₦airaland Forum

Pilgrim,

Get this right. I never said MN is science. But it is one of the philosophies behind science.

Is that hard to understand? If it is, let me try another analogy.

Honest is a guiding philosophy behind science.

I trust you agree with that statement. But is honest science?


There are many attitudinal philosophies behind the scientific method such as

1) MN
2) Honesty and integrity
3) Openness for scrutiny and evaluation
etc, etc

If anyone claims to be doing science, but does not adhere to there general rules/guidelines then they are really not doing science (at least in the conventional sense ).

Ok, Pilgrim,

I will ask again:

1) Name one or more serious scientists who are NOT methodological naturalists in the pursuance of their science.

2) Name any contemporary theories or principles founded on supernaturalism.

3) Name the fruits of supernatural theories/principles.


This is all I ask and stop beating about the bush.


Also if you want to critique MN, why don't you first look what the MNist think of the philosophy first.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/ntse.html

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/barbara_forrest/naturalism.html



That your Craig Rusbult is a joke - he is a creationist retard, not even worth considering. It would be like debating cosmology with a flat-earth theorist

It is worth noting that ALL good scientists ( theistic and well as atheitic) are by definition methological naturalists. Apart from the sham that is creation science and intelligent design advocates, no real scientists departs from this core principle of science.

The top religious scientist do NOT invoke a god explanation when doing science. They have compartmentalised by minds well enough to know when to invoke god (usually when they are at home or church) and when not to.

If you can show me a scientifically refereed publication, accepted in its domain of science, that make reference to the supernatural,, then I shall retract all my comments.

pilgrim.1:
Sorry, that is hubris. Methodological Naturalism as a worldview did not produce those stuff and you can't wave that in my face. Go and find out the people who have been involved in most scientific researches and discoveries and confirm their works and their lives to the point that they were not schlepping MN as their worldview or doctrine before providing those things for man's benefit!

My goodness, you are so insufferable, Pardon me, But did I say that? This is what I really said;

Mathodological Naturalism is the guiding philosophy behind science and science has produces such great success as the computer on which you write these posts, the medicines in your hospital, the transportation facilities, etc, etc, etc.

These things are the output of science, whose guiding philosophy is that of methological naturalism.


If science was not methodological naturalistic, thenn it would be legitimate scientifically to postulate that cholera was caused not by bacteria but by spirits, for example. On such an assumption, would would NEVER have found the cholera bacteria and development treatments for such. The same goes for AIDS, Epilepsy, Terrets , etc, etc

pilgrim.1:
Most of the great centers of learning were established by men of reknown who were religious - go and ask Richard Dawkins to vamoose from Oxford university where he holds a seat as the professor of public understanding of science and yet attacks religious people without a clue that they were categorically involved in establishing that university! Do you want more?

You cannot pretend what MN is not! It is a doctrine based on assumptions and presumptions desperately fed by people who refuse to consider research in known realities beyond the natural.

What, these institutions were built on supernaturalistic principles and theories? The wall are supernatural bricks? The classrooms, labs, libraries, colleges are all supernatural? The lecturers, tutors, cooks, cleaners, and entire staff body are supernatural?

I ask again - WHAT SUPERNATURAL "THEORIES", OR PRINCIPLES ARE THERE THAT HAVE LEAD TO SOME TANGIBLE BENEFIT TO MANKIND?


I know you have difficulties grasping the essense of the question. Let me turn it round so you may see what I mean. I shall as the question this way:

What natural theories or principles are there that have leand to tangle benefits to humankind?
1) Modern medicine (Germ theory of disease, cell theory, etc)
2) Understand of planetary mechanics leading to the development of satellite, GPS, etc (Theory of Gravity)
3) Atomic theory


In like fashion, can you name any THEORIES or PRINCIPLES based on supernaturalism? And how it has benefited mankind?

