Creation of the universe: Darwin or Bible

[Mewtwo Ex]

Evolution has too many holes to be true.

How did single celled organisms start mutating if they clone themselves?

How did fish get mungs?

How did cells start to eat each other etc.

And also everyone has a misconception of God (not to mention forgetting to capitolize "God". God is the almighty creator of the universe. god refers to the deities that the greeks worshiped).

God exists outsider of time and space (which he created). We always try to use our logic to describe it, when our logic isn't advanced enough. God didn't give our brains the capacity to understand, because we don't need it. Darwin's evolution theory requires that space and time already existed, while using our logic that everything has a begining, when it is not nessessarily true.

Another side note, the most acurate method of dating things (giving scientists the idea that the universe is billions of years old) is the radiocarbon method, which is only accurate to 500 years. Radiocarbon dating requires something organic. It measures the amount of carbon14, because carbon14 decays after time (and scientists assume at a steady rate). After 500 years, only carbon12 is left (carbon 12 doesn't decay).

Another side note:

With very few words i am going to tell you that you cannot convince me that God created humans. You simply cannot do that. I simply refuse to believe it. For one thing god say he created every creature and Adam gave then names. However with new creatures still being found, does that mean that beings from over 300 mil. years are not evolving? There are many living fossils that back me up on that.

No to mention that a decent amount of them is still the same. - Crocodile, jellyfish, and around 50 fish that i don't know the names of. It is impossible to deny that man is sand/clay/Dirt.

@Wraith89: Get real, i know you understand what i mean. Not a new species (Not that that is not done by now), but clone a sheep and if it lives it has a life. If it was not cloned with human power, it would not live now, would it?! Therefor giving it life.

[wraith89]

With very few words i am going to tell you that you cannot convince me that God created humans. You simply cannot do that. I simply refuse to believe it. For one thing god say he created every creature and Adam gave then names. However with new creatures still being found, does that mean that beings from over 300 mil. years are not evolving? There are many living fossils that back me up on that.

No to mention that a decent amount of them is still the same. - Crocodile, jellyfish, and around 50 fish that i don't know the names of. It is impossible to deny that man is sand/clay/Dirt.

No one says you will be convinced by a few words. You would have to be convinced in other ways. And new creatures being found? How about the term rediscovery? Ever heard of that? It's not like we know everything around the world. Have we discovered EVERYWHERE? Lost worlds are being found every time... meaning not every part of the world has been discovered. We are FAR from knowing everything there is to know about this world. It would be simply arrogant to say "we know all this".

If you simply don't believe it, then you simply don't believe it. But please don't pretend that there are evidences to show that everything was caused by random chances. If you actually believe Darwinian evolution as a fact, then you pretty much believe in a god (or rather a goddess) too if you think about it. Natural selection... mother nature anyone? She simply selects who is most fit and who is not? Oh right, throw in a bit of time and in a million years our little froggy will become a prince. Yeah that makes sense. I mean, sure, you do not believe, but what reason is there? For some, it's just for the sake of not believing because they just don't want to... in spite of what is already there. Don't tell me that's you. I don't know if you are accepting Darwinian evolution out of the evidences they provide or for the sake of having an alternative to the "ridiculous" special creation.

Microevolution DOES happen... stuff can CHANGE with slight variation. It is called ADAPTATION right there... we humans do adapt. There is no denying that. But the lie comes within macroevolution. One specimen cannot change into another specimen. For example, you will never find a dragon turning into a chicken (which is preposterous but that is the common belief nowadays by evolutionists, hence VelociRAPTORs).

And as for crocodile/jellyfish being the same... how do you know? Likewise how do you know other creatures are not the same then? Is it up to use to just pick and choose what we think are same and what isn't?

Fossil records show NOTHING. If you have done your research you will know that the fossil records only exists in ones' textbook. No such layer dating fossils at certain given time has ever been found in real life. In fact, visit a museum or somewhere, and they will tell you they date fossils by the rock layer they were found... so how do they know the rock layers are certain epochs? By the very same fossils that use the rock layers for dating them! Circular reasoning anyone?

