Does hope come from God?

[Brinnie]

"hope" is a calculation, lolz. and so it is written:

[CraigD]

"hope" is a calculation, lolz. and so it is written:

What!?

 

Brinnie, please elaborate.

[Brinnie]

What!?

 

Brinnie, please elaborate.

Hope's an easy one cause it's neighbors with imagination...

 

FACTOR 1: when you hope for something, say a car for your birthday. You have determined that it is possible.

 

FACTOR 2: The difference between a hope and a wish is probability. unless you're the son of a billionaire, nobody hopes their graduation present is a Ferrarri, only that it's a decent car.

 

Essentially, the brain functioned in utilizing past logic in prediction between possibility and probability to generate a simulated fantasy in your head of a calculated future. the indescribable positive feeling present at the time of thought is merely a biological side effect we call emotion. consequentially, when the thoughts are threatening in nature, we call this phenomena fear.

 

 

But that's not half as interesting as how relative these fantasies are to our reaction time in the exact moment. enough consciousness will make you... godlike.

[palmtreepathos]

So then you believe "TRUE" hope comes from "trusting that what GOD promises can come true", and that by acting in faith and consistent with certain Biblical interpretations, your hope will become reality.

I would imagine that a person running for office or supporting a special candidate must feel a similar type of hope... a sense of well meaning toward their neighbors, the outcome of their work in the hands of others. The same would be somewhat true of parenting when you send them out into the world and I am sure that people devoted to different causes feel a similar hope. I was comparing the difference of the mundane or daily desires that some think of as hope to things beyond your sphere of power. There are great and fearless minds that do see possibilities out of the resticted view of many and achieve them, I hold that walking with God and his Son you experience things beyond those types of hope....

 

I assume you're referring to the afterlife. Is that what you mean?

Not just, I have had wonderful experiences already that would not have come without trusting, waiting and hoping in God. Brinnie's logic is sound and I have experienced that as well, pretty exciting stuff too... I just contend there is even more at work in walking with God...seeing the fulfillment of Bible prophecies is an experience beyond those types of hope....

 

Does this mean that any experience of hope we have that is not associated with God, faith, or the afterlife would be false hope?

No

[REASON]

I hear you palmtree.

 

My sense is that what you are talking about is more that hope is something many people experience WITH God as opposed to the idea that it has emanated FROM God. Maybe this is a bit semantical, but I see a definite distinction.

 

To me, hope WITH God would be a more accurate statement because it implies that hope is still a natural human emotion that is aligned with religious belief as opposed to being dependent on it. It's just a way in which people have chosen to orient their sense of hope.

 

To me, any concept of hope, or other human emotion, as having originated anywhere but from within the natural human psyche is a false assertion.

[palmtreepathos]

Maybe I am thinking of the expanded definition that a source of aid is also called a Hope... you might say a buy-out of our company is our only hope or winning this game is our only hope etc... which is not just a feeling but a source of aid/saving beyond yourself. Now, hearing of such aid might heighten ones own emotional hopes but that doesn't provide the action needed.

You may not believe in the Bible but there is a story that depicts a wide application of hope. In the story of the three Hebrew boys that faced the fiery furnace in Babylon, they surely hoped(desired) that Jehovah would save them right then but either way they were determined not to give up their greater "Hope"(expectation for the future) of being a part in his eternal purpose by loyally obeying his command in regards to bowing before idols though it might cost them their life. He becomes their hope (source of salvation) in the greatest way by actually getting them out alive... Daniel ch 3

[Brinnie]

ITo me, any concept of hope, or other human emotion, as having originated anywhere but from within the natural human psyche is a false assertion.

I'm sorry, but you guys are far off track. HOPE is not an emotion. It's a fantasy that simulates and produces emotions. Much like FEAR.

 

The opposite of hope is fear. and fear produces emotion. [1] [2]

 

OF COURSE, there are alternate theories. But I have already done the research on these:

 

Hope is the opposite of presumption

 

Hope is the opposite of negativity.