Am sure if you had been writing this some months ago, you would have considered the work of Uri Geller as Orphic phenomenon. He managed to fool many gullible and credulous people for decades that he possessed supernatural skills. And although James Randi has been campaigning against his deception for years, his career blossomed. Just shows how credulous and simple-minded the majority of people are.

Now, he has come clean and admitted that all he was doing was "magic" tricks.

PollMaster:
lmao.
lmao again.

Now this is an answer.I dnt agree with the highlighted portion though
Nigeria simply does not allow you to discover.We just look and look and look.Then we complain.Then we sleep.
Please let us stop looking at other people before we do it.

You gonna have to work hard to disagree with my comments. How many African adults and parents routinely engage in intellectual activities such as reading non-prescribed books and material?

pilgrim.1:
@huxley, please calm down - you're not making any sense and only being reactive. Your assertions are beginning to become nonsensicel, for naturalism really does not have anything to say when presented with events for their consideration. I have offered you a few - the crop circles and the public testimony of the UFO: which naturalist has had anything under the diguise of "science" to say thereto? All you offered there was that you're a "skeptic" and your initial rejoinders in that thread did not address the veracity of those claims scietifically beyond the excuses of lazy armchair thinkers.

If you're really going to be reasonable, please do so - you don't just wake up and allege that someone's questions is nonsensical when you have not been using your intelligence. This is how you often over-react to issues you either have no clues to or which you have not carefully followed - and such attitudes and postures of the mind is hardly befitting for someone who tries to pass himself off as a student of "philosophy of science".

There is your answer - because the naturalist always PRESUMES or ASSUMES things, and this fact cannot be gainsaid by honest thinkers. Only naturalists closed to any form of reasoning make such extreme assertions without the possibility that they ideas may not actually be reflecting reality.

Honest scientists don't sit down and just "presume" and "assume" things - they go out to conduct research into these phenomena and report their findings precisely as observed, not look for exculpations to dribble under cover that it cannot "presume" things.

Dear huxley, Dr. Gallagher observed what he reported - he used what you are asking for: part of the five sense - he saw, heard, spoke, and smelt things in that research and reported according! What you are asking for has been clearly followed, and to make every effort to become reactive rather than calmly thinking things through is not helping your world.

Pilgrim, just think for a minute.

If science was interested in studying the supernatural, by what means would it achieve that. Science relies principally on our five senses, the use if scientific detection devices, the development of a hypothesis and the falsification of such hypothesis, verifiability, repeatability and such like.

By definition, supernatural means it is outside the scope of our senses and instruments. So how would science go about studying something it cannot detect? Does that make any sense to you?


I asked earlier to name ONE, just ONE product of supernaturalism from which humankind currently benefits, and WITHOUT SURPRISE, YOU COULD NOT.

So science has no option but to presume a position of methodological naturalism.


A propos crop circles, if this was a supernatural event, how come the "scientist" studying it were using scientific instrument? Why would they expect to detect something supernatural with natural instruments. The best you can say about the non-hoaxed crop-circle is that they are unexplained in our current light of science and technology. The fact that some students could not reproduce the very complex of circle not make make them supernatural. How can you jump from unreproducible to supernatural?

Does naturalism have the tools for researching what is beyond the natural?

Did you really mean this? Not only is the question nonsensical, its premise is wrong.

Naturalism is the view that all there is is the natural realm, and nothing beyond that. Science is the facility with which we investigate the nature of reality or nature.

So why should naturalism care about investigating a realm it presumes not to exist? That is not its role. That is the role of science, but even so science does not investigate what it presumes does not exist. Remember - science is a methodological natural enterprise. Basically, if our five sense and our scientific instruments cannot perceive it (and if it is claimed to be an entity) then for all intends and purposes, it does not exist.

