Theological Quandaries 101

Vehemence · Post by **Vehemence** » Sat May 19, 2001 5:38 am

Sounds like a noble persuit, Kayless. I bid the good intelligence, because luck always runs out.

The Outsider · Post by **The Outsider** » Sat May 19, 2001 6:29 pm

<snip>
Some folks don’t understand that if you want your beliefs to be respected you have to respect the beliefs of others as well
<snip>

There comes a point, though, at which it is impossible to be more understanding without allowing silly cr*p to go on.

Example #1: The southern US and its efforts to remove evolution material from classrooms, or at least to get equal time for creationism. The flaw with this (or, at least, the one I'm going to focus on) is that they want a religious perspective, but only one religious perspective. Why not have half scientific theories, and half comparative religious theories? Because, under all their talk of "equal time", they -really- want to have just the King James gospel propagated.

Example #2: Afghanistan. The Taliban government, about which there is surprisingly little press, is a fundamentalist Islamic movement. These guys are, and I say this with academic distance, sh*th**ds. All light entertainment (TV, newspapers, radio, Internet) is banned, men and women are not allowed to socialize, houses are painted black on the first floor so that women can't be seen / see. Their regime enforces the subjugation of women in the worst possible ways- a health organization that went through found that 85% of women there were clinically suicidal. The Taliban have been in power since 1996, and the most press they got against them was when they started shelling Buddhist statues. How's that for a system of media priorities?

C'mon, let's start a discussion going on the Taliban- it'd be interesting.

scully1 · Post by **scully1** » Sat May 19, 2001 6:34 pm

I'm not sure if a discussion on the Taliban would be very stimulating, since (I would hope) the vast majority of opinions would be the same as yours...

nael · Post by **nael** » Sat May 19, 2001 11:30 pm

@outsider- i am impressed you know what solipsism is...must be a fellow philosophy major.

@evolutionists- although it seems logical, the simple truth is that there is no actual data to back it up. there is not a single fossil record of any species that would be an intermediary of two others. i do believe that evolution works in a micro sense, such as selection of certain colours in species (the moths in london whose population changed color to match the black walls of the city as industry polluted worse and worse). but i do not believe, and science does back it up, that species do not evlove into totally separate species.
evolution is just a theory, but so is christian creationism. both sides of the issue fail, creationism hits a high point because it makes its claims on faith, not on exaggerated "evidence"

Kayless · Post by **Kayless** » Sun May 20, 2001 7:46 am

That’s basically what I believe too nael. Microevolution not Macroevolution, or the idea that certain species can change to a certain degree but not a complete transformation from one creature to another.
@Outsider, I respect the beliefs of others as long as it doesn’t infringe upon the safety or well being of another. I don’t think that religious values should be part of national law. Freedom of religion is a big part of freedom in general and as an American I can’t imagine living in a society where only one set of religious beliefs were allowed. Versatility is what makes the world great, whether you’re a Christian, Muslim, or atheist. There’s room for all.

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Mon May 21, 2001 5:14 am

Originally posted by hermetic:
Graham Han****,

You should have put Graham Hanjohnson,

I watched the Mummy Returns on Saturday night, and i found it hulariously amusing how they mix all these different religions and philosiphies into 1 bag. The idea of an islamic and catholic/christian, getting on to save the world amused me, understand me i am not trying to be insulting to either side, but the frisson of the 2 seems unlikely from where i stand. And they add all the egyptian beliefs in there as well

As you might imagine this is all a little contradictory.

ANy comments on the relevance of mixed religions, and how they can/can't work?

Anatres · Post by **Anatres** » Mon May 21, 2001 8:00 am

Hummmm, personally (no quoted reference available - too lazy today) I don't believe there is a 'common ancestor' for, say man v. ape. Perhaps there was more than one protozoa (or whatever) that grew from the confluence of energy and the primordal soup that covered planet earth 3 (or so) billion years ago.