Oh, as for a Darwinian puzzle... ever heard of the coelacanth? You know, the thing Relicanth is based on? The scientists wonder how they stayed the same for millions of years (the answer? The earth isn't even that old)... so yes, some creatures can stay the same for a LONG time.You also have the idea that it takes a LONG time to fossilize a creature (like couple of thousands/millions of years?). That is not true. Given the right circumstances, anything can fossilize relatively quick.

Lol @ the bolded one. You are reaffirming what we believe: we were made out of sand/clay/dirt.

@Wraith89: Get real, i know you understand what i mean. Not a new species (Not that that is not done by now), but clone a sheep and if it lives it has a life. If it was not cloned with human power, it would not live now, would it?! Therefor giving it life.

Cloning is bringing an offspring via reproduction, which is already a natural process. We are NOT creating life... we are merely intervening with an already natural process but making the pre-supposed offspring into a CLONE. Is that clear?

Sorry if I am sounding a bit mean... I do have a bit of a short temper

[Relyte]

The reason that I don't believe in creationism is that I haven't been brought up to believe it; I've been brought up that scientific results and theories are evidence of the evolutionary/big bang theories rather than in any particular creationism-related beliefs. Now that I think about it, the evidence for either belief can be quite circumstantial depending on how you look at it.

That's me. Why do you believe in what you do?

@Wraith: I'm curious as to whether you would accept the results (about past climates, volcanic eruptions, the dates thereof, stuff like that) given by ice core sampling.

[Mewtwo Ex]

@Wraith: With all your long posts, i barely have will to read it all. Here is your relicanth

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eeef188sL04&feature=fvsr

It was found last year. It was all over the news.

I also do not see the reason to keep posting here more. We just keep hitting our heads together without letting up.

Oh and ,,And as for crocodile/jellyfish being the same... how do you know?'' Am, encyclopedias, Discovery channel, i don't know?

[evandixon]

With very few words i am going to tell you that you cannot convince me that God created humans. You simply cannot do that. I simply refuse to believe it. For one thing god say he created every creature and Adam gave then names. However with new creatures still being found, does that mean that beings from over 300 mil. years are not evolving? There are many living fossils that back me up on that.

No to mention that a decent amount of them is still the same. - Crocodile, jellyfish, and around 50 fish that i don't know the names of. It is impossible to deny that man is sand/clay/Dirt.

@Wraith89: Get real, i know you understand what i mean. Not a new species (Not that that is not done by now), but clone a sheep and if it lives it has a life. If it was not cloned with human power, it would not live now, would it?! Therefor giving it life.

I believe that evolution exists, but not on a large as of a scale as Darwin's theory thinks.

Humans used to be shorter when the Gatway Arch was built (just look at the elevators), but I do not believe that we evolved from different species. There are too many holes in Darwin's theory.

[ASuch]

Well theres holes in all theories. Nobody exactly knows how we were created. It's all theories. And actually, people are now starting to try to create human life out of one cell as of now. One of the main reasons I don't believe in God is because of the hypocrisy or contradictions in the Bible. If no other religion is true but Christianity, why are some of the theories from stuff like the Roman gods? Like Jesus' birthday was born from the birthday of the Roman god Mithra. Still though, No one knows for sure what happened. We are in the blank.

[wraith89]

Well theres holes in all theories. Nobody exactly knows how we were created. It's all theories. And actually, people are now starting to try to create human life out of one cell as of now. One of the main reasons I don't believe in God is because of the hypocrisy or contradictions in the Bible. If no other religion is true but Christianity, why are some of the theories from stuff like the Roman gods? Like Jesus' birthday was born from the birthday of the Roman god Mithra. Still though, No one knows for sure what happened. We are in the blank.

Nobody knows when Jesus was born. Jesus was NOT born in December 25th, contrary to what people say... nor is it in the Bible.

Hypocrisy is the result of a bad Christian. And what exactly are these contradictions in the Bible?