I thought you said you are familiar with the philosophy of science. If you are, then it is a shame that you make such elementary mistakes as this:

Naturalism is a doctrine fed by people's biases, so let's not begin to pretend that it is "science", if you're too hasty to dismiss other worldviews on that same ground. Whether you qualify it with "methodological" does not negate the fact that naturalism is a doctrine and a worldview -

Methodological Naturalism is NOT the same as Naturalism. For goodness sake, even check with google.

Mathodological Naturalism is the guiding philosophy behind science and science has produces such great success as the computer on which you write these posts, the medicines in your hospital, the transportation facilities, etc, etc, etc.

Can you name one, just one benefit to humankind that supernatuaralism have produced?

What was the problem with understanding this simple statement?

[s]

A skeptic of an unexplained phenomenon is essentially asking higher-order questions and demanding higher levels of evidence.

And you questioned?
[quote
Em. . . a skeptic is a person, not a phenomenon - did you mean to say?

Where did I imply that a skeptic is a phenomenon?[/s]

Can you show any scientific study that affirms the FACTS of levitation

pilgrim.1:
@huxley,

There are a lot of people who read scientific material published by scientists of repute; and they don't just "stop reading" just because they don't like to see certain words in other people's researcha nd works. I also read philosophy of science weekly at a deeper level than most people assume they delve into that discipline - and I have used the tools of that discipline to discuss issues rationally with many people.

It is not a healthy attitude to discredit a scientist's research work based just on one word ('scripture') - just evaluating his whole research on that word is prejudice, not science. It is as much for me to hold an anchor in the discipline of Philosophy of Science, and then read and dismiss research works by other scientists just because they mention the word "evolution"! To do so would be unhealthy and even irrational on my part - just as one would assume to call a scientists repute into question on just the word "scripture"!

You see, huxley, a default skeptic mind is hardly doing science. Even when it is not a research on religious and spiritual phenomena, you of all people should know for a fact that there are supernatural events in our real world! More and more scientists are beginning to recognize that it is irrational to dismiss these supernatural and paranormal occurence on skeptic inclinations. Skepticism is NOT science - and anyone pushing this idea around is not doing science or thinking.

We have mentioned a few other phenomena like crop circles which scientists have continued to investigate (even leave UFO aside that continues to be unashamedly and unjustifiably denied by skeptics). No matter how many excuses skeptics give, they cannot deny that there are supernatural and paranormal realities in our world! If Dr. Gallagher investigates the phenomena of demon possession by the basic of all scientific methods - observation and critical thinking - on what basis do skeptics think this is too much to handle? To discredit the researvch on your personal disaffection is nOT science at all! That is why I still ask that those who will simply read issues without this skeptic default will see that on a good ground, they cannot dismiss the reality of that occurence out of hand! There is no "scientific" rationalism for doing so - and personal disavowals are not substitutes for critical scientific reasoning!

You are right in a sense.  This Dr may really have something useful to contribute, but if he wants to make that contribution in the scientific arena, he MUST abide by the standards of science.  If he doesn't his work will NOT be treated as scientific, as valid as it might be.  That is the point I am making - if you want to be taken seriously in the scientific community you MUST talk the talk and walk the walk.  PERIOD.  

I was not saying that he did not experience these demon events.  His data collections methodology leaves a lot to be desired.  His frame of reference is clearly non-scientific.

I might add that the guiding philosophy behind science is one of methodological naturalism, which essentially means that science does not presuppose a non-natural realm.  Anything not understood or explicated by science is not classed as supernatural, but yet-to-be-explained.

Example, there was a time when it was thought that lightening was supernatural, rainbow was supernatural, etc.  Which person in their right mind would hold such view today?

You are right skepticism is NOT science. Nor does it need saying.  Skepticism is a state of mind.

A skeptic of an unexplained phenomenon is essentially asking higher-order questions and demanding higher levels of evidence.  He/she is someone with an acute mind whose standard of verification and questioning are better than the ordinary.  A skeptic has as her main tool the scientific method and they are usually methodological naturalists, though they may also be metaphysical naturalist as well.