But I also find it difficult to believe that each and every species that is or ever was on planet earth started from an individual set of chromozones. But then again I'm not a creationist to begin with.

From my perspective, non-scientific as it really is, I just look at my own body for evolutionary evidence. (Well, not my own literally since the only 'evolving' I've done has been to loose hair, gain weight and shrink as I age). Wisdom teeth and body hair - all necessary to survival of the species up to the time we started exercising temperature control and eating processed food.

A prime example of the length of time evolution takes, is the human spine. It is (currently) designed to hold the body upright. A necessary survival trait for seeing predators over the tall savannah grasses and, later, for locating prey - on the hunt. Now humans spend most of their time sitting. Both at work and leisure. This has led to an explosion of back problems, compressed and ruptured disks, muscle spasms etc. because this is an 'unnatural' position for the spine. In a few tens of thousands of years this will change.

As far as species evolving from other species, even the theories of evolution are evolving. It wasn't that many years ago when the prevalent theory was that CroMagnon evolved from Neanderthal but now there is a growing body of evidence that indicates they coexisted. Neanderthal either died out (Natural Selection) or was pushed out (probably once again Natural Selection) by CroMagnon.

Probably a 'good' disscussion would be the differences/similarities between theories of evolution verses Darwinian Natural Selection.

fable · Post by **fable** » Mon May 21, 2001 12:57 pm

Nightfire writes:
Pascal's Wager doesn't offer any of that; in fact, it automatically disqualifies any deity who would resort to such "arguments", due to of the Wager's reliance on nothing more than desperate self-preservation in the face of incomprehensibly brutal consequences.

The problem I have with Pascal's Wager is that, IMO, any deity who would condemn to everlasting torment anyone who didn't believe in them isn't worthy of belief, much less worship. The image the Wager conjures up is of a god who has set in motion a law that divides all people into two great divisions: believers, and disbelievers. Sub-divisions don't figure into the disbeliever category. Deific judgment is rendered upon a very simple litmus test, a sort of "switch" with an off/on position: on, and you proceed to the next tier of distinction; off, and you win unending pain and torment.

To believe in a deity capable of such a division, as I see it, is to believe in a tyrannical despot--not unlike Kublai Khan, who gave any city he faced the choice of accepting his rule, or being torn apart, stone by stone, its populace killed or sold into slavery. I cannot accept that the universe, this incredibly complex, extraordinary thing, is also the handiwork of someone who produces such a law. It is almost enough to make me buy into the old Gnostic argument about a deity who creates the universe, and a group of demiurges who then run it, bullying people and trying to coopt their belief. Almost--but not quite.

Is there anyone here who accepts that such a division exists, yet worships the deity
that created it? I'm not looking an argument, but seek understanding behind such a position.

Oh, and I'm back from E3.

Kayless · Post by **Kayless** » Mon May 21, 2001 2:15 pm

Originally posted by fable:
The problem I have with Pascal's Wager is that, IMO, any deity who would condemn to everlasting torment anyone who didn't believe in them isn't worthy of belief, much less worship. The image the Wager conjures up is of a god who has set in motion a law that divides all people into two great divisions: believers, and disbelievers. Sub-divisions don't figure into the disbeliever category. Deific judgment is rendered upon a very simple litmus test, a sort of "switch" with an off/on position: on, and you proceed to the next tier of distinction; off, and you win unending pain and torment.

To believe in a deity capable of such a division, as I see it, is to believe in a tyrannical despot--not unlike Kublai Khan, who gave any city he faced the choice of accepting his rule, or being torn apart, stone by stone, its populace killed or sold into slavery. I cannot accept that the universe, this incredibly complex, extraordinary thing, is also the handiwork of someone who produces such a law. It is almost enough to make me buy into the old Gnostic argument about a deity who creates the universe, and a group of demiurges who then run it, bullying people and trying to coopt their belief. Almost--but not quite.

Is there anyone here who accepts that such a division exists, yet worships the deity
that created it? I'm not looking an argument, but seek understanding behind such a position.