 

Too much hope is the opposite of despair

 

hope is the opposite of mistrust and insecurity

 

hope is the opposite of security

 

That should be enough to get you guys started on an equation for hope.

[IATESOTK]

I've been out of town and haven't had a chance to check the forum. . . it's great to read the thread! Many great minds here, no doubt.

 

My personal interpretation of "hope" is that people usually pick one of two sides. Maybe it is a genetic thing, maybe it is a conscious decision in early childhood--or maybe it is something we are conditioned to pick depending on our parents/gaurdians.

 

These two sides are

1.) ANYTHING can happen people

2.) NOTHING really happens people

 

The "anythings can happen people" are made up from many different mindsets. They are the believers in God, religion, the supernatural. They are the political activists, the rebels, the believers in change, the believers in conspiracy, the believers in controlling forces within the world. etc. etc. . .

 

The "nothing really happens people" are also made up of a diverse people. They are the believers in random coincidence, statistics, and mathematics explaining the source of everything. They are the technical writers, the anti-conspirisists, and the proof finders.

 

Some people dream, some people verify the legitimacy of the dreams. And of course, I don't think it is black and white by any means. People adopt beliefs and ideas from both sides of the spectrum.

 

However, each side finds hope in their constant quest to either A.)see their dreams come true. . .or B.) Prove that everything can be explained logically.

 

This poses another interesting question, though. Don't we need both sides to progress? If the whole world was dreamers--we would all be cult leaders and artists who would ultimately never get anything done. However, if we were all analytical thinkers, we would shut out all questioning of the absurd, and fail to see the absurdity as it happens.

 

What I find fascinating is that many of you on this forum take one of these sides, yet you all seem to find some middle ground. . .and that is beautiful. When art and science learn to some together--great things usually happen. Look at all the Great Wonders of the world. . .many of them were dreamed by artists, and brought into being by science.

 

Am I a hippie? haha. . .I dunno. "Come on people now, smile on your brother, everybody get together try to love one another--Right now!"

 

Peace.

[Reaper]

The debate to prove/disprove God will go on forever. If you are open minded, then the debate should be fun/interesting regardless what side you take!

 

We will see about that. My personal experience with this kind of debate is that in the end, it always turns into a debate about sanity. I should also warn you that I often hear the phrase "open mindedness" in many debates on religion and God.....

 

However, let's take God out of the equation for a second and just talk about hope--in a very broad sense. Where does it come from? Without any hope, we would take our own lives (as many people do, unfortunately).

 

Well, you would first have to show that God and "hope" are somehow related. Hope itself can come from a variety of sources, so you have to be a bit more specific with your question. As for what I think, well I'm no psychologist, but my observation is that people usually have hope when they are either beginning to get out of a hardship (e.g. They went through a bunch of crap, and then all of the sudden an event occurs that makes them happy), or when they are uncertain or afraid about certain things or events (e.g. I hope x, y, or z doesn't happen....).

 

 

If we aren't born with some hidden "spiritual knowledge" that God does indeed exist, and that we have a purpose, then how are we all still here? How do we wake up in the morning and get the motivation to do--well--anything?

 

Well, now you are assuming quite a few things here. You are assuming that there is "spiritual knowledge" to be had, that God exists, and that we have a purpose.

 

As for how we are even here, well, that's kind of a vague question. Are you looking for how we came into existence? Or how we ended up at our particular stage and situation in our lives? Or what exactly?

 

As for the motivation to wake up in the morning and do anything, well, that depends on my mood and circumstances at hand. And well, there are a whole bunch of reasons behind my motivations to do anything, and none of which have anything to do with God.

 

 

So, I'm not really quite certain what you are trying to get at here, as there is no evidence whatsoever for His existence, nor is there any real reason to include God in any of our explanations, hypothesis, or even in our daily lives.

[REASON]

So, I'm not really quite certain what you are trying to get at here, as there is no evidence whatsoever for His existence, nor is there any real reason to include God in any of our explanations, hypothesis, or even in our daily lives.

