My two religion questions

Two things that have puzzled me for a long time (hopefully I can get some answers)

  1. There are basically 2 branches of Christianity right? One that glorifies heaven and the benefits of going there, whereas the other one preaches fear of hell. Why would you want to join a religion that makes you fear hell rather than enjoy the fact you are going to heaven (if either exist of course)?

  2. Science is the pursuit of cold hard fact with evidence to support what you are trying to show or prove. Why then are a number of scientists fervently religious? That sounds in my mind to be ultimate cop-out as there is an absence here of cold hard fact.

Answers?

Number one is just wrong.
Number two is that scientific facts are not as cold and as hard as you think. Science and religion are not incompatible.

[quote=“Dr. McCoy”]Number one is just wrong.

[/quote]

But wouldn’t you prefer to be happy you are gonna go to heaven rather than be afraid you are gonna go to hell?

[quote=“Funk500”][quote=“Dr. McCoy”]Number one is just wrong.

[/quote]

But wouldn’t you prefer to be happy you are gonna go to heaven rather than be afraid you are gonna go to hell?[/quote]
Your premise is wrong. There are not basically two branches of Christianity with the characteristics you ascribed to them.

[quote=“Dr. McCoy”][quote=“Funk500”][quote=“Dr. McCoy”]Number one is just wrong.

[/quote]

But wouldn’t you prefer to be happy you are gonna go to heaven rather than be afraid you are gonna go to hell?[/quote]
Your premise is wrong. There are not basically two branches of Christianity with the characteristics you ascribed to them.[/quote]

Yes, Funk500, you idiot!

The two branches are Proddy or Fenian. EVERYONE knows that!

religion is not necessarily anathema to science, as there are many possible viewpoints in religion that allows one to ascribe certain aspects of life to a creator or divine being, for example, which works in many religions.

the literal, fundamental approaches in many religions, however, are much harder for scientists to agree with.

science is not a religion, after all, and religion claims to describe the existence of realms that most forms of science say it cannot prove or disprove, so there’s lots of wiggle room there.

[quote=“irishstu”][quote=“Dr. McCoy”][quote=“Funk500”][quote=“Dr. McCoy”]Number one is just wrong.

[/quote]

But wouldn’t you prefer to be happy you are gonna go to heaven rather than be afraid you are gonna go to hell?[/quote]
Your premise is wrong. There are not basically two branches of Christianity with the characteristics you ascribed to them.[/quote]

Yes, Funk500, you idiot!

The two branches are Proddy or Fenian. EVERYONE knows that![/quote]
Arsehole. The two religions are Billy and Tim. EVERYONE except you knows that. The rest are all just crap. They don’t even have parades, if you can imagine!

And one of these groups goes directly to hell and plays shit football also.

And one of these groups goes directly to hell and plays shit football also.[/quote]My Mum’s a methodist and she doesn’t play football at all.

I agree with previous posters that the first statement is just wrong. In fact, most of the world’s Christians belong to denominations which are not known for emphasizing hell. (Catholics, Orthodox, mainline Protestants, all the liberal churches of course.) Contrary to popular myth, the notion that non-Christians all go to hell would be rejected even by most conservatives, for the same reasons that various church fathers did. (What about babies, virtuous pagans, people who lived before the time of Christ, etc.?) That said, some churches have found hellfire to be a powerful motivating factor–either to persuade people to join, or to manipulate those who are already members. As for heaven, it is often alluded to (especially at funerals), but at most it could be described as one among a dozen or so other emphases of equal importance (judging from the creeds, for instance).

Science cannot give us answers to everything we need answers (or working theories) for. Our desire to know things quickly outstrips our ability to learn them! And of course there are powerful social factors at work as well. So staunch behaviorists, who are committed to the proposition that we can know nothing about the “black box” of the mind, can nevertheless be found saying “I love you” to their significant others! And even if science seems to disprove my favorite superstititon, science admits itself to be provisional, whereas I know my superstitions to be absolutely true!

