Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 late™
Joined: 2/1/2010
Msg: 46
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?Page 2 of 26    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26)

I've never heard of a religious person believing that God is other than natural.

Unless you are using a vastly different definition of "nature", ...I can't think of any mainstream religion that doesn't claim that faith in a supernatural deity and not tangible (occurring in the observable natural world) proof of it/him/her/them is the requirement for being judged favorably by it/him/her/them.


There are many definitions of religion. Maybe it's a difficult thing to define. It probably isn't as simple as opening your Funk & Wagnall's.

Unless you want to pre-emptively refute replies/arguments based in equivocality, ...just sayin'. Ambiguity is the hallmark of "bad science" and most religious truths.


Can anyone really say that the wisdom found in some of these religious text are not valuable?

...the same can be said for many texts, ...there are many works of fiction that contain wisdom, moral rules, examples of ethics and ways to live a productive, well lived life.

What hard science even considers this?


Are we really supposed to be a society clinging to the philosophy of testable claims when we are now finding out that there are certain things that can exist, but they lie outside of what can be tested?


The converse philosophy of denying an observed and verified reality in order to cling to a bronze-age mythos has many examples in history, ...they ain't pretty. There isn't a legitimate science that deals in deities and their respective mythos that seeks to prove or disprove the existence of deities and their mythos, ...there's a reason for that; the only conflict I see is with fundamentalist theological/supernatural interpretation of reality not meshing with observable reality in the natural world.
 late™
Joined: 2/1/2010
Msg: 48
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 3/18/2010 1:37:23 PM
Thus I believe part of the problem may also be the arrogance of certain scientists who are bent on making it a conflict.

And there are a few of these lately, ...they sometimes make me cringe when they decide to "speak for science" in a debate with a fundamentalist when discussing the validity/existence of any particular deity, ...they don't, they speak for themselves, ...science doesn't care.
 monalee1
Joined: 10/22/2007
Msg: 55
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 3/18/2010 4:59:06 PM
" Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?"


hi... science that agrees with the bible or science that does not contradict the bible is science that I do not have any conflict with.. blessings
 Ahron123
Joined: 10/16/2009
Msg: 56
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 3/18/2010 4:59:44 PM

Yes, if you think that it's pathetic and sad for religion to not make incursions into the domain of physical science. From what you said, the religions that you don't have a problem are the pathetic and sad ones. Is it also pathetic and said for the study of astronomy to not say things about the rules of Pinochle? Pathetic and sad whenever completely different and separate subjects or areas of inquiry don't make claims about eachother? Pathetic and sad for a study to only make statements with its own legitmate area of applicability?


I think I’m starting to understand how you think. You think science has its role, and religion has its role, and those roles should not overlap. Okay...

You have also made it clear that you don’t care if aspects of religion are proven wrong, because obviously if a claim can be proven wrong it shouldn’t have made that claim in the first place. Okay, I can live with that...

But what basis does it have for its claims then? With no evidence to back up the claim, and no possibility that the claim can ever be proven wrong, what is there to make anyone believe the claim? (Other than some idle threat, about eternal suffering if you don’t ha ha).

Such a claim should be rejected, even without opposing evidence. Maybe not rejected forever, but rejected until there is some reason to re-consider the claim. It’s crazy to hang onto theory’s purely and 100% because they “can not be proven wrong” – and that is true in any domain – weather that be religion, science, or astrology. That is not a statement about science, it is a statement about basic human logic/intelligence.


I guess the bottom line is that if you never make a testable claim, you can never contradict anything.

If a study never make a testable claim about a topic outside of its legimate area of applicability, then it will never contradict anything outside of its legimate area of applicability. Correct. You seem to want religion to do that, and of course some religions accomodate you.


Religion doesn’t have a legitimate area of applicability. It just picks up on all the worlds questions which most likely CAN NEVER be answered, and pretends to have answers to them. How exactly can that be defined as having a “legitimate area of applicability”. Religion makes outrageous claims based on sweet-****-all evidence.



That’s all religion is: At best it’s a stupid theory that no one can prove wrong

You mean it's a stupid theory when it doesn't make physical statements and thereby can't be proven wrong about physical statements--because it doesn't make statements about areas that it doesn't legimately apply to?


No that isn’t what i mean. I mean that the claims it does make, including the ones which you think are inside its domain, are still made without any evidence what so ever. They are no more legitimate than a claim I could make up about the same topic which no one could prove wrong (but which would almost definitely still be wrong, seeing I would have just made it up).
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 57
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 3/18/2010 5:08:52 PM

I meant it to be about science's supposed conflict with, in general, the departures from Materialism.