Oh, and I'm back from E3.

This is getting to the point where I can quote myself in previous posts to use as a rebuttal. People basically just keep repeating the same things over and over again, regardless of whether they are opposed or in favor of Pascal’s Wager (Are you reading the previous posts?). So I’m going to respond strictly with excerpts from previous postings.

Originally posted by Kayless:
[QB]We all choose what to believe in and what not to, and everyone takes at least a few things on faith (if not we’d spend our whole lives searching for confirmation on every minute detail). If Pascal’s Wager were really as thin as some people have suggested then it wouldn’t have maintained for centuries or be taught in High School philosophy classes to this day. Believe it or not many academics have debated this idea and most admit it has its warrants along with its failings. So even if you don’t believe in it, at least show some respect for an interesting philosophical concept. That’s the key reason why many Christians and atheists get angry at each other; a mutual show of disrespect. I’d like to transcend that if possible.

You seem to be unfamiliar with the concept of religion itself, since all religions are about belief. That’s precisely what defines them. So your assertion that ‘any deity who judges people on the grounds of belief alone would not be worth worshipping’ is an oxymoron. With this viewpoint I can understand why you’d be an atheist.

Again we seem to be forgetting the Devil and human free will. God doesn’t send people to hell, but neither does he just scoop up everybody who dies and brings them to heaven. He simply opens up the gates. It’s up to us to take the steps through it.[QB]

Not perfect but you get the gist of things.

It just goes to show you that all these points have been made and responded to before. Pascal’s Wager is something of a redundant topic now, and I recommend we talk about something else rather just repeating ourselves over and over again.

Also, please think carefully about your words before posting. Did you consider that comparing someone else’s god to a tyrant could be found offensive? Regardless of one’s personal opinion there should be some regard for the beliefs of others. Do you really think Christianity or Judaism is worse then say, the ancient Mayan religion that routinely sacrificed human beings to their gods? Or that athiests (like the Nazis) are uncapable of worse acts? I can accept why you don’t believe in God but try not to kick dirt in the faces of those who do. Let's try to all get along without being disrespectful to each other’s beliefs.

P.S. Did you have fun at E3?

fable · Post by **fable** » Mon May 21, 2001 3:42 pm

Kayless writes:
This is getting to the point where I can quote myself in previous posts to use as a rebuttal. People basically just keep repeating the same things over and over again, regardless of whether they are opposed or in favor of Pascal’s Wager (Are you reading the previous posts?).

Yes, Kayless, I am; and your response, quoted from previous posts, doesn't appear in turn to apply to the points I made, with all due respect. You will note I didn't say or imply that the Wager was thin; in fact, I merely used the Wager as a stepping stone in one paragraph to the particular point of monotheistic dogma that states all those who don't believe in (our god--fill in the blank) are automatically damned. Perhaps my references to the Wager drew your attention like a red flag away from the content of my post. (For the record, I think Pascal's Wager is nothing more than a twinkle in the eye of a man whose depth of thought has led people to believe he never smiled.)

You seem to be unfamiliar with the concept of religion itself, since all religions are about belief.

You know, there were many ways of phrasing the above. You could have written, "I think we'd be in agreement that all religions are about belief," for instance. It wasn't really necessary to flame me for supposed ignorance. I've done nothing to deserve it, and aside from the spam topics, where anything goes just for the fun of it, I never flame. I recommmend this line of conduct to you.

Also, please think carefully about your words before posting. Did you consider that comparing someone else’s god to a tyrant could be found offensive?

I give you points for audacity, seeing as what you wrote about me, but that's it. My remarks aren't targetted at anybody. Targetting at opinions, particularly when one's comments are supplemented by some additional thought, are the commonplace of discussion, just as targetting individuals is the commonplace of point-scoring.

So your assertion that ‘any deity who judges people on the grounds of belief alone would not be worth worshipping’ is an oxymoron. With this viewpoint I can understand why you’d be an atheist.