Care to explain that part in bold?

Edited May 1, 2010 by wraith89

[ASuch]

I was a little groggy when I typed that....But if Jesus wasn't born on the 25th, how come there is a freaking Holiday for his birth, and I think, a special church session dedicated to the exact same thing. Still though, you believe what you want to believe, and I believe what I want to believe.

[Okami]

Generally speaking, the Biblical "contradictions" are actually little details written from one author's prospective and then another's, or an author's interpretation of another author's words. Doesn't mean they're contradictory, they could be meaning the exact same thing, said differently. Or it could be two entirely different events of going to the same place. Surely Jesus visited towns more than once. (/end Bible college kid rant)

[wraith89]

I was a little groggy when I typed that....But if Jesus wasn't born on the 25th, how come there is a freaking Holiday for his birth, and I think, a special church session dedicated to the exact same thing. Still though, you believe what you want to believe, and I believe what I want to believe.

Some Bishop from long ago decided to replace the pagan Yuletides holiday with the celebration of the birth of Jesus. Despite when it is celebrated, I think that has no issues with faith.

[Guardna]

And wouldn't you know it, I just gave you a stream of nonsensical babble

That was actually interesting to read.

[Shadowlord757]

god... i beleive he made the world. How else did the big bang form? How do you explain the girl who asked for a sign of god, and the medals began to sway?

[Aeolus]

Darwin was more concerned with evolution rather than origin, and we keep talking about God's act of creating the universe in six days, when we haven't questioned whether those six days are -in fact- six of OUR mortal (uhh.. yeah.) days, or six of God's (umm.. divine?) days. Now here's to some peeps around the world, THE BIG BANG THEORY DOESN'T EXPLAIN THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE, IT ONLY EXPLAINS HOW THE UNIVERSE EXPANDED. THAT MEANT THAT THERE WAS A UNIVERSE TO BEGIN WITH.

I'm not really a religious guy, so I probably shouldn't be butting my head into this conversation, but I think we should stop thinking about where we came from, and think more about where we're headed.

[Mewtwo Ex]

THAT MEANT THAT THERE WAS A UNIVERSE TO BEGIN WITH.

Actually doe to lack of explanation it is considered that this is the origin of the universe. And that there was nothing before the big bang. Illogical. I know. This is what is currently spear with the media.

I'm not really a religious guy, so I probably shouldn't be butting my head into this conversation, but I think we should stop thinking about where we came from, and think more about where we're headed.

Good then we will see eye to eye. Think ''TRON'' and you might be on to something. Computers are developing at an alarming rate, as you are aware.

[Sabeta]

I'm a bit late into the conversation, but I'll plug my two cents in now. For those who don't know, there are currently TWO accepted theories for how the Universe was formed. I'll go over both of them shortly, but first. I want to talk about the Bible.

The Bible literally does state 6 Earthen Days. I have talked to numerous priests on this subject, and all have confirmed the same, only a couple of Christians who only know the most famous scriptures have made claim that a Day for God is different than anyone else's.

The bible also states that the Earth is exactly 6,000 years old, which we all should know by now that the Earth is somewhere in the millions (Billions? I can't quite remember)

I would also like to point out, that the most prominent Christian Symbol The Cross, was created by the Norse. I can't remember what the symbol held for them (I think it represented Yggdrasil, the overly spammed tree) but they coined it first, in addition to the stories of Adam and Eve. (Except their version was left at the end of time, instead of the dawn)

Oh, and one more point I'd like to mention, that I learned quite recently. People left their grain in giant mills. This is common knowledge, yes? Well, what happens to a big pile of just about anything that sits in a mostly sealed warm room? It begins to decompose and ferment. In short, everyone was putting so many weird chemicals in their body, it's no wonder some people can claim they saw these things. If you were taking hallucinatory chemicals, you'd be seeing things too (Which was actually what was being produced by these fermented grains mind you).

Now onto Science.