This article should be of interest to you: Einstein and Faith (Time Magazine, April 5 2007)

Some quotes:

My faith is akin to Einstein’s in that it is the mystery of God I find compelling. The “Jesus is your buddy” philosophy of new evangelicals diminishes that mystery and holds zero appeal for me. It’s also a big part of why I’m frustrated in my search for a like-minded congregation in Taipei. My faith fills a spiritual hole for me, but it’s hard for me to nourish it here. I make do with books, Bach, and my baby girl.

Maoman, which books?
If you like Einstein’s answers, you’d probably appreciate Spinoza (assuming you can put up with him; his style is decidedly less than readerly).

Martin Buber’s I and Thou and Raimon Panikkar’s Intrareligious Dialogue don’t offer much on mystery, but they’re aces on social aspects of maintaining an attitude of reverence despite the absence of a like-minded community.

or even Ram Dass, Grist for the Mill, and Be Here Now.

different spin, though…

I am somewhat aware of what religious groups are around, and would be happy to help you with whatever information you might want. It would help if you could describe your ideal “target” congregation. Of course, not everything you might want, actually exists…

You’re some kind of Mennonite, right…? I believe there is a nonprogrammatic Quaker meeting in Taipei, which might be your closest theological cousin here. (Lots of “churchy” Quakers too, but they tend to be more conservative–think Richard Nixon.) There is also a congregation of Missiouri Mormons (who are more like the peace churches than the regular Mormons) but outsiders are likely to find its theology and culture to be alien.

People use “mystery” in different ways. Every Catholic mass and Orthodox liturgy is considered a “mystery,” but outsiders (and sometimes insiders) don’t always think of them as anything special–just a guy in a dress waving some stuff around. Its hard to predict what other people will find spiritually attractive. I personally am driven to distraction (in a bad way) by organ music, though other people (like Albert Schweizer) think of it as one of humanity’s finest cultural and spiritual achievements. And then there’s the theological component, since most denominations insist upon certain beliefs in addition to the fine atmosphere.

Perhaps you would be interested in Taize, an interfaith chanting group. (The one in Taipei meets in a Catholic church, and has mass afterwards.)

[quote=“Maoman”]

My faith is akin to Einstein’s in that it is the mystery of God I find compelling. The “Jesus is your buddy” philosophy of new evangelicals diminishes that mystery and holds zero appeal for me. It’s also a big part of why I’m frustrated in my search for a like-minded congregation in Taipei. My faith fills a spiritual hole for me, but it’s hard for me to nourish it here. I make do with books, Bach, and my baby girl.[/quote]

It’s taken me almost 20 years to find a church I could join and I recently converted from Catholicism. In the meanwhile, I flirted with New Age beliefs and Buddhism, all the while going back and forth with Catholicism. While being in TW I pretty much determined that Jesus and his teachings were the answer for me but the Catholic Church is just too antiseptic for me. Buddhism did enable me to understand the New Testament teachings in a clear manner and even enabled me to define how I “should” practice/understand Catholicism or rather what Jesus was preaching, yet I still needed something that was positive, and encouraging.

Eventually I begin listening to Joel Osteen and figured I would find a church when I needed too. Having a church home, is nice because of the social aspects, but the bottom line to Christianity isn’t where you worship but in the everyday practice of Jesus’ teachings. What’s the point of going to church if I’m not putting in to practice what I believe in. Or rather-walking the walk rather than talking the talk as it’s said.

Even at my new church, I know they are not like-minded or have a great deal in common with me(but I concede to that being a generalization since I just joined :blush:), but I believe strongly in the guidance of God, and so I know without doubt that this is the place I should be. There is something there for me to learn.

Having faith in a higher power is a constant practice. Hell, having faith in general is work. :laughing: The initial phase IMO is acceptance/acknowledgment that there is One or something, but after that, that relationship is defined based upon how you relate to that Higher power.

[quote=“Funk500”]Two things that have puzzled me for a long time (hopefully I can get some answers)

  1. There are basically 2 branches of Christianity right? One that glorifies heaven and the benefits of going there, whereas the other one preaches fear of hell. Why would you want to join a religion that makes you fear hell rather than enjoy the fact you are going to heaven (if either exist of course)?