 

That is, unless the hope being referred to relates to the promise that there will be an afterlife. That would require a god, or at least that's how it's presented to people. This type of hope lies at the foundation of the willingness of people to follow scriptural religions and commit to their believe in god. Survival is the primary instinctual motivator that drives this in my opinion.

[IATESOTK]

We will see about that. My personal experience with this kind of debate is that in the end, it always turns into a debate about sanity. I should also warn you that I often hear the phrase "open mindedness" in many debates on religion and God.....

 

For the record, I have also heard the term "open-mindedness " in many debates about atheism and science explaining everything---from both circles. Atheists say believers are closed minded, as do be believers to atheists.

 

 

Well, you would first have to show that God and "hope" are somehow related. Hope itself can come from a variety of sources, so you have to be a bit more specific with your question. As for what I think, well I'm no psychologist, but my observation is that people usually have hope when they are either beginning to get out of a hardship (e.g. They went through a bunch of crap, and then all of the sudden an event occurs that makes them happy), or when they are uncertain or afraid about certain things or events (e.g. I hope x, y, or z doesn't happen....).

 

And I agree. . . so what is it in our minds that gives us hope? Is it the absense of happiness, or the onset of happiness? Or is it simply wanting more of this happiness all the time?

 

 

 

Well, now you are assuming quite a few things here. You are assuming that there is "spiritual knowledge" to be had, that God exists, and that we have a purpose.

 

I'm not really assuming--- I'm simply saying if not, then what is the motivating factor behind movement. . .besides eating, drinking, protecting ourselves from attack, and having children so our dna survives? I could do that in a cardboard box next to a garden the grows fresh food and a small stream running through an area with the most consistent environment.

 

As for how we are even here, well, that's kind of a vague question. Are you looking for how we came into existence? Or how we ended up at our particular stage and situation in our lives? Or what exactly?

 

As for the motivation to wake up in the morning and do anything, well, that depends on my mood and circumstances at hand. And well, there are a whole bunch of reasons behind my motivations to do anything, and none of which have anything to do with God.

 

 

So, I'm not really quite certain what you are trying to get at here, as there is no evidence whatsoever for His existence, nor is there any real reason to include God in any of our explanations, hypothesis, or even in our daily lives.

 

I'm looking for why we don't just all hold hands and jump into the ocean. ASSUMING there can be no God, then why do we work so hard to figure things out? What is the purpose of science? Is it to prove to the whole world that there is no God, therefore no point to anything other than feeling happy as much as possible and unhappy the least amount as possible?

 

I'm pretty sure if everyone instantly believed that, then we would ultimately destroy ourselves systematically.

 

Then again, if we all believed without a doubt that God existed--everyone would surely kill themselves to be closer to God and the afterlife. (Isn't that what every "successful" cult has done in the past)

 

I want to be one of the people in the middle. . .cause I like what I have going on. I'm happy believing in God, and I'm also happy entertaining the fact that maybe He doesn't even exist at all. That's what keeps me alive. That's what makes me want to get up every morning.

[CraigD]

I'm looking for why we don't just all hold hands and jump into the ocean.

Some people do take their own lives because they believe life pointless. The great majority do not.

 

Speaking personally, I don’t kill myself because my life has been full of happiness and pleasure, and appears to me likely to continue to be so. Much of my happiness derives from activities that religion terms virtuous – helping and safeguarding people, etc. The future is, for me, a compelling object of my curiosity.

 

The existence of God has, for me, nearly no affect on these emotions.

Is it [the purpose of science] to prove to the whole world that there is no God, therefore no point to anything other than feeling happy as much as possible and unhappy the least amount as possible?

No.

 

Although some scientists (eg: Richard Dawkins) are committed to convincing to as many people as possible that there is no God or other supernatural beings, no well know proponent of this mission of whom I’m aware claims, and I do not personally believe, that this will result more widespread adoption of hedonism. Nearly all claim that it will reduce human suffering and accelerate and enhance human achievement.

I'm pretty sure if everyone instantly believed that [there is no God], then we would ultimately destroy ourselves systematically.

