKE someone saved.

"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God--not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do." EPHESIANS 2:8-10

"What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, 'Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,' but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. But someone will say, 'You have faith; I have deeds.' Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do. You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that--and shudder." JAMES 2:14-19

That is exactly what we as Catholics believe.
It is a common misconception that Catholics belive in the saving power of good works. We do not. We belive that Jesus saves and as a result of that mercy and grace we are called to live a particular way.

[BrianWilly]

Denial of something doesn't make it false. It only makes it denied.To say there are no absolutes is a contradictory statement, because it itself expresses an absolute.I agree with these two statements.

If Heaven and Hell do actually exist, not believing in them or not knowing about them is not going to prevent you from not going there, assuming that after life you have no other path than to go to either. If you were on a plane going to a country that you've never heard of, does the plane magically take you somewhere else simply because you don't know about this country? 'Course not.

All this is based on a large frame of assumptions, of course: assuming that these places exist, assuming that they're the predetermined destinations in death, assuming that the guidelines for going to both are predetermined, and also assuming that God, assuming he exists, wouldn't change these guidelines according to his own plans. Assumingly. Ergo. In referendum. Gwohta.

As I've said before: Science doesn't negate the existence of God, or gods, or any creator force in any religion you can think of. It couldn't; none of those things have been grounded in scientific logic in the first place.
What science -- not to mention social studies -- does do is to negate the literalistic, austere, precise, fantastic, follow-the-Bible/Koran/Torah/BookofShadows-word-for-word-as-history interpretation of God, gods, and creator forces.

[oxymoron]

"It is impossible that contrary attributes should belong at the same time to the same subject." ARISTOTLE in "Metaphysics"

The Law of Noncontradiction states: "A cannot be A and non-A at the same time and in the same sense."


Obviously, you have never read Hegel.

[Java]

I found this at the first link to be rather interesting.

The first such scientific breakthrough arose from Einstein's theory of general relativity. Subtracting one set of his famous field equations from the other yielded the surprising result that everything in the universe is simultaneously expanding and decelerating. The only physical phenomenon satisfying simultaneous expansion and deceleration is an explosion. But, if the universe is the aftermath of an explosion, then sometime in the past it must have had a beginning. If it had a beginning, then there must be a Beginner.

Einstein's own world view initially kept him from adopting such a conclusion. Rather he proposed a new force of physics that would perfectly cancel out the deceleration and expansion induced by gravity. However, Edwin Hubble soon proved that the galaxies indeed were expanding away from one another in the manner predicted by Einstein's original formulation of general relativity. Confronted with this, Einstein gave grudging acceptance to "the necessity for a beginning,"1 and to "the presence of a superior reasoning power. "2I find it odd that I somehow completely missed this thread in the past... Anyhow, it's actually been discovered lately that the universe is expanding and this expansion is accelerating to the surprise of many scientists. What they don't say is whether this acceleration is proportional or exponential, because if its exponential we could suddenly find ourselves in a heap of trouble once the light from far off sources as well as closeby all at once seems to suddenly quit as if *POOF!* like stretched away from behind in all directions only to be seen all at once everywhere as a sudden end where the Hubble horizon seems to suddenly become something more like an up close and personal event horizon... even the observers and the box surrounding Schrödinger's Cat would suddenly be ripped away and out of existance (relative to the cat) making this to be a really spooky thought experiment!

[05Ivory]

There either is or isn't a heaven. There is or isn't a hell.

It doesn't change because of what people personally believe.

For example, people can say they don't think there's a sun. But it doesn't make the sun disappear. It's still there. The person is just wrong.

[DoubleEdgeSword]

There either is or isn't a God. Doesn't matter that people believe in one. Those people are still wrong.

See how that works?

Please don't insult people who do not share your beliefs. It only shows your belief that your opinions are superior when in fact they are only your opinions.

[oxymoron]

There either is or isn't a heaven. There is or isn't a hell.

It doesn't change because of what people personally believe.

For example, people can say they don't think there's a sun. But it doesn't make the sun disappear. It's still there. The person is just wrong.

I find your viewpoint to be strikingly naive.

