bik has said elsewhere

"On the day of judgement...everyone will account for his/her own actions and beliefs."

This is also a popular interpretation of Christianity.

I have always been intrigued with this notion of all standing in front of god and answering for their earthly actions. My question concerns the nature of the event. With billions of people who had, have, and will have existed, what sort of time frame are we looking at over which the judgement occurs? I mean, even if time as we know it doesn't exist, the presentation by so many people will take...well, time. How do others see this event in terms of this factor?

I don't see it as being necessary at all. Wouldn't an omniscient god already know what we've been up to anyway? How else would he even know if we were lying, omitting, or bragging ? He could also have a whole posse of dead former priests hearing confessions from the rest of us, couldn't he? He could delegate authority to them for dispatching the petty offenders, like myself.

Bik needs to give us the scripture on any day of judgment. Otherwise, frankvan is making good sense.

"On the day of judgement...everyone will account for his/her own actions and beliefs." (Muslim and Christian belief).

This is also a popular interpretation of Christianity.

I don't know, but ten minutes would be too long. I don't even like to read tabloid headlines while waiting in line in the supermarket. So one celebrity is a glutton and now weighs two hundred pounds. So another has murdered his wife, or her husband. So a third is sexing extra-maritally. So a fat,ugly old politician is chasing the interns, and his/her equally fat and ugly spouse is enraged and humiliated.

So how much more boring would it be to watch as all the billions of people who have ever lived recite their boring litany of vices and then be pitchforked into the pit, as the blessed watch with smug complacency.

People are pretty uninventive in the matter of sin. The biggie of course is not properly adoring the godhead. This would get old quick if I were in the audience. I'd be shuffling along the seats, saying, Excuse me, Excuse me, and planning to hang out in the washroom for a few billion years till that part was over. Then the rest, don't steal, don't lie, honor your parents however stupid and selfish they were, don't wish you could sex with your neighbor's spouse, or plough with your neighbor's ox, or in short do anything with his stuff without his permission.

Listen. I've dealt with aluminum siding salesmen. I know the depths of depravity to which the covetous will sink. Do I want to listen to each individual case? All forty billion of them? And counting?

So you see, the judgement holds no terrors for me. From the moment the judgment begins, we will all be in hell. Even god.

Or you can think of an omni-present G-d who can be in many places at once (since time is apparently no factor for Him) and gives judgment to everyone all at once. Just because Mr. Boring old Jo-Shmoe gets judgment doesn't mean I have to listen....

Forget a line of billions of people stretching back each taking their 15 minutes (some of us have a lot more to account for) in front of the Almighty.

Instead it will be an instantaneous event, each of us will be before God reciting our litany of sins and works. The whole process, even allowing for the most sinful of us shouldn't take more than about 30 minutes tops.

God is omni present - meaning he is everywhere all the time.

Human brains being as small as they are can not (usually) wrap themselves around these spacial concepts.

I think that the idea of God is badly myth-represented by the Main Religions - they tend to force God to fit into a human mold constrained to 3 dimensions and linear time constraints.

Dvd says: "... [main religions] tend to force God to fit into a human mold constrained to 3 dimensions and linear time constraints."

Well, yeah. So do I.

If some omnipresent omniscient eternalness is making instantaneous judgments in a timeless zone, then from our frame of reference, trapped in time like a bug in amber, the judgment was made and known from the beginning of our time.

So we die before we are born and right now we are dead and in hell or heaven or were or will be. So thinking about sins that we might have done in some other dimension in a galaxy far far away and a time long long ago which magically is yet to come, then those sins become independent events, with no connection to any real being; we can't speak of a "day" of judgment.

A day is a unit of time. It's a name people invented to describe the time it takes their earth to complete one spin. It would not even be invented by a being living in a timeless state.

In a timeless zone, all events collapse into 'now'. Everything has already happened. And nothing has already happened. And we can't pray to a god to change the past. The god can't understand our prayers anyway because all the words would happen at once (to the timeless god.) And even if the god could know our thoughts magically, he can't change the past because the past is now. So is the future now. So prayer is futile.

Just because we can use words which represent a paradox does not mean that there exists in any type of reality a counterpart of the paradox.

The reason is that reality existed before words. (Sorry, you're now back in a time zone. Here, people preceded language. And non-language-users preceded people. And people created language as a tool to assist survival. To describe their reality to others. Language is a very pragmatic tool.)