Science says the Universe magically sprang from nothing. It was just there one day. Well that's where you'd be wrong. The Big Bang theory never stated that "it was just suddenly there". It states that there was a single point of Mass, that contained the entirety of universe, and it exploded. More or Less, creating the big bang. a couple kinks in the theory are A) The universe seems to have expanded unevenly, and some farther reaching parts are "older" than inner reaching parts, meaning that there was likely multiple bangs, and B) where'd that spec come from in the first place. Well B) can be answered readilly enough, and that is "Whose to say there was ever a true beginning." What if time has no beginning. What if everything that ever is will be or was, has always been. What if there was no true beginning to time, but a cycle of universal expansion and contraction. This is actually the most accepted model. Basically, the universe will stop expanding, then one of three things will happen. A) everything will just keep drifting, because there wasn't much mass to keep us together. B) we hit a perfect balance, and will be staying where we are. C) We had too much mass, and the universe will slowly collapse in on itself, ultimately creating a new big bang, and another universe. The former question however, can't be answered so easily, and that's where the current more popular theory comes into play.

Basically, we all exist in the 3rd dimension. The universe, expands to the 4 dimensional plane. In the 5th dimension, our Universe looks like a sheet of paper, as relative to 4th and 3rd dimensions. (Science can explain no better than this, as 2 more dimensions is rather hard to grasp from a 3D perspective)In this 5th dimension, are multiple other sheets of papers. These are all universes, and none of which (hypothetically) have been awakened. Now imagine, one of those sheets, just one. splitting into two, and that sliver of a sheet travels to our currently empty univserse. That sheet will crumple slightly, and impact our universe unevenly; however, the sheer force of two Universe colliding with each other. (Imagine the entire mass of everything that is, hitting something else with that mass.) This collision releases incredible amounts of Energy across the entire Universe (Big Bang) which as things slow down, begins to convert into matter, and eventually you are left with present day Universe.

Oh, and this model, there's 11 dimensions. (I think it was that many)

I don't know what basis there is for the second Model, but I'm sure there's some valid reason why it's the new standard model. (It's a lot cooler than "It just ****ing happened, I don't know how, but it did."

[Rinduri]

In my opinion there are too many flaws in Christianity to take it seriously. It's the biggest practical joke of the last two millennia, but I'm not laughing.

As for science:

Science says the Universe magically sprang from nothing. It was just there one day. Well that's where you'd be wrong. The Big Bang theory never stated that "it was just suddenly there". It states that there was a single point of Mass, that contained the entirety of universe, and it exploded. More or Less, creating the big bang. a couple kinks in the theory are A) The universe seems to have expanded unevenly, and some farther reaching parts are "older" than inner reaching parts, meaning that there was likely multiple bangs, and B) where'd that spec come from in the first place. Well B) can be answered readilly enough, and that is "Whose to say there was ever a true beginning." What if time has no beginning. What if everything that ever is will be or was, has always been. What if there was no true beginning to time, but a cycle of universal expansion and contraction. This is actually the most accepted model. Basically, the universe will stop expanding, then one of three things will happen. A) everything will just keep drifting, because there wasn't much mass to keep us together. B) we hit a perfect balance, and will be staying where we are. C) We had too much mass, and the universe will slowly collapse in on itself, ultimately creating a new big bang, and another universe. The former question however, can't be answered so easily, and that's where the current more popular theory comes into play.

That. At least, that's what the running theory(ies) is. Not to say that it's right; it probably isn't.

Humans have a tendency to cling to definitions and then settle down. In the case of science, what is perceived as fact is taught to be absolutely unquestionable. In this way science is akin to the teachings of religions. I believe any lack of thought such as that is ignorance in its finest. The bottom line is that we are not even a tiny speck in the scale of whatever it is that we exist in: we are naive. Thus it is reasonable to assume that much of what we know, however diligently researched, can and may very well be wrong. We are very much isolated to this planet, for now.

Specifically speaking on the creation of the universe, I honestly believe that whatever truth there is that is relevant to such a subject is beyond human conception. Well, at least the way we are now (and presumably will be until our species goes extinct).