I am a skeptic to the supernatural realm.  I have not seen any reason to accept such a realm, not one single convincing evidence.  I take the view that anything and everything that exists in our reality is part of nature.  So if in the long run it turns out that ghosts, UFO, demons, angels, etc, do in fact exist, they will have been brought into the realm of knowable natural things.  Until such a time, for all intends and purposes these entities are at best mythological, just as Thor, Wotans, Satyr, etc, etc.

By the way, what parts of the human body does a demon attack and/or infect? Would a demon possession leave tell tale sign of a material nature, such as changes or damage to cells, chemical or hormonal disturbance, electrical signal, etc, etc. Would any of such changes be observable to the senses or scientific instruments?

pilgrim.1:
@huxley,

Could I make a few observations here that may help us both ways?

1. It is not good scientific posture to "stop reading" just because you read his reference to Scripture. A healthy mind of inquiry does not "shut off" on a publication of repute, especially "Oxford" just because the researcher happens to have mentioned Scripture - that is prejudice, not fairness.

2. You are not qualified at all to discredit a man of Dr. Gallagher's repute and and standing in the scientific community. Until you have academically qualified yourself and earned a doctorate as well, there really is no substance to the assertion that such and such would "lose him credibility".

3. If one would read essentially what Dr. Gallagher stated, they could not miss the fact he addressed readers of either groups - religious and scientific. He should know in his own standing of repute that there are "fakes" and "genuine" cases of what he investigated; and as such, he warns that this investigation is a much needed exercise so that the gullible public would be wary of those who "tele­vangelists' dunning their audience for cash as they conduct exhibitionist ceremonies". It is on the basis of this unfortunate confusion where many may not know the difference in demon-possession that he warned that genuine cases "good scriptural authority", rather than dismiss it out of hand.

4. If the skeptics were ever interested to seriously pursue this phenomena fairly, and without prejudice, they would themselves have gone out to conduct their own investigations to "correct" Dr. Gallagher's report. It is a very weak attitude and posture to sit smugly and try to dismiss these occurences without having done any work on them, nor witnessed them, nor even tried to understand them! This is why another reviewer noted that he didn't

expect psychiatrists to make diagnostic judgments in this area:
"They have been trained (and rightly so) to be skeptical," and
"physicians should not be expected to make discernments in matters
of this sort -- it is not their trained task or area of expertise."

Bearing these in mind, one should not that Dr. Gallagher's work has been appreciated by a wide community of researchers as well - one should not on their disproportionate attitude and prejudice call a researcher's repute into question just because they saw something in the report that they don't like to hear or read.

There's a balance on both sides of the scientific and religious community in his research - others have noted it in their comments, and that is why I have tried to post a few and Dr. Gallagher's response as well.

I may not have the Dr training in pschiatry, but I have a scientific background and I have read hundreds of scientific papers in my previous incarnation. I have come closed to being published but for career reasons had to change career completely, which scuppered my publications. Nowadays, hardly a day goes by but I don't read a scientific book/paper or material from the philosophy of science.

Look, science is essentially a free-for-all. It is you job to convince the scientific community that whatever you propose has scientific merits. Am afraid, by the Dr evincing such gross bias towards supernaturalism in what he claims to be a scientific study, predisposes him towards neglect at best and ridicule at worst.

pilgrim.1:
Is that the only thing you saw in all the report?

Let say the Dr was writing a scientific paper intended for publication in his professional journal, in which he included the statement,

Of course, we have it on good scriptural authority that some people will never be convinced.

Do you think that would be considered scientific? This would lose him credibility and predispose all his work to be treated as sub-science or pseudoscience.

I stopped reading when I saw that statement. I wish the statement had occurred earlier as it would have saved me the trouble of reading him.

Of course, we have it on good scriptural authority that some people will never be convinced.

Is this the language of a man of science?   What a shame.