To my knowledge, there are no scientific conflicts with the supernatural. It is where beliefs that the supernatural is actively involved with the natural that conflicts arise.

There are some gray areas-- love, for example. In the light of science, it might be reduced to chemical reactions in the brain, but we all know that there is much more to it outside of science.
 Deathraydan
Joined: 3/13/2010
Msg: 58
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 3/18/2010 5:23:32 PM
I believe science and religion blend perfectly. One must understand a little bit of spacetime physics to accept totally how easily it would be for the Universe to have been created, assuming that you believe He created space and time. And one must accept the idea of rebirth of the soul, which eliminates all of the unanswered questions in mainstream religion thaqt cannot be answered with the current beliefs.
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 61
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 3/18/2010 7:41:42 PM

I've never heard of a religious person who says that God isn' t natural.

That is because context is very important. Natural as opposed to unnatural, or natural as opposed to supernatural? Have you ever heard of a religious person saying that God isn't supernatural (besides pantheists, of course)? That is the proper context. I mean, I really doubt that most religious people think they could accidentally hit God with their car or accidentally shoot Him on a quail hunt.
 late™
Joined: 2/1/2010
Msg: 62
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 3/19/2010 9:44:17 AM

Etymologically, and primarily, "supernatural" means "beyond what is natural".

Then by all means, ...please produce this "natural" deity so we can ask them what they think.

I don't know what that means. You've got to look at what you're saying, before you post, , to be sure that it means something.

Try avoiding truncation, and consider context more carefully -> YMMV

I have no idea what that means, but don't bother explaining it.

The former is obvious, whether the lack of comprehension is willful or not makes the latter as pointless as your reply.

Proof isn't really possible outside this life and this physical world, although suggestions can be judged in a number of ways that I've already listed. Metaphysics isn't provable. Your Materialism metaphysics isn't provable.

Which is why some frames of reference aren't inclusive of others, ...isn't this obvious?

In fact, typically, people who speak of what is beyond this physical world don't usually believe or say that it's not natural.

More equivocation...


Now it follows that a set of ideas must completely describe the meaning of a thing if someone is to be able to speak for it using the set of ideas completely. We notice that no set of ideas completely describes God or Science.


Exactly!!!

There's a reason that the rules of hopscotch don't apply to a football game, it's the same exclusivity that makes mixing science and religion (in context consistent with the purpose of this forum, as defined by the person who both named it and caused it to be created), merely fodder for fallacy, when one tries to put them in the same hierarchical frame of reference in regards to being authoritative.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 65
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 3/19/2010 12:04:54 PM

I haven't had a lot of conversations about that with Theists or Deists. But no religious person thinks that God isn't natural.


Contradictory statement. How can you presume to know what theists or deists think without having conversations with them about it?


The meanings of words isn't as important as pointing our the science-worshiper's motivation for wanting to call God supernatural.


Um, "science worshippers?" Ah yes, the old "science is religion" thing again. *yawn*

However, this entire thread is filled with your own prejudices. Seems to me as if you're following the typical "start with the conclusion and make the 'facts' fit to it" approach. You'd make a great Creationist.
 rubberbandpower
Joined: 3/1/2010
Msg: 66
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 3/19/2010 12:12:22 PM
It is my opinion that legitimate science and legitimate religion are not in conflict.

The word legitimate is a pretty key thing here. Highly subjective and highly debated.
 late™
Joined: 2/1/2010
Msg: 67
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 3/19/2010 12:15:43 PM

The meanings of words isn't as important as pointing our the science-worshiper's motivation for wanting to call God supernatural.


"Science-worshiper"?

More likely it's trying to convey meaning in a concise way that motivates some to use the word:
supernatural |?soop?r'na ch (?)r?l|
adjective
(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.


Otherwise, why not use a more unambiguous word such as "nonphysical", or "extraphysical"? Because (due to its clearer meaning) that doesn't have the perjorative connotation that science-worshippers are looking for.


For unambiguous, see the above definition. speaking of pejoratives, who calls themselves; "science-worshippers"(sic)?


That's because they don't think that God is a physical being, part of this physical universe. But that isn't at all the same thing as saying that God is supernatural.


Seriously, ...if meaning really doesn't matter, then what is the point behind taking part in a dialectic discourse, ...really?