Edited January 22, 2011 by Rinduri

[YuzuruHitokiri]

And what exactly are these contradictions in the Bible?

Hmm... Let's see...

How about the idea of God creating the Earth in 6 days whilst he exists outside of time?..

I believe that evolution exists, but not on a large as of a scale as Darwin's theory thinks.

Humans used to be shorter when the Gatway Arch was built (just look at the elevators), but I do not believe that we evolved from different species. There are too many holes in Darwin's theory.

Something I feel that you guys who are in disbelief of the possibility of humans evolving from different species are overlooking:

The evolution of humans that you are crying out against has never been claimed as an overnight deal, it has been told to be over milliions of years of time...

Think of it this way: Lucy, the famous purported human ancestor was dated at about 5 million years old. And she was only a really hairy human with less intelligence and a more ape-like bone structure than the homo sapiens of today...

So, do you believe in math?..

(You acknowledged DNA, wraith, so I'm using that in my argument..)

Take the difference in DNA from us and Lucy; a very small number of nucleotide pairs in difference between, yet I shall say 99% similar just for the sake of argument...

Take that the 1% of nucleotide pairs that are different, and divide them by 5 million years... (Or just watch me do it...)

1% / 5000000 = 0.0000002% net change per year...

Now say that the average generation (a generation being the average time from birth of a creature to the time that they contribute to a birth in which they are the parent) is about 25 years, an over-estimate, but good for argument.

0.0000002% net change in DNA per year * 25 years in a generation = 0.000005% net change in DNA in a generation...

Let me rephrase that: The net change in DNA in a generation is less than one hundred thousandth of a percent...

So is that such a hard number to fathom? So small...just like the change that occurs from evolution...

And just remember that I over estimated those values. It would take even less of a change per generation than that to get from Lucy to us...

If you actually believe Darwinian evolution as a fact, then you pretty much believe in a god (or rather a goddess) too if you think about it. Natural selection... mother nature anyone? She simply selects who is most fit and who is not? Oh right, throw in a bit of time and in a million years our little froggy will become a prince.(1)

....

Microevolution DOES happen... stuff can CHANGE with slight variation. It is called ADAPTATION right there... we humans do adapt. There is no denying that. But the lie comes within macroevolution. One specimen cannot change into another specimen. For example, you will never find a dragon turning into a chicken (which is preposterous but that is the common belief nowadays by evolutionists, hence VelociRAPTORs).(2)

....

Fossil records show NOTHING. If you have done your research you will know that the fossil records only exists in ones' textbook. No such layer dating fossils at certain given time has ever been found in real life. In fact, visit a museum or somewhere, and they will tell you they date fossils by the rock layer they were found... so how do they know the rock layers are certain epochs? By the very same fossils that use the rock layers for dating them! Circular reasoning anyone?(3)

1. STRAW MAN ARGUMENT!!! What does Natural Selection have to do with the Frog Prince?..

That aside, Natural Selection is not a god or goddess or controlled by one... (Unless you consider Lady Luck a goddess...)

What you said is similar to like me saying:

- If you believe the bible as truth, you follow every word faithfully, and intently listen to every sermon or congregation that your church has to offer. You never question it, but denounce everyone else who does. Oh right, throw in about 6 days and our Dear Lord will have created the Earth...

2. That argument is flawed; you neglected the time that it takes for macroevolution to happen, it doesn't happen overnight, it requires many, many, many generations of the species to occur...

Let's get this straight, macroevolution is the part of evolution from which a species evolves into another. Yes, that sounds fishy, BUT, you need to know the definition of a species first to see why it is so very plausible.

A species is a group of populations that can interbreed and produce successful offspring that can produce their own offspring. This means those species with slight variations you call ADAPTATIONS can breed together and pass those ADAPTATIONS to their offspring.

After enough of those ADAPTATIONS, a species finally hits a point where it is different than a lot of others in its species and can no longer interbreed with it.

That is then considered to be macroevolution, not just one generation...