Here is also a link for a recent case of demon possession. Although I cannot figure out why in this modern technological age the could not have made a video of the events or at least a tape recording.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=58835

The Dr might have spoken about this but he clearly was not doing science by saying the victim was possessed by demons. Scientifically, the best he could have said was that this victim suffered/experience condition for which there is no rational explanation. Science CANNOT make attributions to an entity it does not recognise, and I don't think science recognise demons. So speaking as an ordinary bemused member of the public the Dr was every right to say what he said, but in the scientific community he was speaking out of turns. ( I can just imagine giggles and laughters in his directions as he presents his case to a conference of scientists)

Supposing there was a natural calamity in which all countries and peoples were wiped out BUT Nigeria. Would the surviving Nigerians be capable of re-creating the state of development we currently enjoy in the 21st century? How long might it take for Nigerians to do this - 100 years, 500 years, 1000 years?

In fact, as far-fetched as this might seem, it is not an idle question. In view of the fact that 99% of all species that have ever lived are now extinct, it is reasonable to assume that humans might one day suffer the same fate. Further, humankind is at the mercy of natural forces about which we have only rudimentary technology to defend ourselves.

Any new views?

Interesting. What do you mean by "successful" and how do you measure success?

Think of the following scenarios.

1) A society that has and enjoys great infrastructural and technological developments, and some measure of state governance (as in good roads, housing, etc) but neglects and ill-treats the underprivilede. Most ancient empire of the past were such societies (Roman, Aztecs, etc).


In their day, the Aztecs would have been considered an advanced and "successful" society. Should we considered the fact that they routinely sacrificed thousands of other humans to their gods and unfortunate aspect of their development. Or should we consider it a core element of success?

To the Romans, human life seem to have little value. They routinely abandoned unwanted children, organised games in which humans would fight to the death, etc, etc. Yet they also enjoyed some of the best amenities of their times in the world.

2) A society that largely relies on outside labour and brainpower for its functioning.


I contend that what we seen today as development is probably the first time such has emerge in human history. Something extraodinary happened about 400 years ago, with the development of the scientific method and the enlightenment. There is truly no record in human history of these two elements having exerted great influence as they have in the last few hundred years.

For instance, under the scientific mode of thinking, it is no longer enough to be satisfied with the knowledge that the addition of coke to iron would create more ductile and usable steel. It is no longer sufficient to accept that certain combinations of natural herbs would cure a disease. The scientific mind would be interested in asking more fundamental question about why these are so.

The enlightenment created the general climate in which such deep fundamental questions could be asked. It was no longer going to accept the rule of authority and tradition. Nothing was regarded as sacrosanct anymore, everything would be subject to the most thoroughgoing examination and scrutiny.


I contend that any society that imbibes the tenets of the scientific rationalism and the ethos of the enlightenment would be a society on the royal road to development and "success".


I usually ask my friends the following question;

Imagine that there was a global natural catastrophe in which all countries (nations) but one were destroyed. What are the chances that that one surviving country would have re-created the state of development we have in the 21st century.

Supposing the only country to survive such a calamity was America. To what exend would the American be deprived by the loss of the entire world but Americans.

Now, supposing the only country to survive were Nigeria. What are the chances of Nigeria re-creating the state of knowledge we have in the 21st century? How long will it take - 100, 400, 1000, 40000 years?

This brings me to my second criteria of a "successful" society. A society with great respect of intellectual capital, and great reserves of such capital. I did try to address this subject in another thread , but alas there were few willing to contribute their views.

My own personal anecdotal observation is this - African cultural life does NOT promote and favour intellectualism. In fact, the same can be said of the cultural millieu of African American life. There is a class of the so-called educated, but such have become essentially tradesmen in the various specialism - tradesmen doctors, trademen computer scientists, tradesmen teachers, etc, etc. Such people, outside of their day job, would hardly open a book or be interested in intellectual affairs outside of their jobs.