I've never stated I was an atheist; in fact, if you'll read back (which you suggested to me) to the first group of posts on this topic, you will find that I am a very devout believer/worshipper--but not monotheistic, at least, as the term is commonly perceived.

...And I regret that my bit of wit fell so flat you missed it, when you pointed out the oxyomoron, above. I just get tired of emphasizing everything with graemlins.

Again we seem to be forgetting the Devil and human free will. God doesn’t send people to hell, but neither does he just scoop up everybody who dies and brings them to heaven. He simply opens up the gates. It’s up to us to take the steps through it.

My understanding is that a child which goes unbaptized, and dies, is sent to everlasting torment. Is the child's unending, constant, unremitting torture due to a devil? If religions are solely about belief--an interesting and debateable point--then I would submit that a babe in arms cannot be held responsible for its parents choices, since it is incapable of registering an opinion, much less expressing one; yet that child is doomed to hell, according to several religions. That's the most extreme example, but we shouldn't overlook the others. Leaving aside the question of faith vs works, if a Buddhist monk dies unbaptized, does he or she automatically go to hell? If so, why? If a person receives "the message," the sense of transpersonal existence which points to something infinitely more real, sane, and powerful than whatever one is, and this being who is the message and has sent out the message isn't Jesus, Allah or Jehovah, does the receiver automatically merit hell?

Again, I would like to hear from a person who can justify this line of thought within any given religion.

[ 05-21-2001: Message edited by: fable ]

Kayless · Post by **Kayless** » Mon May 21, 2001 5:16 pm

Originally posted by fable:
And I regret that my bit of wit fell so flat you missed it, when you pointed out the oxyomoron, above. I just get tired of emphasizing everything with graemlins.

You know, there were many ways of phrasing the above. You could have written, "I think we'd be in agreement that all religions are about belief," for instance. It wasn't really necessary to flame me for supposed ignorance. I've done nothing to deserve it, and aside from the spam topics, where anything goes just for the fun of it, I never flame. I recommmend this line of conduct to you.

My post wasn’t intended to flame you, nor is this one, but with all due respect you have indeed flamed. Just because you don’t ‘emphasize everything with graemlins’ doesn’t make your contempt any less obvious, or personally insulting to someone who follows the 'dogma of a deity who's views resemble Kublai Khan'. Practice what you preach and I in turn will attempt to amend my phrasing.

The fool doth think he is wise, but the wiseman knows himself to be a fool.
(As You Like It V.i. 30-31)

[ 05-21-2001: Message edited by: Kayless ]

fable · Post by **fable** » Mon May 21, 2001 5:56 pm

Please read my comments before misquoting them, Kayless. I never wrote:

insulting to someone who follows the 'dogma of a deity who's views resemble Kublai Khan'

...or anything like it. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you've misunderstood what I wrote, above.

And this is what I wrote:

To believe in a deity capable of such a division, as I see it, is to believe in a tyrannical despot--not unlike Kublai Khan, who gave any city he faced the choice of accepting his rule, or being torn apart, stone by stone, its populace killed or sold into slavery.

Kinda melodrammatic, but my point certainly doesn't focus on the actions of any given deity. Rather, I focus on the opinions of believers who feel that their god is capable of banishing infants to eternal damnation because they haven't been properly baptized. This intent of mine seems pretty obvious to me, since the entire sentence is structured twice around phrases referring to human belief: "to believe," etc. The belief referred to is clearly human belief, since the sentence's subject of belief is the deity. I don't see how it could be honestly taken otherwise...but I suspect, in the heat of the moment, you did.

Now, if you believe that every word in the bible is the literal word of your god, then anything I say to contradict these beliefs are, by the nature of that belief pattern, an insult to that deity.

If you feel otherwise, then I don't understand what your problem is, since I've only criticized, not a given deity, but a given human view that presumes to state a law of that deity.