You either are or are not fat. Well, I guess it depends on one's perspective on fat. Same with heaven or hell. It is not like the definitions of these entities are particularly clear.

People used to say that the sun revolved around the earth. Now, they say the earth revolves around the sun. Maybe, someday they will say there is no sun--it is actually the moon reflecting off of Jupiter.

Statements about what is or is not are matters of knowledge, not reality. Human understanding is based on a viewpoint of the world. It is not identical with that world itself. Whether or not there is a real world and what it is like is "UNKNOWABLE."

[oxymoron]

There either is or isn't a God. Doesn't matter that people believe in one. Those people are still wrong.

See how that works?

Please don't insult people who do not share your beliefs. It only shows your belief that your opinions are superior when in fact they are only your opinions.

In fact, I would suggest that for people who believe there is a God, there is a God. For people who don't believe there is a God, there is no God.

Whether there "really" is a God is both unknowable and moot.

[DoubleEdgeSword]

Excellent point, as usual. I do admire your mind. :)

[05Ivory]

What are you two talking about? lol. That wasn't rude.

All I said was people's personal beliefs won't change what is there. And I said that it goes either way. For those that do and those that don't believe there's a heaven or hell.

If the sun isn't a good enough example (even though we have pictures of it), I'll use me. People can say that I post on LD or they can say I don't. But it won't change the fact that I do.

[tiger_rascal]

Yeah, I dont get the posts by DES or oxymoron, they didnt really counter your original post, or they just didnt get it. Or maybe, its all in the perspective of knowing or not knowing as oxymoron would say, in which case they can choose to read or not read my post, because either way I mean what I dont.

Anyway... there is a sun, until it dies. Unless the superior scientists come up with a theory that must be assumed as scientific fact until found otherwise.

[tiger_rascal]

Whether there "really" is a God is both unknowable and moot.

How can you say that it is "unknowable" for certain? Maybe one day we will know, as the Bible states.

It is unknowable if there is intelligent life in the universe, until they invade us or we find them first!

[DoubleEdgeSword]

All I said was people's personal beliefs won't change what is there. And I said that it goes either way. For those that do and those that don't believe there's a heaven or hell.



If something is "there" as you've stated, that means you believe it exists, correct? I got your point the first time.

[tiger_rascal]

There either is or isn't a heaven. There is or isn't a hell.

It doesn't change because of what people personally believe.

What I get from this is that if you believe there is a Heaven, there is, if not, then there is not, for our own personal belief.

I do not see where the poster was stating a specific position, that was assumed.

[bekahbeans]

There is a God.

I can prove it...

Ready?

READY!?!?!?!

ME.

You need no further proof; I mean come ON. If I exist, there has got to be a God and that God has GOT to be pretty damn awesome. God also clearly has a sense of humor.

mwahahaha.

[tiger_rascal]

Nice try Bekah, but we all know that the Son/sun is God. We revolve around the Son/sun, the Son/sun gives us light and life.

You can be the goddess of cheese Bekah, is that ok?

[bekahbeans]

That didn't make any sense, Chad. I hereby declare you legally and Divinely insane.

Go in peace, crazy-man.

[coolerthanyou]

Nice try Bekah, but we all know that the Son/sun is God. We revolve around the Son/sun, the Son/sun gives us light and life.

You can be the goddess of cheese Bekah, is that ok?

I think she meant the fact that she exists proves their is a God, not that she actually IS God. Although, we all know she has been known to try and get people to believe such foolishness...

[bekahbeans]

Me?! :angel:

[DoubleEdgeSword]

I think she meant the fact that she exists proves their is a God, not that she actually IS God.

Silly person. She is a Goddess. That's better than being a God. Guurrrrl power!

[weerdlycrazay]

Doing both of these will not grant your way to heaven. When people die, nothing happens after, neither having conscience about anything (Ecclesiastes 9:5, 10; Psalms 146:3, 4). Obviously, death won't remain forever. There would be resurrection in a near future (John 5: 28, 29).
The righteous are the ones who will reside in earth. (Psalms 37:29). Having faith and doing good works guided by the Bible are both needed.