  2. Science is the pursuit of cold hard fact with evidence to support what you are trying to show or prove. Why then are a number of scientists fervently religious? That sounds in my mind to be ultimate cop-out as there is an absence here of cold hard fact.

Answers?[/quote]

I think question 1 realtes more accurately to Life Insurance sales. i.e. you buy it as an investment, or to protect your family. I hate the fear selling techniques as opposed to the aspirational.

[quote=“Funk500”]Two things that have puzzled me for a long time (hopefully I can get some answers)

  1. There are basically 2 branches of Christianity right? One that glorifies heaven and the benefits of going there, whereas the other one preaches fear of hell. Why would you want to join a religion that makes you fear hell rather than enjoy the fact you are going to heaven (if either exist of course)?[/quote]

Many have pointed out that this is wrong, but I would also point out that it does bring with it a certain truth. There are religious groups that do focus on hell. They might be in the minority with numbers, but not with television appearances.

So then the question is why do these groups exist? The idea that the other extreme should be something more people gravitate to because these religions “make you fear hell rather than enjoy the fact you are going to heaven” is not quite accurate. The people in the “Look at Hell” group think they’re going to heaven. So they’re fine with going to heaven…they’re worried about you going to hell.

And they’re not necessarily stupid people that are attracted to this group either. I think it tends to attract “simple” people. They want things to be simple. This particular moral subject is either right or wrong. Jesus was either God or He was nothing. You’re going to hell unless you simply reach for Jesus.

There is a certain market for people who want simple answers. This is why creationism also appeals to them - it provides all the answers, as flawed as they are. BUT … it has the answers.

[quote]

  1. Science is the pursuit of cold hard fact with evidence to support what you are trying to show or prove. Why then are a number of scientists fervently religious? That sounds in my mind to be ultimate cop-out as there is an absence here of cold hard fact.

Answers?[/quote]

They’re not looking to science for their religious questions. There are some things science cannot discuss because it’s outside their realm. Science describes what happens in the physical world and gives us a tool for helping us understand why, but it cannot investigate the question of why. Why were we made this way? How does God interact with us? What ways are we connected as humans?

These are things we can get some ideas started in science, but that we cannot necessarily answer fully.

Matt

I agree with most of Puppet’s answer above, but I’ll expound a little as to question 1

I would say almost all Christians believe in Heaven, whether they believe in Hell or not. Paul even goes so far as to imply that there’s not much point in Christianity if there isn’t a heaven. Beyond that there’s a lot of variation. Some believe in “limbo” or some other state that is neither heaven or hell. Some believe there’s a time where the righteous go immediately to heaven, but others stay here a while and get in later. Some believe there is a hell, but only for the truly evil, and so on. Others believe what I think you are talking about, which is Christians go to heaven, everyone else gets hell.

I would say out of the groups that believe all non-Christians go to hell, most of them are honest in their belief (there is scriptural support for it), and at least make an effort to care for people who they will go to hell – I would say these people make up a large portion of some evangelical denominations, and perhaps helps explain why they are so evangelical – they’re worried you’re going to go to hell, and take the “Great Commission” (go into all the world making disciples and baptizing them…) very seriously and personally. I would say puppet’s description of these people as simply is right in most cases – I think most Christians acknowledge that a person who lives a good life but never hears about Jesus can still at the very least avoid hell.

Now, it is true that some basically use the fear of hell to just be mean or increase their own status. That’s just run of the mill ahole-ism and we’d all be better off without them.

Actually he says that there’s not much point in Christianity if there isn’t a resurrection. If there was a heaven, then the absence of the resurrection wouldn’t matter in the slightest. Clearly Paul wasn’t concerned about the absence of a heaven as an abode of the dead.

Yes, but surely the implication is that Christians will be raised from the dead and go to heaven (as opposed to simply being dead and nothing else) - or do you read it to suggest that all Christians, like Jesus, would be raised and live on the earth for a while? I don’t see much support for the latter view.