Interesting. I have been looking into this very subject recently. It is interesting how diverse the various forms of African are. The Bamun script, together with its sister derivative the Bagam script had a good chance of widespread adoption in Cameroon until European colonisation pushed it on the shelf.

Interestingly, there are few independent and original scripts in the world. Many of the scripts we have today have benefit largely from borrowing from other scripts. And why should African scripts be any different?

Watch this video and give your opinion.

I think one of Jesus's disciple once asked him what the most important of commandments was. I, on the other hand will ask - "What is the most useless or inane commandment?"

My vote goes for this:

Thou shalt not cook a bady goat in its mother's milk (Exodus 34: 26).

What do you think?

Pilgrim,

When Jesus said "Today, you shall be with me in paradise", I suppose he meant it. What would the bandit have understood by that statement?

Agreed that He meant it - whether or not the bandit understood its import lucidly. We cannot interpret for him his own perception for him as we cannot force ideas into people's minds until they declare them themselves. But in consonance to the fact that Christ meant precisely what He meant, no one who carefully reads that verse in connection with other verses on the subject would fail to see its significance.

Not quite clear what you are saying here. What did Jesus mean?  There are many times when you seem to understand what Jesus meant.  Can you read the meaning out of this text?

I submit that,  Jesus anticipated his death and the bandit's dead as well.  With full knowledge that they were both going to die and in view of the prevailing belief that the dead either go to hell or paradise, such words in Jesus's mouth would make sense.

If Jesus meant something other than the surface meaning, it is not obvious if the bandit would have got the full meaning of the words.  Why would Jesus deliberately want to hide or mislead his listener?

Dear huxley, people are not lumped into one general group to face the same judgement - that is not what the Bible teaches. Paradise is a sphere that no wicked person will experience - it is never used once in the Bible as a place that holds the wicked dead. Rather, the wicked dead are held in hades, and not in παράδεισος ('paradeisos').

Was the bandit wicked?  Why did Jesus promise him entry into paradise?

Presumeably, that promise would have been kept and the two would have met in paradise.  When Jesus arose after three days, did he leave the bandit in paradise?  Or did the bandit never went into paradise, in spite of Jesus.



So where is paradise?  What is paradise?

And is the bandit still in paradise awaiting the judgment day?

So essentially the "144000" figure carries not useful information, because fewer or more than this number of the Jewish tribe could go into heaven. What significance has this figure got then?

Yet another piece of useless rubbish from the pages of the bible!

m_nwankwo:
I guess that what David is trying to potray with his word "conjecture" is limitation. Evolutionary analysis of whole genome, mitochondrail DNA or Y-DNA would be irrefutable if you have all the DNA samples available. Unfortunately human DNA samples of thousands of years old are not available. Designers of software for evolutionary analysis make estimates based on Coalescent theory. Estimation of what happened thousands or millions of years ago using the DNA samples of present day humans is not the same as analysis based on the actual DNA samples. Ofcourse such estimates are more than a guess or conjucture but should not be accepted as a scientific truth. At best such analysis provide a model that will be tested and retested as more human DNA samples from past eras become availble.

Well said.

Even when you have two samples at hand to compare, scientist have a method of characterising the margin of error in the analysis, correct?


For ancestral comparison, I suppose there is a well know margin of error with which such result would fall. For instance, why do all analysis so far put recent human ancestry in the thousands of years and NOT in the millions of years?

On the subject of "Hell" this might need revisiting!

DavidDylan:
simply because while DNA fingerprinting is an established fact, tracing ancient human ancestry using DNA analysis is nothing but conjecture.

You can't build a religion on estimates and guesses.

Why do you say it is conjecture? Check out the following:

Supposing you inherit a conditions from your mother through mitochondrial DNA (mDNA), and supposing your mother were no longer alive.

Do you think it would be possible to state categorically that you inherited such condition from your mother, rather than some other woman?

Does the fact that your mother may be alive or dead change that outcome?