So 'red' might describe a fruit. And 'colorless' might describe a state of darkness. But just because we can string the two words together - "colorless red" -- does not mean that the paradoxical words describe a thing that exists.

Our minds may be tiny but they're all we have. Don't knock them.

I live and think in a world of space and time. Speculations -- about a reality in which time does not exist and space does not exist and yet some being exists in that reality, and from that reserve creates us and judges us and destroys us all at once -- are airy nothings.

There are books that deal exclusively with tales of fantasy and imagination. Thousands are written and published every year. One of the oldest of these is the book of Genesis.

If God's as smart as you say, he wouldn't even think of messing with Babs!

I personally think the judgment is personally for the person himself. If G-d where to suddenly tell the man at birth, that he would die a sinner, he would have no motivation to even try to be good and become even more a sinner.

Imagine if a man came for final judgment and is told suddenly, your a sinner, to bad on you. G-d may have been able to understand all the implications within a split second, but man himself can't. He is the one, who needs the "judgment" and the ability to try to prove his case, so that he would have a fair understanding of what the final judgment is.

quote:

I think that the idea of God is badly myth-represented by the Main Religions - they tend to force God to fit into a human mold constrained to 3 dimensions and linear time constraints.

But this is a variation on the Christian rationalization the God is just too complex for our puny human brains to fathom. It's the default position whenever questions which place God in an awkward position are asked. Why these dietary laws? Agricultural laws? Clothing laws? Why does God require a blood sacrifice to atone for sin? "Don't ask. We're not supposed to know. Just follow blindly."

quote:

Originally posted by tsaeb:
Bik needs to give us the scripture on any day of judgment. Otherwise, frankvan is making good sense.

099.006
YUSUFALI: On that Day will men proceed in companies sorted out, to be shown the deeds that they (had done).
099.007
YUSUFALI: Then shall anyone who has done an atom's weight of good, see it!
099.008
YUSUFALI: And anyone who has done an atom's weight of evil, shall see it.
_________________________________________-

As far as the original question is concerned, I do not know the trime frame it will take. An hour or years... one by one or all togather ? I don't think the time frame is mentioned in Quran ... there maybe some points in Hadith.

quote:

Originally posted by juanruiz:

quote:

I think that the idea of God is badly myth-represented by the Main Religions - they tend to force God to fit into a human mold constrained to 3 dimensions and linear time constraints.

But this is a variation on the Christian rationalization the God is just too complex for our puny human brains to fathom. It's the default position whenever questions which place God in an awkward position are asked. Why these dietary laws? Agricultural laws? Clothing laws? Why does God require a blood sacrifice to atone for sin? "Don't ask. We're not supposed to know. Just follow blindly."

I'm sorry you will have to start new topics for answers to different questions.

I never said we are not suppose to know anything, nor have I ever stated or told anybody to accept God and the Bible at face value. You are lumping me together with a lump of people.

Besides you did not ask an awkward question to start this thread. You asked how judgment of billions can be done in a timely fashion, I gave you an answer based on what we know of this entity called "God" an omnipotent, Omnipresent, being who by all appearances knows all, sees all and can do anything he so wants with us, his creation.

Your like a person asking how can Santa possibly deliver presents to billions of kids in a night and when somebody gives you an answer you turn mean spirited and say "Well there ain't no Santa to begin with so there!".

Either we are going to stick to the one tiny facet of God you mentioned at the start of this thread or you are going to have to ask a wider, broader question to include all of these things.

The answer will be only slightly different.

quote:

Originally posted by babthrower:
Dvd says: "... [main religions] tend to force God to fit into a human mold constrained to 3 dimensions and linear time constraints."

Well, yeah. So do I.

If some omnipresent omniscient eternalness is making instantaneous judgments in a timeless zone, then from our frame of reference, trapped in time like a bug in amber, the judgment was made and known from the beginning of our time.

So we die before we are born and right now we are dead and in hell or heaven or were or will be. So thinking about sins that we might have done in some other dimension in a galaxy far far away and a time long long ago which magically is yet to come, then those sins become independent events, with no connection to any real being; we can't speak of a "day" of judgment.

A day is a unit of time. It's a name people invented to describe the time it takes their earth to complete one spin. It would not even be invented by a being living in a timeless state.