One other point. When I wrote that I didn't like to emphasize everything with graemlins, I was definitely *not* referring to the comment you mis-quoted, above. It surprises me how you took that phrase about graemlins out of context in my post, and applied it to something entirely different. You need to calm down; start reading what people are actually writing; and stop insulting them for things they haven't said. Your blood pressure will be lower, you'll live longer, and you'll be able to appreciate the wonders of existence on this plane for an extended period of time.

This was the comment I said may have needed a graemlin:

...any deity who would condemn to everlasting torment anyone who didn't believe in them isn't worthy of belief

It deliberately follows the lunatic logic of Lewis Carroll. If one acknowledges a particular deity as existing, how can one deny its existence as a means to disprove of its so-called "policies?" Which, as I've written, are only such a deity's policies if one accepts as dogma the interpretation of some people concerning this deity--several deities, in fact.

I'll restate my questions, for anybody who cares to deal with them:

My understanding is that a child which goes unbaptized, and dies, is sent to everlasting torment. Is the child's unending, constant, unremitting torture due to a devil? If religions are solely about belief--an interesting and debateable point--then I would submit that a babe in arms cannot be held responsible for its parents choices, since it is incapable of registering an opinion, much less expressing one; yet that child is doomed to hell, according to several religions. That's the most extreme example, but we shouldn't overlook the others. Leaving aside the question of faith vs works, if a Buddhist monk dies unbaptized, does he or she automatically go to hell? If so, why? If a person receives "the message," the sense of transpersonal existence which points to something infinitely more real, sane, and powerful than whatever one is, and this being who is the message and has sent out the message isn't Jesus, Allah or Jehovah, does the receiver automatically merit hell?

[ 05-21-2001: Message edited by: fable ]

scully1 · Post by **scully1** » Mon May 21, 2001 6:41 pm

@fable: Just a comment re baptism: the idea that unbaptized babies went to Limbo (not to hell, but to a kind of Paradise Park that wasn't quite heaven either), went out some time ago. Not too long ago, granted...but I know that at least the Catholic church no longer teaches that.

(If I'm not mistaken, people did think the babies went to hell in the middle ages???? but maybe they taught Limbo as well, I'm not sure...)

fable · Post by **fable** » Mon May 21, 2001 6:58 pm

Loner72 writes:
(If I'm not mistaken, people did think the babies went to hell in the middle ages???? but maybe they taught Limbo as well, I'm not sure...)

If I remember correctly, theologists of the period took the idea of a border area (limbus, the Latin for border) from pagan tribes, and applied it twice: once, to unbaptized infants, and secondly, to pre-Christian patriarchs. Dante, I think, followed them in this, and also puts the pre-Christian virtuous pagans in a sort of "non-Hell" at the top of hell.

But I don't know Vatican policy on the unbaptized children; as early as the fourth century (and probably earlier), several of the Church Fathers were seriously concerned about infants being denied baptism, hence, denied salvation. And I *do* know that some Protestant and fundamentalist churches in the US definitely believe that an unbaptized infant goes to everlasting torment. I find this--extraordinary; I know no other word to place upon such a concept. What any particular deity may have to say about such remarks being made on his behalf have not been transcribed at this point to my knowledge.

fable · Post by **fable** » Mon May 21, 2001 6:58 pm

Loner72 writes:
(If I'm not mistaken, people did think the babies went to hell in the middle ages???? but maybe they taught Limbo as well, I'm not sure...)

If I remember correctly, theologists of the period took the idea of a border area (limbus, the Latin for border) from pagan tribes, and applied it twice: once, to unbaptized infants, and secondly, to pre-Christian patriarchs. Dante, I think, followed them in this, and also puts the pre-Christian virtuous pagans in a sort of "non-Hell" at the top of hell.

But I don't know Vatican policy on the unbaptized children; as early as the fourth century (and probably earlier), several of the Church Fathers were seriously concerned about infants being denied baptism, hence, denied salvation. And I *do* know that some Protestant and fundamentalist churches in the US definitely believe that an unbaptized infant goes to everlasting torment. I find this--extraordinary; I know no other word to place upon such a concept. What any particular deity may have to say about such remarks being made on his behalf have not been transcribed at this point to my knowledge.