I’m confident that this is not the case.

 

As someone who once believe that God and other supernatural beings described in the Holy Bible, such as angels, exist (really, physically, objectively, not as a “good myth”, moral metaphor, etc.), and now do not, I can attest that I am feel myself no more inclined to self or other destruction, and judged by objectively confirmable behavior, am less destructive, than when I believed in God.

 

I’m unaware of any support for a claim of a positive correlation between atheism and destructive behavior, or a negative correlation between theism and destructive behavior. Anecdotally, some of the most destructive (both systematically and haphazardly) people in recent history have been widely considered to be devout theists, while some of the least are self-professed atheists.

 

One can reasonable argue that no atheist is completely committed to their belief that God and other supernatural beings exist, but also reasonable argue that theists are no more completely committed to their belief that He or they do. My subjective feeling is that the strength of my present conviction that God and other supernatural beings do not exist is about as great as the strength of my previous conviction that they do.

[Reaper]

For the record, I have also heard the term "open-mindedness " in many debates about atheism and science explaining everything---from both circles. Atheists say believers are closed minded, as do be believers to atheists.

 

So we both agree then that flinging around phrases like open and closed mindedness is really nothing more than an elaborate red herring?

 

 

And I agree. . . so what is it in our minds that gives us hope? Is it the absense of happiness, or the onset of happiness? Or is it simply wanting more of this happiness all the time?

 

You didn't quite address my counterpoint. I already gave the assertion that "hope" in general can be caused by a huge number of reasons. There really is no one singular cause of hope, though I did note that people who have hope tend to be either afraid or uncertain about things and/or struggling.

 

 

I'm not really assuming---[snip]

 

Are you? You ask us that since we believe there is no God, then how do we find justification for anything. That in itself is implicitly assuming that you do believe in His existence. Not that it's wrong, but I was just making sure that you were aware of this. And refer to my earlier post for more info about the need for God....

 

I'm simply saying if not, then what is the motivating factor behind movement. . .besides eating, drinking, protecting ourselves from attack, and having children so our dna survives? I could do that in a cardboard box next to a garden the grows fresh food and a small stream running through an area with the most consistent environment.

 

Well, those are still rather vague questions. What, exactly, are you asking, because the reasons for anything we do are too many to count. For instance, I compete in chess tournaments because chess is a hobby of mine. I go to school because I want to learn, among other reasons. Are you seriously assuming that all non-believers are concerned about is sheer survival?

 

 

I'm looking for why we don't just all hold hands and jump into the ocean. [snip]

What is the purpose of science? Is it to prove to the whole world that there is no God, therefore no point to anything other than feeling happy as much as possible and unhappy the least amount as possible?

 

Refer to CraigD's post.

 

Otherwise, no.

 

 

 

 

I'm pretty sure if everyone instantly believed that [that there is no God], then we would ultimately destroy ourselves systematically.

 

I'm pretty certain that this is not the case. Rather, I find that the more religious humanity was, the more frequent and barbaric the wars.

 

 

 

I want to be one of the people in the middle. . .cause I like what I have going on. I'm happy believing in God, and I'm also happy entertaining the fact that maybe He doesn't even exist at all. That's what keeps me alive. That's what makes me want to get up every morning.

 

Well, good for you. I do encourage you to give it a little bit more thought though; rather then asking other people why they don't believe in God, you should really look into why you think there has to be one in the first place...

[Reaper]

That is, unless the hope being referred to relates to the promise that there will be an afterlife. That would require a god, or at least that's how it's presented to people.

 

Well, not quite. There are some religions, such as Buddhism, that do speak of an afterlife without actually having to reference a supernatural deity. So, even in that topic (quite silly IMO, but...) there still is no need to include the supernatural.

[modest]

My inexpert impression is that neither the OT or the New describes hope in the same sense as contemporary non-Judeo-Christian sources, like the story of Pandora’s box I discussed in post #6. When it uses words translating to the English “hope”, the use seems more concrete, as in hoping not to be defeated in battle, hoping not to die, hoping for the coming of the messiah, etc. Nowhere do I find any intimation of God, and angel, etc. giving of taking hope as some sort of transferable stuff.