Oh yeah, you ever hear about how Velociraptors are now believed to have had feathers!?

They have been found to have had notches in some of their bones where feathers attached to!..

3. REALLY!?!? THEY SHOW NOTHING!?!?

What about the the bones of the dinosaurs that have ever been preserved?

Doesn't that show that the dinosaurs existed at one point?

And if they really existed in the Earth's purported 6,000 years of existence, wouldn't you have heard a story or two from sources like the Bible?..

Since you're so quote-happy with the Bible, find me a quote that says that dinosaurs existed in the last 6,000 years... I challenge you to do that... And make it from your King James Bible since you think it's so accurate...

If you can't find one, it means that the Earth is more than 6,000 years old, discrediting a key part of the Bible... (Or would you refute the fact that dinosaurs even existed?..)

[Sabeta]

My main flaw with Christianity, is that it's far too narrow-minded. Science is an open minded practice. The very nature of the Scientific Method includes room for error. The bible; however, says that everything is absolutely the way it is, and that nothing will ever change that. It wasn't until 1992 that the Church acknowledged that our humble little Eart wasn't the center of the Universe, despite Centuries of overwhelming data proving that it wasn't. (The first of these being the Pendulum. I don't remember the poor blokes name, but he proved that the earth was moving, and not the sun, by building a pendulum. If the earth were not in motion, then it would swing to the same places every time; however, in his experiment it gradually shifted around and about in a circle.) Despite this, the church decided they should kill him. Hundreds of years later, they finally decided "Oops, guess we were wrong about something."

This Narrow-Minded thinking is apalling to me. Why would you want to intentionally restrict every aspect of your life to a single solitary thought pattern? I've read up on what the Church says Heaven is as well. You lose all your friends, all your family, and all your worldly possesions, everything you have ever enjoyed is lost to you, and instead you only know god, and do nothing but pray to god all day and all night of all times. Call me selfish but that doesn't quite sound like a pleasant place to be.

[Rinduri]

(The first of these being the Pendulum. I don't remember the poor blokes name, but he proved that the earth was moving, and not the sun, by building a pendulum. If the earth were not in motion, then it would swing to the same places every time; however, in his experiment it gradually shifted around and about in a circle.) Despite this, the church decided they should kill him. Hundreds of years later, they finally decided "Oops, guess we were wrong about something."

It was Foucault iirc. Yay for being a physics nerd. >.>

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a1/Foucault_pendulum_animated.gif

Though I'm pretty sure he wasn't murdered by Christians, but whatever.

[Sabeta]

He was. He was deemed a Heretic and killed.

[YuzuruHitokiri]

Foucault was?..

But you were right about the whole 'inability to accept science' thing...

I think Copernicus and Galileo were good examples of that...

[Sabeta]

Your link is broken.

[Okami]

This Narrow-Minded thinking is apalling to me. Why would you want to intentionally restrict every aspect of your life to a single solitary thought pattern? I've read up on what the Church says Heaven is as well. You lose all your friends, all your family, and all your worldly possesions, everything you have ever enjoyed is lost to you, and instead you only know god, and do nothing but pray to god all day and all night of all times. Call me selfish but that doesn't quite sound like a pleasant place to be.

Yes, it is true that you "lose" everything, but in view of Christ, those things were to be "hated." A follower of Christ is to love Him so much that it spills over to loving others, in caring for the needy and the sick and the broken. In Matthew 25 Jesus speaks to both of these things. Heaven is going to be like a wedding feast. Recently, I was at a wedding - it is full of fellowship, laughter, music, and remembrance of memories of the bride and groom. The Church is Christ's bride, and much like the Old Testament story of Hosea, she is broken. Hosea was asked of God to marry the prostitute Gomer as a parallel of Israel, in which the people were adulterous in following God, not adhering to Torah as was asked of them to do for their own benefit in being set apart from the surrounding nations. In Gomer's adultery, Hosea loved her anyways - it is the same of Christ to His Church.