Here's a good word for this: casuistic


the explanation for us, the world, and why we exist.


Why must there be a "why we exist" anyway?

What colour is the key of F#?

Where is muted puce?

Some questions aren't inclusive of all frames and terms of reference, ...obvious, ...no?
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 68
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 3/19/2010 12:28:24 PM

That's because they don't think that God is a physical being, part of this physical universe. But that isn't at all the same thing as saying that God is supernatural.

I disagree. I see them as the same thing. Always have, even as a religious person.

One meaning of natural is "not artificial". If this universe is an artificact of God, then this universe is less natural than God is.

I prefer to think of natural as "not manmade." The religious people you speak of claim God is natural because they believe He is not manmade.

That's (as I said) in order to insult and discredit religion by classifing God with such fictitious entities as werewolves, vampires and goblins.

It is not the same classification, though. Werewolves, vampires, and goblins are all physical flesh and blood creatures, even if fictitious.
 late™
Joined: 2/1/2010
Msg: 72
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 3/19/2010 1:26:13 PM
Sorry, but I have no interest in convincing you about the existence of God.

No problem, ...really, as this wasn't what I asked you for.

But I've already explained that religion needn't make statements in science's doman, and, when it doesn't, there is no opportunity for religion and science to disagree.

Not only "needn't" but when those speaking as authorities of religions (this is almost always one or two of the three Abrahamic religions in their more literal interpretation) do try to impose a theological view contrary to science, they don't do so in the domain of science, they do so in the domains of politics, public policy and culture in order to press a religious agenda where there is no place for one.

Examples of this are many and myriad, and in almost every example, none of the alternatives offered lead to (or have ever led to) any tangible progress in bettering the human condition.

Nearly all of what you say, if it means anything, has a meaning known only to you.

This statement only makes sense if you speak for everybody, doesn't it?

What makes you think you do?
 Ahron123
Joined: 10/16/2009
Msg: 73
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 3/19/2010 5:14:23 PM

So then you might say, "Ok, then why not just carry on our material affairs, since we can't prove anything beyond the physical--what good is it?"

Or I might not ask that. In fact, I did not ask that. I don’t wonder what good it is, I wonder why it bothers pretending to have answers, and why others go and put faith in those answers when there is absolutely nothing to suggest that they even might be correct. Yes I realise you tried to address that question.



Such a claim should be rejected, even without opposing evidence. Maybe not rejected forever, but rejected until there is some reason to re-consider the claim. It’s crazy to hang onto theory’s purely and 100% because they “can not be proven wrong” – and that is true in any domain – weather that be religion, science, or astrology. That is not a statement about science, it is a statement about basic human logic/intelligence.

A completely different answer to your question is to point out that, to many religious people, it's a matter of faith. Look at it this way: It's a matter of how someone feels about the subject. What's wrong with that? Consider it not a conclusion, but rather a feeling.

So true. So much of so many religions is based on faith and faith alone. There is probably nothing wrong that with, but it definitely doesn’t create a strong case for religion containing any actual truth.

This is difficult for many to understand, but there are areas in which feelings have more validity than proofs, largely because there aren't any proofs. Areas in which the person who is always looking for proofs is barking up the wrong tree.


Maybe you and I don’t disagree as much as I initially though. I agree that theory’s (even those based on feelings) have validity, and they retain validity until they are proven wrong.

The thing you seem to be missing however, is that HOW MUCH validity a theory has before it is proven wrong depends on how much supporting evidence there is for the theory (N.B supporting evidence doesn’t have to be physical. Supporting evidence could be in the form of “if this theory is true, it would explain all these other concepts, and tie everything together”). Theory’s based only on feelings and faith have very little validity.

You seem to have a huge willingness to accept theory’s which have very little validity based on ‘feelings’ and ‘faith’ – I can’t do that, and to me the decision to do so doesn’t seem all that intelligent (although at least your not one of those religious people who will refuse to reject the theory when the evidence against it becomes overwhelming).


And, as I've said elsewhere, your Materialism compares poorly to other metaphysicses in such comparisons.

I’m interested, but at the moment I don’t understand how such a comparison could be done, and thus, I can’t really respond.


Beyond this life in this world, words and knowledge don't really apply. Words can hint about what they can't strictly apply to

You could be right when you say my understanding of religion is poor, but with my current understanding I can say that the above quoted statement sounds like a typical quote from a religious person. It’s completely meaningless. It sounds good, but how can you possibly know such a thing? That statement has NO VALDIITY WHAT SO EVER.