 

This reinforces a personal (and again, very inexpert) theory of mine that until fairly recently – no earlier than the year 1000, possibly much later –Jews and Christians, except for a few heretical minorities (including semi-pagan Greeks and Romans), didn’t believe in or think much about thought, souls, and similar meta-physical ideas. Another, stronger confirming datum for this theory are early Christian burial traditions (eg: carefully maintained ossuaries) and art related to the raising of the dead. As best I can tell, nearly all of them considered life after death to be literal, biological life - flesh reforming on bones, and the long-dead waking, emerging from crypts, and physically carrying on with life – and as a result, were careful to preserve remnants of the dead, lest their physical resurrection be impossible.

 

As the inclusion and exclusion of scripture in the Bible was complete long before the end of this literal-mindedness, the Bible doesn’t contain the concept of hope as metaphysical object.

 

What is your opinion of this theory? Can you think of any scripture supporting or contradicting it?

 

I believe you’re spot on about Judaism and equally incorrect about Christianity.

 

First let me agree with you (which I usually find myself doing):

 

The Jewish cannon has never been one of spiritualism. The lack of an afterlife or deficit of spiritual forces is ridiculously obvious in the Torah. Mainstream Judaism has historically followed that lead. Unless I’m mistaken, I don’t believe there are any references in the old testament to God putting thoughts of hope or faith or any kind of metaphysical strength in a person’s head. God rather affects the physical world both to test people and reward them if they pass the test. The story of Job is a perfect example. Abraham’s entire life story is this same theme over and over again.

 

This lack of spiritualism is probably why most spin-offs to orthodox Judaism happen. And, it goes back much further than 1000 AD. The Kabbalah, Gnosticism, Christianity and others seem to be a direct effort to give a spiritual and mystical aspect to the Jewish religion. It is, in fact, remarkable that orthodox Judaism has withstood such influences to date.

 

I would say this desire for spiritualism is the reason for the Christian religion. The desire and mood that set Christianity in motion predated Jesus who was, no doubt, a product of his times. I would therefore disagree when you say:

 

This reinforces a personal (and again, very inexpert) theory of mine that until fairly recently – no earlier than the year 1000, possibly much later –Jews and Christians, except for a few heretical minorities (including semi-pagan Greeks and Romans), didn’t believe in or think much about thought, souls, and similar meta-physical ideas.

 

and would rather say that there has never been a flavor of Christianity that can be so described. The inclusion of the soul, spirits, spiritual forces are as old as anything Christian we know. First let me give some sources that we know date from the earliest-ish Christian churches. The first 2 dealing with “hope” explicitly:

 

Rom. 5.5

And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.

 

Rom 15:13

Now the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, that ye may abound in hope, through the power of the Holy Ghost.

 

The idea of God putting hope into the heart of early Christians is so shown. But, the general nature of the spiritualism goes much further than ‘hope’. Spirits, faith, belief, and thoughts in general seem to be the point of most everything in the new testament. This is symbolized with the holy ghost or holy spirit. Also, you can find in more than one book - probably every book in the new testament - how the fleshly world is evil and people should mind the spiritual world.

I Cor 15:50

Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

 

Paul then goes on to describe the resurrection which he stresses isn’t of the flesh.

 

I don’t want to go on and on with scripture here but just to stress it’s a very spiritual and mystical religion. Well, I probably should cite something of the mystical side of things…

 

Col 2.2-3

That their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the acknowledgement of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ; In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.

 

Probably not the best example. The mystery of the spirit and hidden knowledge and secrets and that type of thing is in there. Well, here we go:

 

I Cor. 2:7

But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory.

 

The Gnostic books and beliefs are even thicker with spiritualism which is a great indication of the age and intent of the movement. I would even argue that Rome cut out a lot of the mystical and spiritual aspects of the earliest Christian beliefs to make it more palatable. Gnosticism probably predates Jesus just as John the Baptist does. Both demonstrate these ideas that were eventually canonized into Christianity were popular in and before the time of Jesus and were intensely spiritual.

 

I feel I should stop talking before I am labeled a religious nut. On which I should probably also note that I’m not Christian, Jewish, Religious, or Spiritual in any way but probably somewhere between Agnostic and Atheist.

 

-modest

[modest]

Does hope come from God?

 

The debate to prove/disprove God will go on forever. If you are open minded, then the debate should be fun/interesting regardless what side you take! However, let's take God out of the equation for a second and just talk about hope

 

Impossible (as to the second quote). Depends (as to the first).

 

If you accept that God both exists and is omnipotent then logically the answer to the question must be yes. 'Hope' just like anything else including 'evil' and all of the rest of creation comes from God. Therefore the question is simply a rephrasing of - does god exist and is he omnipotent?

 

I'd say not - but let's not argue that one.

 

-modest

[CraigD]

I Cor 15:50

Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

Paul then goes on to describe the resurrection which he stresses isn’t of the flesh.

1 Corinthians 15 certainly spells out Paul of Tarsus’s views on resurrection, in nearly textbook fashion. Modest, your Bible scholarship is impressive! :(

 

Both of the Epistles to the Corinthians (instructive letters written by Paul to the early Christians in Corinth, Greece) were pretty certainly written around 55 AD by Paul and little altered in subsequent translation, so can safely be said to represent “mainstream” Christian ideas of the early churches, in which the term “spirit” figures prominently.

 

However, examining what Paul and his contemporaries mean by spirit, especially in phrases like “spiritual body”, continues to reinforce my confidence in my theory that these people were referring to much more tangible things with these terms than later Christians, and religionists and spiritualists of many kinds. The Spiritual body described in 1 Corinthians 15 is not a “ghost” in the modern sense – insubstantial and invisible – but an outwardly ordinary human body, distinguished from a “natural body” by a few key traits:

• “Incorruptability”. What more modern writers sometimes term “immorbidity”, meaning these bodies don’t get sick. Literally, they don’t become “corrupt”, meaning decayed. Paul and his contemporaries had a fairly primitive grasp of medicine and biology, so, I suspect they equated aging, illness, and various other physical and mental maladies with rotting, seeing life as “natural” life as process of gradual decay. Famous personages of high esteem in Christian culture, such as saints, commonly have attributed to them a miraculous quality of their bodies remaining “uncorrupt” – not decaying - after their physical deaths. Some descriptions, such as the much later 17th Century ones of the Rosicrucian of their legendary founder, Christian Rosenkreuz, describe long-entombed bodies as remaining flexible, soft, and even warm to the touch.
  
• “Immortality”. Apparently as a consequence of their immorbidity, spiritual bodies never die.
  
• Strength. It’s implied that spiritual bodies are more powerful than natural ones.
  
• Glory and honor. Guessing at what Paul and his contemporaries mean by this, I’d take it to mean that they expected their future spiritual bodies to not exhibit troubling phenomena like sexual arousal in inappropriate circumstances.
  

1 Corinthians 15 is pretty clear, IMHO, that everybody, or at least every Christian, should expect undergo a physical transformation paralleling the depicted resurrection of Jesus: physical death (cessation of motion, heartbeat, etc), then physically “rising up” and leaving the tomb to walk, eat and drink, and behave much as before. Their bodies tissues are expected to be different from before in an outwardly subtle way – 1 Corinthian 15 provides an analogy of the difference between the flesh “of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fish, and another of birds” to illustrate how spiritual.

 

The Christian Gospels appear to predict a fairly straightforward sequence of physical events (omitting much colorful detail):

• Throughout the world, people live, suffer, get sick, age, die, and are entombed and buried;
  
• Everywhere, all at once, Angels descend from high in the air to near the ground, and make a loud sound by blowing trumpets;
  
• Christians (and possibly some pre-Christian Jews) who have died have their physical bodies rebuilt better than before, wake, emerge from their tombs, and resume ordinary activities;
  
• These people live throughout the world, never suffer, age, get sick, or die, for ever and ever.
  

The Christians of Paul’s time apparently expected with high confidence this scenario to occur. Opinions varied on whether people who were not resurrected simply remained dead and decayed, or were resurrected and taken to a bad place, there to be tortured for ever and ever.

 

At some time much after the 1st Century AD – which I suspect was later even than the 15th Century – it appears that most Christians stopped believing these predictions to be literal and physical, and began considering them allegorical. In strong contrast to the scenario expected by early Christians, most modern-day Christians, and many other kinds of religionists and spiritualists, expect something like this:

• Throughout the world, people live, suffer, get sick, age, die, and are entombed, buried, cremated (and, rarely, rocketed into space), surgically dismantled for use in organ transplants, medical education and research, etc.
  
• At the moment of a person’s death, an invisible, insubstantial component of the person separates from the body, and, depending of various traits, such as being Christian, having behaved virtuously, etc.
  • Goes to an invisible realm, heaven, to live a happy, sickness and death free eternal life
  • Goes to an invisible realm, hell, to live an unhappy, tortured eternal life
  • Fades away
  • Stays on earth, haunting the living as a ghost.

The number of Christians and others expecting the following is, I think, much smaller than the number believing the preceeding:

• An apocalypse occurs, marked by various events, such as flying angels (with sounding trumpets), demons, and other physically substantial supernatural beings.
  
• Christians suddenly physically vanish from the world (or possibly physically ascend) in an event termed “the Rapture”. They go to heaven.
  
• Bad things will happen to the people remaining in the world.
  
• A great, mundane and supernatural war occurs. God, Jesus, and other good people win, bad people and supernatural beings lose.
  
• The remaining people will be judged by God. The bad people will be utterly destroyed.
  

At this point in the scenario, Christians of different denominations and personal beliefs are, I think, much divided in their expectation of what comes next. Many expect:

• A great city, “the City of Heaven on Earth”, physically descends from high up to the surface. Everyone lives there without suffering, aging, illness, or dieing for ever and ever.
  

or, alternately:

• The remaining people live on Earth without suffering, aging, illness, or dieing for ever and ever, building one or more great “Heaven on Earth” cities.
  

or:

• The remaining people live on Earth without suffering, aging, illness, or dieing for ever and ever, in predominantly pastoral societies without great cities.
  

The Biblical basis for the elaborate details of these expectations is predominantly Revelation, though I understand some Christian churches base them also on 2 Edras (Ezra) 3-14, a considerable less straightforward narrative than Revelation, believed to have been written a couple of decades after Revelation, by uncertain, possibly multiple, Jews.

 

My central point is that modern-day Christians and other religionists have an interpretation of a “spirit being” version of a human radically different from early Christians’. Early Christians’ appear to have imagined an essentially “improved flesh” – immorbid and immortal, but physically real and outwardly very similar to ordinary – human. Modern Christians, in my experience, imagine a physically insubstantial (commonly described as “unearthly”, “disembodied soul”, “extradimensional”, “metaphysical”, “pure spirit”, etc.)

 

I don’t think the familiar modern idea of a “disembodied soul” would have seemed sensible to Christians of the first few centuries AD Though I’m unsure when these ideas gained acceptance, I suspect it may have been much later, as late as the 15th Century.

I feel I should stop talking before I am labeled a religious nut. On which I should probably also note that I’m not Christian, Jewish, Religious, or Spiritual in any way but probably somewhere between Agnostic and Atheist.[/url]This is the theology forum. Some rather wild ideas, by objective scientific standards, are inevitable here.

 

I consider myself an atheist, but believe that a good understanding of human history and culture requires a good knowledge of religion, including a first-hand, emotional appreciation of the ideas underlying religion. Religious ideas and writing are intensely meaningful and important, I think, both to theists and atheists, even though people of these diametrically opposed sorts interpret them very differently.

 

A theist’s reaction to these speculations and questions would be appreciated. Is there a theist in the house?