DavidDylan:
- Again you don't seem to understand what you're talking about:

1. DNA fingerprinting is a method of comparing DNA fragments to determine whether they come from a common heritage. Since we do not have DNA samples from humans who originated 150000 years ago, how is it possible for you to claim that DNA fingerprinting was used to determine man's origin?

2. You cannot determine common ancestry simply by using DNA analysis alone. Primates and humans share 97-99% DNA similarity, a strong case for possible common ancestry which again isnt sufficient proof.

Even mice share thousands of genes with humans, does this mean man and mice come from a common ancestor? Where did this genetic divergence occur?

Yes, there are molecular techniques for comparing DNA of various animals and estimating how far back the diverged. So if you go back far enough (circa 100 mya) , mice and humans had a common ancestor.

Now, studying the rate of mutation in mitochondrial DNA, it is possible to track human ancestory. This has been done to a specific time and place.

My question is - If you can trust DNA fingerprinting technology, is there any reason why you should not trust other studies on human ancestory based on DNA analysis?

pilgrim.1:
@huxley,

Thank you again.

I understand where you're coming from. But one thing I need to ask is this: how does the above establish your idea that ONLY 144,000 will go to heave?

Strictly speaking, it DOESN'T. What is the point of giving these numbers? How would a 1st/2nd century reader have understood this?

Was it meant to be understood by the contemporaries of the writer?

Now, supposing the 144000 were meant as those from the House of Israel.  Does this number also represent ;

1)  Jewish Jews

2)  Jewish Christians

The Jewish population today can be estimated to be about 20 - 30 million.  The number of Jews that have ever lived could be about 200 - 350 million.

Even on this revised calculation, the chances of any one Jew of being saved are miniscule.

This is Revelations 14:

1 Then I saw the Lamb standing on Mount Zion, and with him were 144,000 who had his name and his Father’s name written on their foreheads. 2 And I heard a sound from heaven like the roar of mighty ocean waves or the rolling of loud thunder. It was like the sound of many harpists playing together.
3 This great choir sang a wonderful new song in front of the throne of God and before the four living beings and the twenty-four elders. No one could learn this song except the 144,000 who had been redeemed from the earth. 4 They have kept themselves as pure as virgins,[a] following the Lamb wherever he goes. They have been purchased from among the people on the earth as a special offering[b] to God and to the Lamb. 5 They have told no lies; they are without blame.


6 And I saw another angel flying through the sky, carrying the eternal Good News to proclaim to the people who belong to this world—to every nation, tribe, language, and people. 7 “Fear God,” he shouted. “Give glory to him. For the time has come when he will sit as judge. Worship him who made the heavens, the earth, the sea, and all the springs of water.”
8 Then another angel followed him through the sky, shouting, “Babylon is fallen—that great city is fallen—because she made all the nations of the world drink the wine of her passionate immorality.”

9 Then a third angel followed them, shouting, “Anyone who worships the beast and his statue or who accepts his mark on the forehead or on the hand 10 must drink the wine of God’s anger. It has been poured full strength into God’s cup of wrath. And they will be tormented with fire and burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and the Lamb. 11 The smoke of their torment will rise forever and ever, and they will have no relief day or night, for they have worshiped the beast and his statue and have accepted the mark of his name.”

12 This means that God’s holy people must endure persecution patiently, obeying his commands and maintaining their faith in Jesus.

13 And I heard a voice from heaven saying, “Write this down: Blessed are those who die in the Lord from now on. Yes, says the Spirit, they are blessed indeed, for they will rest from their hard work; for their good deeds follow them!”

How are we to understand the above?

Bastage:
And let's not forget:

Not only does he recognise that it's a text for the first century but he doesn't even bother kidding himself that John wrote it.

And according to one reading, only 144000 are suppose to go to heaven. Given that there are more that 30 billions humans have ever existed, your chances of being amongst the 144000 is infinitesimal.