In a timeless zone, all events collapse into 'now'. Everything has already happened. And nothing has already happened. And we can't pray to a god to change the past. The god can't understand our prayers anyway because all the words would happen at once (to the timeless god.) And even if the god could know our thoughts magically, he can't change the past because the past is now. So is the future now. So prayer is futile.

Just because we can use words which represent a paradox does not mean that there exists in any type of reality a counterpart of the paradox.

The reason is that reality existed before words. (Sorry, you're now back in a time zone. Here, people preceded language. And non-language-users preceded people. And people created language as a tool to assist survival. To describe their reality to others. Language is a very pragmatic tool.)

So 'red' might describe a fruit. And 'colorless' might describe a state of darkness. But just because we can string the two words together - "colorless red" -- does not mean that the paradoxical words describe a thing that exists.

Our minds may be tiny but they're all we have. Don't knock them.

I live and think in a world of space and time. Speculations -- about a reality in which time does not exist and space does not exist and yet some being exists in that reality, and from that reserve creates us and judges us and destroys us all at once -- are airy nothings.

There are books that deal exclusively with tales of fantasy and imagination. Thousands are written and published every year. One of the oldest of these is the book of Genesis.

Perhaps this is why you do not have a faith in an Omni-________ Entity?

Since you like stories I would strongly urge you to read the story of Flatland, a romance of many dimensions. http://www.geom.uiuc.edu/~banchoff/Flatland/

The story is rather a simple concept a 3 dimensional human being steps into a 2 dimensional world and the story tries (and does a good job of it too) to tell us what the 2D people see and what the 3d person sees.

Now once you have finished reading that think about God as being a 4th Dimensional Being being seen by 3 dimensional beings (us'ns)


Oh but you can't (won't) dare to think outside of your narrow perceptions of time and space to consider the possibilities.

Which leads me back to the observation that this is why you do not have a faith in God.

"Oh but you can't (won't) dare to think outside of your narrow perceptions of time and space to consider the possibilities".

"Which leads me back to the observation that this is why you do not have a faith in God."

The above quotes, while not directed at me, might just as easily have been. What I find puzzling is that David seems to imply
that if only my puny brain were capable of entertaining such paradoxical concepts as Babs' "colorless red" , I could have
"a faith in God". What's to disagree with? If any god, God, or G-d can be imagined, s/he-, it-, can be worshipped, adored,
feared, or revered and imbued with limitless attributes . But my question is: "Why should I ?? Why should anyone?"
I'm comfortable without all the extra baggage. If ever I were going to worry about the Judgement Day,
I had better get started!

Dvd says:

quote:

Oh but you can't (won't) dare to think outside of your narrow perceptions of time and space to consider the possibilities.

Which leads me back to the observation that this is why you do not have a fait

That story of the inability of someone who only perceives n dimensions to imagine that it is possible that there is n+1 dimensions was told to us in Grade 11 when we studied later physics beginning with Max Planck, who said, "Classical physics is no longer sufficient."

The form of the metaphor used by our teacher was of a fly in the bottom of a teacup, with one end of a short string glued to its back. Slowly the experimenter raises the string. The fly perceives only that the horizon is growing larger, and colors are appearing and disappearing. He has no perception of 'up' and 'down'.

I took that physics class over fifty-six years ago when I was fifteen and aced it.

So it is rather patronizing of you to assume that just because someone doesn't accept your hypothesis means that person has not the ability to 'think outside the box'.

The difference between some of the hypotheses of modern physics and those metaphysical ones that you refer to is that the former are supported by data whereas the latter are mere speculations made to discount certain awkward problems and contradicitons in religious theory.

quote:

Originally posted by frankvan:
"Oh but you can't (won't) dare to think outside of your narrow perceptions of time and space to consider the possibilities".

"Which leads me back to the observation that this is why you do not have a faith in God."

The above quotes, while not directed at me, might just as easily have been. What I find puzzling is that David seems to imply
that if only my puny brain were capable of entertaining such paradoxical concepts as Babs' "colorless red" , I could have
"a faith in God". What's to disagree with? If any god, God, or G-d can be imagined, s/he-, it-, can be worshipped, adored,
feared, or revered and imbued with limitless attributes . But my question is: "Why should I ?? Why should anyone?"
I'm comfortable without all the extra baggage. If ever I were going to worry about the Judgement Day,
I had better get started!