However I agree that too much of this thread has been discussing word definitions rather than actual content.


Speaking for myself, I consider the matter of what is, and how things really are, to be an interesting subject, even if it doesn't have the provability of physics. But I don't say that you should agree.

Indeed it is an interesting subject. It’s not like I don’t have belifes on that subject myself, in fact! My point for you is that you could begin your search for answers inside the physical world, if you wanted to. There is also some advantages in doing so. For example I believe in a very powerful creating force, which I have a great deal of respect for:

Someone once said to me, “when I climb to the top of a mountain and look down at the world and see everything in life linking together so perfectly, I know there must have been a creator”. Someone else once said to me, “if you get the peaces of a watch and throw them in the air, they will not land as a watch. If there is a watch, there must have been a watch maker”.

Evolution can explain so much of what you see, AND what you don’t see, when you live in this world (eg. so much of "what is, and how things really are"). Why the flowers are so pretty and smell nice, and why they produce pollen for the bees to eat. If they didn’t attract the bees, they would die out as they would not pollinate other flowers. Evolution can explain the design of every creature or plant you ever look at. Evolution can explain nearly ever thought you ever have. Evolution can explain love; co-operation; racism; fear; pain; disease; and just about every aspect of human behaviour (and thus, the conciquences of it). Evolution can even explain the existence of religion! – all these things exist because they provide (or have provided) some evolutionary advantage.

In evolution, everything that works survives, and everything which doesn’t work dies out. If you get the pieces of a watch and throw them in the air millions and millions of times, and every time two pieces come together correctly they stay that way – eventually you will have a watch.

EVOLUTION, is the powerful creating force which I believe in, and in just a few paragraphs I explained many how’s AND many why’s. Of course I could still be wrong, but the validity of this theory is very high based on evidence that is right here in the physical world. Why do you want to avoid discussing physical evidence?

I know you don’t have to reject this theory to also accept many of your own, but I fail to see why so many more theory’s are needed – the presence of a god doesn’t seem to add anything to our understanding of life, and that is why the god theory is not included in the sciences.



Religion doesn’t have a legitimate area of applicability.

...because, for you, the physical world is the only legitimate area of applicability. You're welcome to that opinioin. The question is,don't you have something better to do than arrogantly and rudely attacking those who don't agree with you?

I didn’t attack anyone rudely. Did you only want to discuss things with people who agree with you?

And secondly, no that isn’t the reason! The reason is because it fails to provide ANY evidence to back up its claims. Notice I didn’t say physical evidence, I said, ANY evidence. Just making up answers to difficult questions doesn’t cut it when it comes to having “a legitimate area of applicability”. This is the case even if some people disagree. Will the people who disagree accept answers that I make up, for example? Maybe they will if they “feel them” (which is fine, and we both already addressed the idea that much of religion is based on "feelings".)


Though I have no interest in convincing you of anything, there's a lot that you don't understand or haven't heard of. When you talk about religion in general (as opposed to particular kinds of religion that you don't like, when they contradict physics or known history), you don't know what you're talking about. Not an insult or criticism, just a fact.

We both come from different education backgrounds, which is generally a good thing in a discussion. Feel free to explain things to me if you think there is important points that I don’t understand.

You could even do so occasionally instead of using your usual lines: “your entitled to your opinion” and “I’m not trying to convince you of anything”.

In the end some things are right, and some things are wrong. I don’t consider it disrespectful of you to have a different opinion AND to explain it to me AND to justify it. The idea of a discussion is not to respect each others opinions, but to work together in search of the actual truth.
 andybenandy
Joined: 3/14/2010
Msg: 74
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 3/19/2010 6:29:07 PM
Science follows logic while religions follow a story after a story after as story.....until you are bored to death !.
 71StarsAligned
Joined: 3/1/2010
Msg: 75
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 3/19/2010 9:27:33 PM
Religion is in direct conflict with itself. There is nothing substantially important about a book and some dead guy's feelings and an old guy standing at an altar moaning and grumbling.
 privat33r
Joined: 2/8/2009
Msg: 76
view profile
History
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 3/19/2010 9:42:21 PM
Science is not in conflict with religion. All major religions hold tenets that support well established scientific theory.