Kayless · Post by **Kayless** » Mon May 21, 2001 7:00 pm

Originally posted by fable:
Rather, I focus on the opinions of believers who feel that their god is capable of banishing infants to eternal damnation because they haven't been properly baptized.

I’m not baptized, yet I’m a Christian. And no Christian I know believes that just because you’re not baptized you go to hell.

Originally posted by fable:
Please read my comments before misquoting them, Kayless. ...or anything like it. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you've misunderstood what I wrote, above.

I wasn’t quoting I was paraphrasing (A restatement of a text, passage, or work giving the meaning in a more concise format). I assumed that was obvious. I took two separate paragraphs and combined them to form a single sentence that summarized your previous quotes and how they were related. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you’ve never seen anyone paraphrase before.

Originally posted by fable:
I'll restate my questions, for anybody who cares to deal with them seriously:

It’s comments like the one above that I have a problem with. Despite your intentions your manner is condensing and arrogant. You don’t like what I’m saying so you don’t think I’m serious in my posts. You may not intend to come off so abrasive, but you do regardless. Game Banshee is usually quite civil and I used to enjoy coming here. I guess I took for granted the simple respect other posters used to show one another.

fable · Post by **fable** » Mon May 21, 2001 7:42 pm

Kayless replies:
You don’t like what I’m saying so you don’t think I’m serious in my posts.

No, Kayless. (sigh) I think you're so serious and wrought up, even angry, that you don't care how badly you manipulate a post or offend a poster, in order to make a point:

1) You flame serious posters.

2) You misquoted me in such a way that I appeared to be saying something very different than my remarks.

3) You combined my quotes in to much the same effect.

4) You don't deal with my questions, which (I think) are legitimate ones.

5) You made assumptions about my beliefs in the face of comments to the contrary.

6) You pick and choose what I write--in this case, one sentence out of dozens of posts, made in exasperation, because it gives you the opportunity to try and twist people's perceptions of me. I doubt anybody else here thinks I'm arrogant other than you. Longwinded and silly, occasionally, yes. Arrogant? Naaah.

That's why I don't like these specific posts you've just made. As to your others, what I'd read, I'd rather liked. In fact, I really liked a few. You were offering some valuable alternatives in the early part of this thread, before I left for E3, and I also liked the way you responded, honestly, without attack, keeping your cool.

But I would be obliged if you didn't respond to my posts any longer, either directly, or in passing. (I've never responded to you before, and I'll agree not to.) We're just taking up bandwidth in a wrangle instead of discussing the issues at hand. And as I said, I was hoping for some serious responses concerning the matters of the disbelief in monotheism leading to hell; and lack of baptism leading to hell.

The other point you raised was one I had a bit of information upon, however.

I’m not baptized, yet I’m a Christian. And no Christian I know believes that just because you’re not baptized you go to hell.

Augustine of Hippo wrote that those infants who were not baptized could not be "reborn." He also agreed with Cyprian's teaching that an infant is in danger of being "lost" to God from the moment of its birth, and that therefore baptism should be given as soon as possible. (The idea was that being born, any human being was born into mortal sin, thanks to Adam; that any infant, therefore, absolutely required the baptism of being born again to live after the first death. The alternative was hell.) Augustine's teaching on this, and many other matters, was central to the dogma of the Roman Catholic Church for a very long time. It may still be applicable in this respect; I don't know, and I am curious.

The argument of Calvinism is more interesting. As I recall--and if there are any Calvinists present, please correct me--the idea is that if a child dies without being baptized first, it goes to hell, but it was predestined anyway by god to go to hell, since god would never allow any child who was due to be saved to die without baptism.

[ 05-21-2001: Message edited by: fable ]

Rail · Post by **Rail** » Tue May 22, 2001 12:43 am

Wow! There's no way I can keep up with this thread. I leave for a few days and it's doubled in size.