Later in Matthew 25 Jesus explains how all of the nations will come to Him and he will 'separate the sheep from the goats.' To those on His right He will welcome them in, telling them that He was hungry, thirsty, a stranger, naked, sick, and imprisoned and they met His needs. To those on the left He departs from His presence because they did not do these things. As He explains to both groups, to the extent that they had done to those in those needs, they had done it to Him. Heaven will be full of worship, which is to say that of which I described of the wedding feast earlier; it will be fellowship, communication, and rejoicing. As someone once explained to me, it will be much like the love of a dating relationship or even a newlywed couple - passionate and zealous.

[Rinduri]

Yes, it is true that you "lose" everything, but in view of Christ, those things were to be "hated." A follower of Christ is to love Him so much that it spills over to loving others, in caring for the needy and the sick and the broken. In Matthew 25 Jesus speaks to both of these things. Heaven is going to be like a wedding feast. Recently, I was at a wedding - it is full of fellowship, laughter, music, and remembrance of memories of the bride and groom. The Church is Christ's bride, and much like the Old Testament story of Hosea, she is broken. Hosea was asked of God to marry the prostitute Gomer as a parallel of Israel, in which the people were adulterous in following God, not adhering to Torah as was asked of them to do for their own benefit in being set apart from the surrounding nations. In Gomer's adultery, Hosea loved her anyways - it is the same of Christ to His Church.

Later in Matthew 25 Jesus explains how all of the nations will come to Him and he will 'separate the sheep from the goats.' To those on His right He will welcome them in, telling them that He was hungry, thirsty, a stranger, naked, sick, and imprisoned and they met His needs. To those on the left He departs from His presence because they did not do these things. As He explains to both groups, to the extent that they had done to those in those needs, they had done it to Him. Heaven will be full of worship, which is to say that of which I described of the wedding feast earlier; it will be fellowship, communication, and rejoicing. As someone once explained to me, it will be much like the love of a dating relationship or even a newlywed couple - passionate and zealous.

So if I found that 'ideal' eternity to be unpleasant, what then would that make me? Not everyone's view of paradise is the same, and a certain few (I in particular) are partial to the idea of just having eternal rest among the options.

[YuzuruHitokiri]

@Sabeta:

Wha?.. It works on my end...

Maybe it's your browser?..

It linked to the Leon Foucault Wikipedia page, specifically to the "Death and Afterwards" section...

@Okami:

Yes, it is true that you "lose" everything, but in view of Christ, those things were to be "hated."(1) A follower of Christ is to love Him so much that it spills over to loving others, in caring for the needy and the sick and the broken. In Matthew 25 Jesus speaks to both of these things. Heaven is going to be like a wedding feast. Recently, I was at a wedding - it is full of fellowship, laughter, music, and remembrance of memories of the bride and groom.(2)

1. Now doesn't that sound just peachy!..*End heavy sarcasm* So you lose everything when you go to heaven? What about the small, harmless things that made you fill with joy? Like a good book and set of building blocks or even a trinket that reminds you of a joyful time of your past?.. Why must you be separated from the things that gave you a feeling of warmth in your heart?..

*Tangent, not part of the argument, just my thoughts on this* I almost get a feeling from this that he's insecure about you loving him and needs to distance you from all your worldly possessions so that all that you experience in heaven is him, and him alone!.. Wouldn't it be better if those who were just that madly in love with the guy forsaked all of their belongings and memories of their own free will? and not have them stolen from under their noses?..*End of tangent*

2. I was recently at a wedding too... It was full of distanced-persons, awkward moments, what I was told was music, and the abrasive memories of my cousin's family situation... My cousin was the one being wed...

Which goes to say that you can't generalize the emotions experienced at an event that involves emotions or anything else subjective...no matter what the bible tells you it should be like...(Or television, for that matter... But that's a different story...)

People experience these things differently, and will think of them differently, so I can guarantee you that things aren't all joyous or morbid or meh to everyone at the same time...which backs up Rinduri's comment about how paradise is different for everyone...