Where the confusion lies is that some subgroups choose to misinform on both sides in order to bolster poorly framed arguments. That's not science or religion - its called being an ass. I've done it myself occasionally. Not sure its as satisfying as once it was.
 Ahron123
Joined: 10/16/2009
Msg: 77
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 3/20/2010 4:21:11 AM

Religion is in direct conflict with itself. There is nothing substantially important about a book and some dead guy's feelings and an old guy standing at an altar moaning and grumbling.


ha ha. So true.
 desertrhino
Joined: 11/30/2007
Msg: 78
view profile
History
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 3/20/2010 7:31:06 PM


What colour is the key of F#?

Black, on a piano, though black isn't strictly a color. Maybe you meant "key" in a different sense, but I gave the only answer possible.


There you go again, forcing an answer to an unanswerable question, by forcing a certain definition that could possibly fit, but is in almost all ways completely unrelated to, the actual intent of the original terms.
 andybenandy
Joined: 3/14/2010
Msg: 79
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 3/21/2010 6:27:54 AM
Religion is just a faith based on stories told by elders one generation after another . Science requires logic, proof and reason . The world witnessed so many religions to the point where one can not even keep track of their numbers . Religion is in conflict with science because religion is full of contradictions and non sense .
 late™
Joined: 2/1/2010
Msg: 80
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 3/21/2010 8:20:23 AM

Again, I have no interest in convincing you of anything, including the validity or interest of any questions.

Are we to treat your threads as monological diatribes, ...just let the ambiguity slide, ...not notice that any requests for clarification (not "convincing") are responded to with straw men?


Black, on a piano, though black isn't strictly a color. Maybe you meant "key" in a different sense, but I gave the only answer possible.

Ahhhh... okay, ...let's see, you WILL respond if there is an opportunity to prevaricate... with no problems violating the law of parsimony in order to do so.

You may think nobody sees the pattern, ...but it's clear that most do. When one tries to steer the dialectic by allowing only for your own unique equivocated definitions of words, eschewing common meaning via context; ...I'm probably not the only one who will call you on it.


No. It usually isn't obvious what you're trying to say. But that's ok.

...and a nice finish with yet another straw man, ...thank you, I needed to set my watch.
 Ahron123
Joined: 10/16/2009
Msg: 83
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 3/22/2010 3:58:30 AM
Appreciative9809, I’m not responding to most of your reply because most of it isn’t actually worth responding to, and I about to remove this thread from my watch list because it isn’t actually going to anywhere, but I will say this:

Your claim that religion doesn’t OR hasn’t OR shouldn’t make claims about the physical world is ridicules. Religions formed to answer questions. They answered all types of questions, many many many of which were about the physical world. I can’t even think of a religion that doesn’t have a theory on how the physical world came to exist, for example. However over time, science proved most religious ideas WRONG, and now all religion is LEFT with is a whole bunch of ideas that will probably never be proven wrong because they are so unrelated to the world we live in (yes, the physical one) that they can probably NEVER be proven wrong. Similarly, and for the same reason, there can also never be any evidence to support them. They’re effectively just stories; they don’t even have enough legitimacy to be called ‘theorys’.

You think science and religion are not in conflict because every time they are in conflict you just say that “religion shouldn’t have made a claim which was in the science domain”. It’s like WANTING the answer to be no, and then twisting everything to make no the correct answer.

But in the future science will prove more religious claims wrong, and you will continue to make excuses as to why that doesn’t count...but that’s okay, you suit yourself.

The big difference between you and I is that I don’t care what the conclusion is, I just analyse the facts un-biasly. You however, really want to prove that science is not in conflict with religion, even though it clearly has been millions and millions and millions of times over, and it will be again in the future.

Anyway, Cheers.
 Ahron123
Joined: 10/16/2009
Msg: 84
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 3/22/2010 4:30:16 AM
^^^

Your calling it "religions domain" or "area of applicability" but it's really just all religion has left, after the numerous conflicts that religion has already had with science.
 monalee1
Joined: 10/22/2007
Msg: 85
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 3/22/2010 7:56:39 PM
"Religion simply claims that the"Big Guy" who made all that stuff, has a club that we should all want to be part of, so that we can stroke his ego, or suffer the dire consequences."


... I think that some conflicts begin here^^^^... as a religious person I have never made the claim that you have stated above, you will not find that in The SDA book of Fundamental Beliefs either nor have I heard that claim in any of the mainstream Christian churches that I have attended... perhaps many of the conflicts are sparked by huge misunderstandings, misquotes and misinformation....