The idea that any infant would go to hell is unfathomable to me. God is just, so show me the justice in that. I guess it's because I don't believe man will be punished for another's sins. We will be punished for our own transgressions, not for a mistake made by Adam. A newborn child is innocent, far more so than any of us posting here. They are without sin, themselves. They are clean and will return to "heaven".

Assuming God does require all persons to be baptized in order for them to "be saved" or "make it to heaven" (a belief I happen to follow), doesn't it make sense that he would provide a way for all his childern to have the possibility of baptism. He doesn't pick and choose who will succeed or fail based on their birth. If a person hasn't heard the "truth" or been baptized before he dies, shouldn't there be a way for that person to accept the "gospel" afterward. It wasn't that person's fault he was born in a place in the world that never heard of christianity. I believe there is a plan for all God's children to have the chance to hear His gospel and accept it.

I don't believe in the Calvinists, that God somehow overrides our free agency and decides some aren't worthy of the chance. The idea that God somehow loves some of his childern more than others is bothersome, to put it mildly. Like any good parent, God wants us all to succeed, but he gives us the chance to make it on our own, knowing some of us may fail, but knowing that we had to have the chance in order to grow.

Kayless · Post by **Kayless** » Tue May 22, 2001 1:25 am

@fable: I apologize for being more short tempered then usual but the last few days have been rough for me. I buried my dog that’s been with me for thirteen years, and have been watching ABC’s Anne Frank. Seeing as my maternal Grandmother was Jewish I took it personally. So again I apologize. In my current situation I was more concerned with working out some frustration then making a rational argument. I guess I’ve been trying too hard to put on a cheerful facade with friends and at work that I just let things get pent up. But I admit I was getting out of line and will refrain from using you as my emotional punching bag.

Is it morally questionable to cry over a dog and not the genocide of your fellow man? I felt more anger watching the Nazi atrocities then I did sorrow. But I can’t help but feel guilty over weeping over my dog and not the victims of Nazi insanity. I guess I’m just rambling now. In any case, I sincerely don’t want to bring this topic down and hope you guys keep up the great discussion.

Getting back to the theological discussion, my personal view is that babies are born innocent (having never had the opportunity to sin) and thus don’t have any reason to go to hell. Thus when infants die I believe they go to Heaven.

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Tue May 22, 2001 5:25 am

Originally posted by Anatres:

A prime example of the length of time evolution takes, is the human spine. It is (currently) designed to hold the body upright. A necessary survival trait for seeing predators over the tall savannah grasses and, later, for locating prey - on the hunt. Now humans spend most of their time sitting. Both at work and leisure. This has led to an explosion of back problems, compressed and ruptured disks, muscle spasms etc. because this is an 'unnatural' position for the spine. In a few tens of thousands of years this will change.

HTought you might find this interesting but my fathers family (including me) actually find it very difficult to stand for more than a few minutes and are lot more comfortable sitting down..... so i am the next evolutionary step for the species, tech savvy goatee supplied web authors who are more comfortable sitting, all be very afraid we will rule the world.... i apologise for the spamming but i thought it was funny.

BTW religions are not about beleif religions are about doctrines set down by the highest Church.

Also i am some what ill at ease with the notion of a person who has never even heard of God throughout there whole lives being condemned to eternal pain and suffering.

In the romantic period of poetry there was this notion that all people came from a spiritual primordal soup and slowly adged backwards (similar to Merlin) when they were babies they were all knowledgable and then as they grew older their intelligence would drain.

I had an Interesting question for anyone who bothers to read my drivel:

There is all that conjecture about the tunnel and the white light etc. but i was wondering what happens as you die, would a person dying of a stomach wound have more time to absolve for their sins than a person who dies instantly and how long have you got before you are banished to Hell or is the Saint Peter thing a more accurate representation. It sounds fairly childish a question in these serious debates, but i thought it was an interesting thought