Why should you? Oh my dear Frank you shouldn't should yourself. I do not care if you believe in God, Allah, Gai, the Great Spaghetti Monster or nothing at all.

Babs states she is well founded in the space/time that she knows. Fine then that is why she can not conceive of God - God is outside of those things.

Don't believe if you do not want to, but then do not take up the cross of conviction that it is your job to teach the gospel of Non-faith to everyone either.

An observation of a thing does not mean that one wishes it or desires something else. I observe that Babs has stated she can not believe in a God outside of time and space, ergo she can not believe in God as conceptualized by "Omni-______" (fill in the blank).

quote:

You are lumping me together with a lump of people.

I don't believe in all the years we have posted that I have ever lumped you with anyone. I do admit that on an occasion or two that I have commented on your long responses. But that is your style, in the same way mine is laconic. I simply inferred from your post what my rejoinder said. If I misread what you said that is my fault and I apologize.

quote:

Originally posted by babthrower:
Dvd says:

quote:

Oh but you can't (won't) dare to think outside of your narrow perceptions of time and space to consider the possibilities.

Which leads me back to the observation that this is why you do not have a faith

That story of the inability of someone who only perceives n dimensions to imagine that it is possible that there is n+1 dimensions was told to us in Grade 11 when we studied later physics beginning with Max Planck, who said, "Classical physics is no longer sufficient."

The form of the metaphor used by our teacher was of a fly in the bottom of a teacup, with one end of a short string glued to its back. Slowly the experimenter raises the string. The fly perceives only that the horizon is growing larger, and colors are appearing and disappearing. He has no perception of 'up' and 'down'.

I took that physics class over fifty-six years ago when I was fifteen and aced it.

So it is rather patronizing of you to assume that just because someone doesn't accept your hypothesis means that person has not the ability to 'think outside the box'.

The difference between some of the hypotheses of modern physics and those metaphysical ones that you refer to is that the former are supported by data whereas the latter are mere speculations made to discount certain awkward problems and contradictions in religious theory.

You state "I live and think in a world of space and time. Speculations -- about a reality in which time does not exist and space does not exist and yet some being exists in that reality, and from that reserve creates us and judges us and destroys us all at once -- are airy nothings."

Yet you claim to have aced multidimensional physics and understanding. Those exist outside of your existing space time. No time and No Space can exist and at least DID exist before the Big Bang - it is a matter of science.

Ah but here is the rub: "The difference between some of the hypotheses of modern physics and those metaphysical ones that you refer to is that the former are supported by data whereas the latter are mere speculations made to discount certain awkward problems and contradictions in religious theory"

Going back to my first statement that "I think that the idea of God is badly myth-represented by the Main Religions - they tend to force God to fit into a human mold constrained to 3 dimensions and linear time constraints." can be found in your observations and contradictions between modern physics and religion.

Whereas science has recently (relatively speaking) enjoyed a forward movement and gains, Religions have stagnated and are based on traditions and thoughts 1000, 2000, or more years old. Again we are talking about tenants and traditions set way back before modern science came around.

Assume for a moment that these people were attempting to describe Multidimensional physics without the math and the understanding we have today. What kind of piece of work would that be?

Perhaps something mysterious, confusing, seemingly contradictory using fantastic imageries and imaginations - add to that a few thousand years of human muddling and I bet you get a religion much like the ones we have today.

Human minds are small compared to the vastness of space and time. We humans can not conceptualize large distances, heck most of us have a difficult time conceptualizing 6.5 billion people on earth - or can even conceptualize the true size of earth. We use approximations to describe size "The Size of Texas (Does that really mean anything to anyone?) The Size of Delaware (Again who really understands that?)

Humans can not conceptualize time in hundreds of thousands or millions of years - we try, we can place a large number there but can we actually feel the weight of those years?

So how is it that a species that has a difficult time understanding, no, knowing intimately the vastness of space and time in which it can exist, possibly wrap its mind around a being that exists inside and outside before and after time and space?

Religion is not blessed with revisions and new prophets with newer understanding to advance it.

It would be like what science would be if science was locked in 1907 - having settled on the understanding and accepted theories of that time with no allowance for progress or further research.

"The difference between some of the hypotheses of modern physics and those metaphysical ones that you refer to is that the former are supported by data whereas the latter are mere speculations made to discount certain awkward problems and contradictions in religious theory"

Ironically much of physics is based on theories which attempt to explain away awkward problems and contradictions. Thus we still do not have a Unified Grand Theory, instead we are working with bits and pieces and have a misplaced faith that science has already explained everything.

EXAMPLE AHEAD:
So which is it Gravity waves, or Gravitons? Is gravity a Force or a particle or is it a wave form particle? Further is gravity even in our dimension or is it a bleed over from some other dimension (A relatively new theory I read recently)? You appear to accept these contradictions and lack of vision and understanding to cling to science and the modern age adamantly without no need of God and Faith, yet that same science that you adore appears to have its flaws, contradictions and failings as well. You accept the Law of Gravity as fact when we are discovering that gravity is not behaving like it should as the Law states it should. the THEORY of gravity has its flaws but we must blinding cling to it. The Laws of Gravity breaks down at certain points along the way, http://rolfguthmann.sites.uol.com.br/English/QTG/qtg.html however it is acceptable to accept the myth based 'law' as if it is fact.

----------

So what is the real difference between you and I? I do not spend a lot (I mean A LOT) of time on the science board blasting every theory and condemning the science minded individuals as being fraudulent adherers to science that is still in its infancy (humanity has a very long way to go).

I do not go there and say "I do not understand or ACCEPT" these theories because I live in a world where God and the Universe just are all unknowns that can never be known".

I can tick off several names of individuals who neither believe nor ACCEPT God and Western Religions as they stand who spend nearly every single day here blasting and condemning and ridiculing and expressing their disdain of the believers for daring to believe in God in any form or sense.

If you live in the world of time and space where there is no God then why are you here?

If you don't like what we believe then please find the exit and go to those who believe whatever it is you believe.

Dvd says, "Babs states she is well founded in the space/time that she knows. Fine then that is why she can not conceive of God - God is outside of those things ."

I'm afraid you have drawn an unwarranted conclusion there, Dvd.

Please cite where I said that I can not conceive of any kind of god, let alone one outside of time and space.

You see, there is a huge difference between being able to conceive of something and having faith that it exists.

I'll try to explain the difference better. I can form an idea of red-toed mongoose. I can easily form the notion. I can wish that it exists, so that I may see it, because it sounds very cute.

I can even inquire of zoologists in mongoose-land, and ask them if they have ever seen one. If they said, "yes', then I would want a photograph. Is there one in a zoo? Are the red toes natural, or did someone paint them on as a cosmetic?

But if the zoologists said, 'No', then i would have to reluctantly decide that my thought-conceived notion was just wishful thinking. With no evidence except my own notion, I would have to conclude that the red-toed mongoose is imaginary. There is no reality behind my notion.

The cleverest person who ever wrote on this difference was Kierkegaard, the Christian existentialist. He spoke of the 'leap of faith' which critical thinkers must make if they are to be theists. Worth a read.

There might be a being outside of time and space (as I know it). That being might have created the universe of time and space.

But then to get from that to

- a god
- a god who created people
- a god who made people immortal in spirit
- a god who was ever incarnated as a human
- a god who cares about our each and every human thought and deed
- a god who needs our love and gratitude,
- a god that made rules he knew people would break and then sent his son to be tortured to death to satisfy both their sense of justice

and so on and so forth

is what I do not believe.

I will not make that leap of faith. I have no need to. I have no reason to.

So that is why your conclusion

"[babs] can't (won't) dare to think outside of [her] narrow perceptions of time and space to consider the possibilities ... this is why [she does] not have a faith in God," is not well thought out.

I think a lot of atheists feel pretty much as I do about this issue, and feel no need to make a 'leap of faith'.

quote:

If you don't like what we believe then please find the exit and go to those who believe whatever it is you believe.

Who are "we" ? The chosen pure in heart? If those of us who disbelieve what we find incredible must remain silent, or only associate with others who question popular beliefs, how would the truth ever emerge from the plethora of conflicting opinions and theories?

"Don't believe if you do not want to, but then do not take up the cross of conviction that it is your job to teach the gospel of Non-faith to everyone either"

There's adifference between trying to preach my personal beliefs or non-beliefs and endorsing yours which I find