... I can not get sound so youtube is out for now but I am curious to see who your guy shreds... blessings
 desertrhino
Joined: 11/30/2007
Msg: 86
view profile
History
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 3/23/2010 5:33:10 AM
Monalee, I think the problem here is you tend to be an extreme literalist, and can't see how the casual phrasing of the statement below could possibly have come from your holy book. It doesn't. It's called "paraphrasing." Let's walk through it, shall we?



"Religion simply claims that the"Big Guy" who made all that stuff, has a club that we should all want to be part of, so that we can stroke his ego, or suffer the dire consequences."


... I think that some conflicts begin here^^^^... as a religious person I have never made the claim that you have stated above, you will not find that in The SDA book of Fundamental Beliefs either nor have I heard that claim in any of the mainstream Christian churches that I have attended... perhaps many of the conflicts are sparked by huge misunderstandings, misquotes and misinformation....


Hmm, really? How about:

Mark 9:

43 If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It’s better to enter eternal life with only one hand than to go into the unquenchable fires of hell with two hands. 45 If your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It’s better to enter eternal life with only one foot than to be thrown into hell with two feet. 47 And if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out. It’s better to enter the Kingdom of God with only one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, 48 ‘where the maggots never die and the fire never goes out.’
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revelation 20:

The Final Judgment

11 And I saw a great white throne and the one sitting on it. The earth and sky fled from his presence, but they found no place to hide. 12 I saw the dead, both great and small, standing before God’s throne. And the books were opened, including the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to what they had done, as recorded in the books. 13 The sea gave up its dead, and death and the grave gave up their dead. And all were judged according to their deeds. 14 Then death and the grave were thrown into the lake of fire. This lake of fire is the second death. 15 And anyone whose name was not found recorded in the Book of Life was thrown into the lake of fire.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Revelation 14:

The Three Angels


6 And I saw another angel flying through the sky, carrying the eternal Good News to proclaim to the people who belong to this world—to every nation, tribe, language, and people. 7 “Fear God,” he shouted. “Give glory to him. For the time has come when he will sit as judge. Worship him who made the heavens, the earth, the sea, and all the springs of water.”

So, Revelations 14:7 covers "made all that stuff, has a club that we should all want to be part of," and also check 6 through 10 in The SDA Book of Fundamental Beliefs at http://www.scribd.com/doc/1008750/SDA-FundamentalBeliefs, because it's all in there, too. Strange that you should not be able to draw that information from one of your most basic tenets of faith.


8 Then another angel followed him through the sky, shouting, “Babylon is fallen—that great city is fallen—because she made all the nations of the world drink the wine of her passionate immorality.”

9 Then a third angel followed them, shouting, “Anyone who worships the beast and his statue or who accepts his mark on the forehead or on the hand 10 must drink the wine of God’s anger. It has been poured full strength into God’s cup of wrath. And they will be tormented with fire and burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and the Lamb. 11 The smoke of their torment will rise forever and ever, and they will have no relief day or night, for they have worshiped the beast and his statue and have accepted the mark of his name.”

12 This means that God’s holy people must endure persecution patiently, obeying his commands and maintaining their faith in Jesus.

13 And I heard a voice from heaven saying, “Write this down: Blessed are those who die in the Lord from now on. Yes, says the Spirit, they are blessed indeed, for they will rest from their hard work; for their good deeds follow them!”
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revelation 21:

The New Jerusalem

1 Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the old heaven and the old earth had disappeared. And the sea was also gone. 2 And I saw the holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven like a bride beautifully dressed for her husband.

3 I heard a loud shout from the throne, saying, “Look, God’s home is now among his people! He will live with them, and they will be his people. God himself will be with them. 4 He will wipe every tear from their eyes, and there will be no more death or sorrow or crying or pain. All these things are gone forever.”

5 And the one sitting on the throne said, “Look, I am making everything new!” And then he said to me, “Write this down, for what I tell you is trustworthy and true.” 6 And he also said, “It is finished! I am the Alpha and the Omega—the Beginning and the End. To all who are thirsty I will give freely from the springs of the water of life. 7 All who are victorious will inherit all these blessings, and I will be their God, and they will be my children.

8 “But cowards, unbelievers, the corrupt, murderers, the immoral, those who practice witchcraft, idol worshipers, and all liars—their fate is in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.”

... and here, in Revelations 21:8, we get to the most clear statement that covers, "so that we can stroke his ego, or suffer the dire consequences."

And when you get right down to it, this last bit is covered in the SDA Book of Fundamental Beliefs, 26 and 27. http://www.scribd.com/doc/1008750/SDA-FundamentalBeliefs
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >