Perspectives on heaven and hell

[Semi-Nomadic]

All right I see this is going to be Sisyphus-esque kind of discussion. When a child is born, according to some institutions, the child is going to be tested. For their entire life they will be watched closely and finally judged upon their death. This child has the opportunity to be a great scientist, or actor, or a fantastic sports player. But also he could be like what I mentioned. A rapist, murderer, thief, or a congressman.

I think most would agree that a person is more likely to lead a "life of sin" even if they aren't actively going about raping or stealing or killing. They do a lot of the "minor bad things", after all, no one is perfect.

So this child has now become a man and fathers a child. The child doesn't grow up as part of the institution, but he mimics his father. He isn't necessarily following the rules but he's doing what he considers "forgivable" sins.

The father dies, and he's judged cruelly since he didn't follow the rules.

The child becomes a man and fathers a child. He in turn dies, and he's judged cruelly since he didn't follow the rules. Us having children and reproducing is becoming more and more pointless as there are CERTAINLY more "bad people" in hell then there are "good people" in heaven.

 

This all being if holy scripture is to be taken as the word of God (or Gods). It doesn't matter if you've never been introduced to religion, or if you're the "wrong" religion. Nope, you don't follow religious rules and you go to hell. Your kids go to hell. Your kids kids go to hell. Ad-infinitude.

Your argument is based upon one specific, narrow interpretation ("some institutions"). I might simply retort with "but my religion doesn't teach anything like that."

 

Organized religion let's people content lives, it teaches them it's okay to not be motivated for anything better than following their religion's rules. It doesn't encourage intellectual expansion, it doesn't leave room for debate, it doesn't let people think for themselves, it hardly allows it's followers to question their doctrine, it demands obedience on the fear that if you don't conform, you'll burn. Forever.

I'll hold off on the mental terrorism that implies. The only time I see change is when the organization is in danger of collapsing. Notice how fast the Roman Catholic Church has changed throughout the years? All during times they were facing serious allegations.

Strawman, strawman, strawman. Odd how it was the Catholic church which preserved ancient philosophical and scientific writings, and created universities. Hardly the anti-intellectual tyrant you imagine it to be.

 

And just what do you mean by the allegations and the change the Church has supposedly undergone?

 

You're more than your few employable muscles being carried around in your fleshy vehicle of a body that you use to transport your brain to and from your "necessary" work. Maybe there is a heaven, maybe there's a hell, maybe I'm already damned to it and no amount of "good things" can make up for it.

So should I just sit about moping? "Knowing" that I'm going to be eternally damned? That's certainly what many would say. What a shit existence I would start experiencing if I truly believed that!

 

Again, it seems you deliberately (or unknowingly?) assume the harshest, most unforgiving religious worldview, as opposed to arguing about afterlife in general.

In short, your arguments seem to be strawman ones. You imagine the most ridiculous afterlife you can picture ("I can't even play the harp!"), then argue that it is, in fact, ridiculous. You imagine a hell which you're "already damned to" and which one can get condemned to through "never [having] been introduced to religion" or "doing what [one] considers forgivable sins", then argue that it is cruel. Why, yes, it is hard to like such a ruthless God... which you yourself have fashioned out of straw.

[Raxter]

@Nomadic

It is the harshest, viscous, most narrow minded, and self serving institutions that possess the greatest voice on the planet at the current moment. I can point to one aspect of it and say "that's incorrect because of XYZ". But in this case you have to take the parts as a whole. You can't have a gangrene hand and not assume it's going to spread to the rest of the body. Action must be taken to prevent corruption and religion gets a "gimme" from this by saying if you try to question or change things, then you're going against God. And you'll burn if you go against God.

 

So we're stuck with a rigid system of belief.

 

As for allegations, really? The Christian Sects can't seem to keep little-boy-fondlers from entering their doors (or their clergy). Even after this [ongoing] mess they were still reluctant to replace those higher ups convicted of this. This isn't about religious acceptance at this point, this is about upholding laws that protect everybody. Funny how an established law is able to keep people from hurting each other more effectively than a religious one. Probably because breaking the law has consequences, whereas breaking a make-believe law only has consequences amongst a certain group.

 

Billy-Bob-Joe's Catholic Church on the corner street isn't making any worthwhile moves to change this notion. My United Methodist Church (which I attended for sixteen years) still has it's pastors repeating the same sermons almost word for word when I visit my homeland on holiday. We are all victims of our experiences and mine makes me very wary of someone who holds themselves higher than others because they're part of a certain club. Of course I'm liberally stereotyping because these groups are making it easy to be liberally stereotyped!

 

If I am incorrect then please explain, but should followers, no matter what their "rank", still be bound by the same laws as what they preach and uphold? The bible is VERY, VERY SPECIFIC on many things. These are incredibly simple and easy to follow examples of rules:

 

Don't kill people.

Love thy neighbor.

Turn the other cheek.

 

I'm not seeing this. I'm not seeing this at the lowest level and I'm certainly not seeing this at the upper level. If I can't trust my local preacher to not steal from the collection plate, or to keep away from temptation (which, by the way, you said no one can) then I can't trust GOD'S VOICE ON EARTH to tell me how to live my life! Holy Wars have been fought despite these very clear and sensible rules! So far the only figure I've seen that even had a semblance of how life should be led was Mahatma Ghandi and it took an armed occupation of his homeland to see that clearly!

 

The burden of proof for heaven or hell (which is actually the topic we're discussing, if you've forgotten) is on the institution making the claim! I can't debate someone on their individual belief because every has their own mini religion, everyone believes something different, just as most organized religious entities do, hence the "some institutions" remark because there's not just one, or two, or ten people making this claim. There are thousands of institutions and most (all) say the same thing: "Follow this plan, or burn." So, I attempt to debate across a broader spectrum and you shout "He's just strawmanning it! He hates religion! Hiss! Hiss!" So on and so forth. I'm not trying to debate the positive aspect a religion can have, I'm trying to explain how a religion makes claims with no evidence other than "God said it." and many just blindly nod as if it always was without questioning it.

 

How is the afterlife to be any better or different if it's populated by the same people that are corrupting this life? Where is the love and acceptance? Where is the humbleness? Where is God's love? It's certainly doesn't seem to be in the churches, temples, or synagogues any more. Perhaps it ceased when we nailed our God to a stick those thousands of years ago, or maybe it ceased when Socrates drank the hemlock, simply for asking questions. Maybe it died when I started developing a tulpa?

 

It just doesn't seem to be present any more.

 

I'll accept my "strawman" God fashioned from painful truths over a loving God crafted from comfortable ignorance and lies.

[Discord]

I read an interesting article last night, where someone spoke with Saint Michael through a medium. Basically, the afterlife he mentions won't be on the physical dimension, so no paradise on earth. There will, however, be a new Earth, called Nova Earth, which will exist on the fifth dimension. I won't fully get into the different dimensions because it's confusing to me too, but basically, in order to reach the fifth dimension, and Nova Earth, one has to achieve enlightenment, by becoming beings of light and love, and spreading peace and harmony to others.

 

For now, they've already had waves of ascension where people ascended to the fifth dimension. So far, they're only taking people who will help build the new kingdom, but eventually, they will start taking more and more people who achieve enlightenment. In the meantime, Saint Michael is helping to keep peace, along with the others who are a part of the global peacekeeping initiative. He was the one who influenced NATO to turn from a warlike approach to a peaceful one. He gave them overpowering feelings of love, light, and peace, so they would realize that there are alternatives to war. Eventually, all enlightened souls will return to the collective, return to the goddess, our mother. And the surface of the physical earth will eventually be destroyed. This is what I believe in anyway. It sounds realistic, because it doesn't claim anything radical like the sudden collapse of the government or anything. It's a gradual, spiritual, revolution, with humanity eventually coming full circle and returning to the source. I tend to believe that everything was one entity, and split off into multiple beings, so the entity could learn many different things from many different perspectives. And when all the souls return to the one, it'll become much wiser and have gained much knowledge.

[Strangelove]

If there isn't a heaven or a hell then our actions right now are meaningless.

They are if you choose to seem them as such. If there isnt, then I would consider every one of my actions to be meaningful simply because they the end result of my will on the world, for better or worse.

 

Please explain this more so I may understand what you mean.

You said "I doubt there's a Hell Bureau being run by imps and goblins that are coming up with new ways to make people hurt, burn, or be dismembered."

Burning and dismembered but imply physical pain, and i can reasonably assume you meant the same with your inclusion of otherwise hurting them.

 

It's entirly possible to hurt people psychologically, mentally, emotionally, etc...Honestly I cant possibly break this down anymore for you.

 

All right I see this is going to be Sisyphus-esque kind of discussion.

Dont know what you mean. If you make a claim, then I'd like some sort of explanation.

 

[Tl;dr]

Us having children and reproducing is becoming more and more pointless as there are CERTAINLY more "bad people" in hell then there are "good people" in heaven.

And im sure you can prove this claim with evidence and everything that entails yes? That and your claim works on the assumption that there's no leeway given,

 

It doesn't matter if you've never been introduced to religion, or if you're the "wrong" religion. Nope, you don't follow religious rules and you go to hell. Your kids go to hell. Your kids kids go to hell. Ad-infinitude.

Because people never change, or chose not to take after their parents, or otherwise try to better themselves.

 

Oh, and it's ad infinitum

 

The point I'm trying to make is that if there's "something after this" then what we're doing right now has no purpose.

Not really. What you do here, or dont i suppose, determines where you end at.

 

There's no meaning to THIS life if there's a life PAST this one

.

See above.

 

So what if we do great or evil things? There's another realm of existence after this, who gives a shit about how we relate to others or if we're praised or shunned?

...Because how you act determines where you end up? Which would mean that the actions on this plane do matter.

 

If you're living a good life only because you think heaven awaits you, you're doing it wrong.

And why is that? Again, maybe an explanation would serve well here?

 

If you're tolerating evil, or a "shit life", by wrapping yourself in the blanket of "knowing" there's a better life after this, you're doing it wrong.

Yes, because everyone has the means or opportunity to stop or otherwise halt evil, or improve their life yes?

 

If people prefer to rock in their cradles and choose to not improve their circumstance through action rather than thought then I have no way to debate that. That is their prerogative.

See above 2: Electric boogaloo

 

How often do you hear a preacher tell of God's Wrath and of God's love in the same sermon?

From when I did attend, I heard the two equally, as they went hand in hand.

How often do you see a church built with the hands of the followers, where they do not pass around a collection plate?

Quite a few as i've had the pleasure of meeting and visiting churches in other countries that were built by the missionaries and the locals with their own hands and money. Also, seeing as that money is regularly used to help pay for things like utilities, church functions, mission trips depending on the church, and other things that cost, you know money to make happen in the world, it's little wonder why collection is used.

How often do you ask the rifleman with a cross about his neck if he feels he's being true to his faith, or simply choosing to be specifically ignorant about certain bits of his religion?

Not often seeing as its none of my damn business. That and the fact that many of them say that they felt no conflict as killing justified as long as it's self-defense/war/or otherwise lawful

 

"Not too often" is probably the answer to these. I'm not seeing the practice of what is being preached. When I do see it it, it's not by very many, or for very long.

First off, you shouldn't assume someone else's answer, because if and when they dont match up, you look like a pretentious moron. Not that you aren't doing a bang up job already of course.

 

And you feel the need to generalize every sect of every religion because you saw people acting like people.

 

Ok.

 

 

Sarcasm is not lost on me,

I wasnt being sarcastic. You found sometihng that works for you; that's a wonderful thing.

 

I use my own common sense and reason to come to my conclusion whereas I see others blank eyed following a book, or a sermon, that promises eternal pleasure if only they do exactly as they say.

And what if they used their own common sense and reason to come up to their conclusion? Or because they didnt come up with what you did, then clearly they're wrong? What you said sounds more like:

>People that I dont agree are wrong, are are with are blank eyed sheep doing what they're told.

 

Then perhaps they should stop living in fear and start investigating it more. Maybe, with concentrated effort, they can fill in the blanks even better then what they're doing right now?

Ah, but they do that already. In colleges and churches. If i remember right you called such places something like "massive and intricate buildings that they waste resources and materials on"

 

Or maybe not because also no religious group ever started a college for the reason of furthing knowledge. I'm not sure, you tend to contradict yourself.

 

The rest of your post was simply you making one word answers or little quips so I'll not address those unless you provide substance to them.

Pick some out and I will.

 

 

Organized religion let's people content lives, it teaches them it's okay to not be motivated for anything better than following their religion's rules.

Its like youve never heard of Sikhism.

 

It doesn't encourage intellectual expansion,

Ahahahahah oh God, What?

 

Im sorry, did all of the colleges that were set up way back when by religious groups just cease to exist? Did the collective work of hundreds of monks to preserve information from being destroyed not happen?

 

Goddamn, someone should go back over the history books, cause we got a LOT wrong according to you.

 

I'll hold off on the mental terrorism that implies.

You should hold off because you're using "terrorism" wrong.

 

The only time I see change is when the organization is in danger of collapsing. Notice how fast the Roman Catholic Church has changed throughout the years? All during times they were facing serious allegations.

[citation needed]

 

Provide evidence to me that proves heaven or hell to be real and I will reconsider.

Sure just let me kill myself real quick, and i'll be back in 10 or so minutes.

 

Of course I'm liberally stereotyping because these groups are making it easy to be liberally stereotyped!

That makes it right or OK?

>im going to us an example that exemplifies everything i complain about and thats ok because they make it easy. To hell with intellectual integrity!

 

If I am incorrect then please explain, but should followers, no matter what their "rank", still be bound by the same laws as what they preach and uphold?

Well of course, but seeing as people are fallible...

 

The bible is VERY, VERY SPECIFIC on many things. These are incredibly simple and easy to follow examples of rules:

Simple, maybe. Easy? ehhh.

 

Don't kill people.

Actually, depending on which version you read, it more like " dont murder" or "dont unlawfully kill".

 

Im sure you knew this though, yes?

 

If I can't trust my local preacher to not steal from the collection plate, or to keep away from temptation (which, by the way, you said no one can) then I can't trust GOD'S VOICE ON EARTH to tell me how to live my life!

I didnt say that. Work on your reading comprehension boyo.

 

What i said was "And of course it's fallible; we are just as susceptible to temptation as anyone else. Any human construct is, if given enough time, just as fallible as any other."

I said that we are just as susceptible as anyone else, and that our constructs (groups built by us) will eventually be just as susceptible as any other.

 

Holy Wars have been fought despite these very clear and sensible rules!

Again with this.

 

"The imperative is against unlawful killing resulting in bloodguilt. The Hebrew Bible contains numerous prohibitions against unlawful killing, but also allows for justified killing in the context of warfare, capital punishment, and self-defense."

 

So far the only figure I've seen that even had a semblance of how life should be led was Mahatma Ghandi and it took an armed occupation of his homeland to see that clearly!

Ghandi also helped recruit people to fight a war. And the whole racism thing...

 

There are thousands of institutions and most (all) say the same thing:

And again, you've apparently been to all of these institutions for you to so brazenly paint them the same, yes?

 

Also, pick either or; choosing both makes you like an ass.

 

How is the afterlife to be any better or different if it's populated by the same people that are corrupting this life?

You assume they'll be there.

 

Where is the love and acceptance? Where is the humbleness? Where is God's love?

 

It's certainly doesn't seem to be in the churches, temples, or synagogues any more.

Because you've been to them all yes?

 

Perhaps it ceased when we nailed our God to a stick those thousands of years ago, or maybe it ceased when Socrates drank the hemlock, simply for asking questions.

You roHe made powerful people look like the dumbass they were, they got pissed, and the used the law to kill his ass.

 

 

It just doesn't seem to be present any more.

 

I'll accept my "strawman" God fashioned from painful truths over a loving God crafted from comfortable ignorance and lies.

Ah yes, the truth born of limited experience, stretched as far as possible, to cover as many unknowns as possible, to fill as many with the picture that you choose for them.

[Raxter]

@Strangelove

 

This will be my last post as I fear I may have drifted too far from the original topic. Perhaps we can continue via PM's if you'd prefer to keep the discussion going?

 

They are if you choose to seem them as such. If there isnt, then I would consider every one of my actions to be meaningful simply because they the end result of my will on the world, for better or worse.

 

I can't say anything opposing to how you view your actions. Perhaps compare your lifestyle to any randomly chosen religion / sect and then tell me your chances of going to heaven or hell?

 

It's entirly possible to hurt people psychologically, mentally, emotionally, etc...Honestly I cant possibly break this down anymore for you.

 

Actually if you could please. Psychological and mental pain? How? Will they show me sad pictures of kittens being drowned? Or my family being decapitated? Will they manifest the person I could have been, rather than the person I chose to become?

Please, if you could (so I can understand) tell me what sort of psychological pain you can experience in hell?

 

Dont know what you mean. If you make a claim, then I'd like some sort of explanation.

 

You're calling the kettle black here. I ask you for explanations and you attack my motives rather than the points I'm making. There's only so many times I can push the rock up the mountain, hence "Sisyphus".

 

And im sure you can prove this claim with evidence and everything that entails yes? That and your claim works on the assumption that there's no leeway given,

 

Please do a quick google search of statistics showing the number of people who don't lead religious lifestyles compared to the number that do. The people that don't are "doing it wrong" and will surely burn. I figured you would know what I meant by this but I apologize for not making it clearer.

 

Oh, and it's ad infinitum

 

I'll resist the urge to point out the massive amounts of typos in your posts. Auto correct tends to screw up words sometimes. I apologize for not proofreading my post more critically.

 

Not really. What you do here, or dont i suppose, determines where you end at.

 

And where or how we end up there is a matter of some debate amongst religions. All the more reason to think there isn't one clear answer to how best to live a life if there's this much squabbling over what "good" or "bad" means according to [the] God(s).

 

And why is that? Again, maybe an explanation would serve well here?

 

I'm not really sure how I can make it any easier to understand. It means they don't really care about actually being a good person. Their soul isn't in it. The fear of hell is scaring them into being nice. Shouldn't a person be good, kind, and loving anyways without the fear of damnation?

 

Yes, because everyone has the means or opportunity to stop or otherwise halt evil, or improve their life yes?

 

Yes, they do. There's always a way to fight back against your situation. If you think otherwise you've already lost. There's always opportunity and means to improve your life. Why would you ever think otherwise? (This falls back on the whole "no motivation" bit.)

 

From when I did attend, I heard the two equally, as they went hand in hand.

 

The question was when did you hear both in the same sermon?

 

Also, seeing as that money is regularly used to help pay for things like utilities, church functions, mission trips depending on the church, and other things that cost, you know money to make happen in the world, it's little wonder why collection is used.

 

Your personal experience showed you that this is a thing. Just as I mentioned that when you do see it it's not by very many, for very long. Let me know if these establishments are still around.

 

Not often seeing as its none of my damn business. That and the fact that many of them say that they felt no conflict as killing justified as long as it's self-defense/war/or otherwise lawful

 

Though

Shall

Not

Kill

 

There's not clauses attached to it. No statutes plugged to it's side mentioning things about self defense or war. There's no "other bits" included in this. Don't kill people. Period. End of story. There is no other interpretation to this that will say anything else other than that. (I address this again further in the post, hold off until you read further.)

 

And what if they used their own common sense and reason to come up to their conclusion?

 

If they came to their conclusion because a holy book told them to then it's not really their conclusion.

 

Ah, but they do that already. In colleges and churches.

 

Really? Churches are investigating what happens after death? This is the first I'm hearing about it. Seems like they got what happens post-death pretty much all squared away.

 

You should hold off because you're using "terrorism" wrong.

 

Acts that are intended to create fear.

Does explaining to people that if they don't act a certain way that they'll burn, does that not instill fear into people? Your actions are creating fear in others, terrorism.

 

Sure just let me kill myself real quick, and i'll be back in 10 or so minutes.

 

And there it is. All the more reason to deal with the here and now, instead of worrying about how much gas is left in that fuel tank of your body.

 

That makes it right or OK?

 

Who said anything about things being morally right or okay? Most breakthroughs occur despite the fact that their origins were "morally" incorrect. Dissecting bodies was considered "not right" morally (by Church edicts, mind you). Until brave people decided to change that.

 

Well of course, but seeing as people are fallible...

 

So that makes it right, or okay? (Sorry, couldn't resist.)

 

Actually, depending on which version you read, it more like " dont murder" or "dont unlawfully kill".

 

There are no differing versions when it comes to things called commandments. If there were, they aren't really "commands" then.

 

The Hebrew Bible contains numerous prohibitions against unlawful killing, but also allows for justified killing in the context of warfare, capital punishment, and self-defense.

 

One sect believes a totally different thing than another sect. Who's to say who's right or wrong? Is God taking sides or are we left to our own devices?

 

Because you've been to them all yes?

 

Enough to have an opinion.

 

You roHe made powerful people look like the dumbass they were, they got pissed, and the used the law to kill his ass.

 

This sentence seems to be written oddly. Please rephrase.

 

Ah yes, the truth born of limited experience, stretched as far as possible, to cover as many unknowns as possible, to fill as many with the picture that you choose for them.

 

Well said, this sentence could be grafted on any subject, stance, or debate though.

 

-

 

Look, from my [apparently limited] experience a person who finds faith in religion typically doesn't feel the need to question any of the answers they are given. If they lead a content and "good" life believing they will get into heaven, that's fine. They are doing what they believe, and if it gives them passion then all the better. This is a beautiful thing.

However, we have too many parties all claiming that they know what's best and they all say you need to do certain (and many times different) things to get into their heaven.

 

From my perspective it's too great a chance to choose one belief and assume it's the right one and hope for the best. It's not a lifestyle that fits into my restless and ill content nature.

 

There are plenty of people out there living good, just, and fair lives. Unfortunately these are the silent majority and will live, breed, and die under the shadow of the vocal minority of people claiming that they're right and everyone else is wrong.

It is this vocal minority that I have issues with. They create static and push tidal waves of ill placed emotions and anger onto people that would normally never consider being bigoted or spiteful towards people who are different.

 

I don't see heaven as a place that exists. It has too many variations, too many different requirements, and too many people simply acting good to get into it for me to be convinced that it's actually there.

We have no evidence other than written and spoken word created by fallible man, that's a shaky foundation for something so serious.

 

What are your thoughts on this?

[Mowgly]

Hell for me is when you outcast yourself into complete darkness, when you're completely separated from your true self which naturally involves being separated from everyone and not wanting help from anyone, when there's no hope whatsoever.

 

Heaven would be a state closer to enlightment, when you're conected to your true self, when you love yourself knowing all your faults, when you're capable of opening up with no problem and conecting with other people.

[Strangelove]

This will be my last post as I fear I may have drifted too far from the original topic. Perhaps we can continue via PM's if you'd prefer to keep the discussion going?

Fulldamagecontrol

 

I can't say anything opposing to how you view your actions. Perhaps compare your lifestyle to any randomly chosen religion / sect and then tell me your chances of going to heaven or hell

?

Some I've got a pretty good chance with. Like Sikhism. Others not so much.

 

Actually if you could please. Psychological and mental pain? How? Will they show me sad pictures of kittens being drowned? Or my family being decapitated? Will they manifest the person I could have been, rather than the person I chose to become?

Please, if you could (so I can understand) tell me what sort of psychological pain you can experience in hell?

How the hell should I know?

 

You're calling the kettle black here. I ask you for explanations and you attack my motives rather than the points I'm making. There's only so many times I can push the rock up the mountain, hence "Sisyphus".

Because your motives are weak and you use them as justification. and i attacked your points as well. sure you ignored that, but that doesnt mean it didnt happen.

 

And maybe i missed it, but I asked you for explanation first.

 

Please do a quick google search of statistics showing the number of people who don't lead religious lifestyles compared to the number that do. The people that don't are "doing it wrong" and will surely burn. I figured you would know what I meant by this but I apologize for not making it clearer.

Nah that isnt how it works.

Make a claim, you back it up or otherwise prove it. If its that simple to find then you should have just done so. Burden of proof and what not.

 

I'll resist the urge to point out the massive amounts of typos in your posts. Auto correct tends to screw up words sometimes. I apologize for not proofreading my post more critically.

I'm just lazy. And I do so love that you ignore the whole bit about people choosing to not not follow and take after their families, and instead go after my correction.

 

It's almost like you just, ignore things that could actually challenge your position. Like how you claim religion stifles education, and yet when but I can that other poster call you out on that, you refrain from addressing that.

 

Hmm...

 

And where or how we end up there is a matter of some debate amongst religions. All the more reason to think there isn't one clear answer to how best to live a life if there's this much squabbling over what "good" or "bad" means according to [the] God(s).

Pick one and follow it, or dont and live how you feel is right and hope its enough (should you choose to of course)

 

I'm not really sure how I can make it any easier to understand. It means they don't really care about actually being a good person. Their soul isn't in it. The fear of hell is scaring them into being nice. Shouldn't a person be good, kind, and loving anyways without the fear of damnation?

Or maybe, just maybe, its not fear, and instead a desire to go to a place where your every desire is granted?

 

Yes, they do. There's always a way to fight back against your situation. If you think otherwise you've already lost. There's always opportunity and means to improve your life. Why would you ever think otherwise? (This falls back on the whole "no motivation" bit.)

Heh, tell that the any people that have beens slaves, the jews, the native americans (who did everything they could and still got fucked over), or political prisoners, or the wrongly accused, etc...

 

Nah, they all just weren't motivated enough. If they really cared, they would have single handedly overthrow whole armies, and changed the systems that fucked them over.

 

The question was when did you hear both in the same sermon?

Read my answer chief "I heard the two equally"

 

Your personal experience showed you that this is a thing. Just as I mentioned that when you do see it it's not by very many, for very long. Let me know if these establishments are still around.

They are, otherwise i would have stated so.

 

Though

Shall

Not

Kill

Unlawfully

 

There's not clauses attached to it. No statutes plugged to it's side mentioning things about self defense or war. There's no "other bits" included in this. Don't kill people. Period. End of story. There is no other interpretation to this that will say anything else other than that. (I address this again further in the post, hold off until you read further.)

"The Hebrew Bible (also Hebrew Scriptures, Jewish Bible (Judaica Bible); Latin: Biblia Hebraica) is a term used by biblical scholars to refer to the Tanakh (Hebrew: תנ"ך‎), the canonical collection of Jewish texts, which is the common textual source of the several canonical editions of the Christian Old Testament."

 

>The source says thou shall not unlawfully kill

>"T-t-thats not what means!

 

Bzzt. Nope.

 

AGAIN

"The Hebrew Bible contains numerous prohibitions against unlawful killing, but also allows for justified killing in the context of warfare, capital punishment, and self-defense."

 

If they came to their conclusion because a holy book told them to then it's not really their conclusion.

I said, if they follow their own conclusions, experience, and common sense, are they just as correct as you are for doing the same and getting a different answer?

 

Goddamn, that reading comprehension of your is ridiculous. Well, either that or you intentionally misconstrue what im saying.

 

Really? Churches are investigating what happens after death? This is the first I'm hearing about it. Seems like they got what happens post-death pretty much all squared away.

Well of course, how the fuck do you think they all came to their conclusions in the first place? I mean, sure some do and some don't but whatever.

 

You of course know this as you've been to so many different churches.

 

Acts that are intended to create fear.

Does explaining to people that if they don't act a certain way that they'll burn, does that not instill fear into people? Your actions are creating fear in others, terrorism.

 

Terrorism:the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal.

 

And there it is. All the more reason to deal with the here and now, instead of worrying about how much gas is left in that fuel tank of your body.

You realize that is a part of the human condition yes?

 

Who said anything about things being morally right or okay? Most breakthroughs occur despite the fact that their origins were "morally" incorrect. Dissecting bodies was considered "not right" morally (by Church edicts, mind you). Until brave people decided to change that.

...Good god that reading comprehension...

 

Look, I asked if you using easily defeated stereotypes was right or OK.

 

So that makes it right, or okay? (Sorry, couldn't resist.)

Of course not, nor was it implied.

If you stand on the freeway, do you not run the risk of getting hit?

If you have a corruptible being in participating in an organization, do you not run the risk of them doing things they shouldn't.

 

My point was, it's very much a thing that can be assumed to happen at some point, simply due to the nature of men.

 

 

There are no differing versions when it comes to things called commandments. If there were, they aren't really "commands" then.

 

You're correct somewhat. There is no difference, which is why the original source said, once again "The Hebrew Bible contains numerous prohibitions against unlawful killing, but also allows for justified killing in the context of warfare, capital punishment, and self-defense."

 

You ever play that game "telephone"? The bible and all of its versions are a lot like that.

 

One sect believes a totally different thing than another sect. Who's to say who's right or wrong? Is God taking sides or are we left to our own devices?

You are free to make your own decision.

 

Enough to have an opinion.

And here we come to the entire bullshit crux of your position.

 

You're making all this claims, about thousands of institutions that you've never been to, full of people, you've never met, and applying the same paint of jaded coat to them, and then playing it off as though they're all the same.

 

Normally, I'd ask if you do the same to people, but that would be far from where i need to discuss.

 

This sentence seems to be written oddly. Please rephrase.

Yeah, i meant to delete this.

 

Well said, this sentence could be grafted on any subject, stance, or debate though.

No it can't

 

Plenty of people barring you, actually realize that they cant completely judge a whole group by the actions of the few they've hade first hand experience.

 

You may choose to say "I've seen hypocrisy and corruption in the church, so they all must be the same!" but not all of us do,

-

 

Look, from my [apparently limited] experience a person who finds faith in religion typically doesn't feel the need to question any of the answers they are given.

Again, you assume the answer. Again you cut people from the cloth you wish to provide, as though people just wandered into a church, were told "believe or burn" and never once questioned it. Having been fairly active at one time, and knowing a multitude of people who spent years studing and questioning, and deciding to follow their religious doctrine of choice, you once again sound like a moron, because you cannot seem to fathom that people act outside of your limited experience and narrow view.

 

What are your thoughts on this?

Why ask for my thoughts if you arent going to respond to the thread.

 

Anyways, I dont give two shits what people do with their lives. They want to fake it till they make it? OK. They want to sin? Ok. They want to not believe? Ok.

 

Im not a religious person by any means. I'm going to live how I think is right, Its all I can possibly do.

 

If I get judged after I die, and i wasn't good enough, that's ok, because I'll know that I did the best I could, with everything I had, for as long as I could, for everyone that I could.

 

I'll take comfort knowing that I'm far more a moral being then the ones that sentenced me.

 

And I realized I never answered OPs question.

Heaven would be like the Twilight Zone episode "A Nice Place to Visit.

Hell would probably be the most tedious and boring thing you hate to do.

[Semi-Nomadic]

Just a few quick answers.

 

Action must be taken to prevent corruption and religion gets a "gimme" from this by saying if you try to question or change things, then you're going against God. And you'll burn if you go against God.

Not really. It is true that the response to the pedophilia scandals (what you mention below) was really not stellar, but the excuse given was being careful of accidentally accusing the innocent, as opposed to "burning" and "going against god".

 

Of course I'm liberally stereotyping because these groups are making it easy to be liberally stereotyped!

So you're saying it's okay to stereotype, you church-persecuting, mass-murdering commie? See? Two can play that game. No, it's not the stereotyped party's responsibility to avoid inviting stereotypes, it's the accusers' responsibility to think coherently.

 

If I am incorrect then please explain, but should followers, no matter what their "rank", still be bound by the same laws as what they preach and uphold? The bible is VERY, VERY SPECIFIC on many things. These are incredibly simple and easy to follow examples of rules:

 

Don't kill people.

Love thy neighbor.

Turn the other cheek.

 

I'm not seeing this. I'm not seeing this at the lowest level and I'm certainly not seeing this at the upper level. If I can't trust my local preacher to not steal from the collection plate, or to keep away from temptation (which, by the way, you said no one can) then I can't trust GOD'S VOICE ON EARTH to tell me how to live my life!

I see, but can you claim that Christians and the clergy are significantly more corrupt than non-Christians? Because Christians aren't perfect does not mean they are less credible than other, equally non-perfect people.

 

In general, it seems you only focus on the bad and the scandalous. But I think that's a narrow way of looking at things. The Catholic Church is the world's largest non-government provider of health care, for one, and manages a quarter of the world's health care facilities (that's from Wikipedia, but both claims are supported there by references.)

 

I can't debate someone on their individual belief because every has their own mini religion, everyone believes something different, just as most organized religious entities do, hence the "some institutions" remark because there's not just one, or two, or ten people making this claim. There are thousands of institutions and most (all) say the same thing: "Follow this plan, or burn."

 

I do see your point, and I actually think along similar lines, but (thankfully, in my opinion) the exclusivist beliefs aren't near as popular in the Church these days as they were centuries ago. The consensus right now is more along the lines of "you should do the best you can, given the circumstances in which you were born".

 

So, I attempt to debate across a broader spectrum and you shout "He's just strawmanning it! He hates religion! Hiss! Hiss!"

 

Don't try to make me look like a bully. All I did was point out the weakness of your arguments, and I still stand by my point: that your arguments were based on a narrow, understanding of the concepts of afterlife (which means that no, that isn't debating "across a broader spectrum"). Rephrasing someone's argument in a condescending way and adding "hiss! hiss!" and claiming they're "shouting" does not a rebuttal make.

 

How is the afterlife to be any better or different if it's populated by the same people that are corrupting this life?

 

Odd that you care about that, when earlier on you said:

 

[...] if there's "something after this" then what we're doing right now has no purpose. There's no meaning to THIS life if there's a life PAST this one. So what if we do great or evil things? There's another realm of existence after this, who gives a shit about how we relate to others or if we're praised or shunned?

 

So? This seems contradictory. Does it matter if you "corrupt this life" or not before you die?

 

And where or how we end up there is a matter of some debate amongst religions. All the more reason to think there isn't one clear answer to how best to live a life if there's this much squabbling over what "good" or "bad" means according to [the] God(s).

(...)

I don't see heaven as a place that exists. It has too many variations, too many different requirements, and too many people simply acting good to get into it for me to be convinced that it's actually there.

 

Note, though, that just because people don't agree on an answer, does not mean there is no real, true answer; or that none of the proposed theories are true (or at least closer to truth than the others).

 

Yes, they do. There's always a way to fight back against your situation. If you think otherwise you've already lost. There's always opportunity and means to improve your life. Why would you ever think otherwise?

 

Picture that you're a poor peasant living under a totalitarian regime. You are poor, overworked, and in constant danger of being arrested on a whim, and you've got a family to support and protect. How would you try to "fight back" in this situation? Most people in real life simply cannot do much on their own.

 

 

EDIT: I realize this topic has drifted off-topic quite a bit due to me, and I apologize.

[Enoch327]

I don't believe in a permanent hell. I do think souls receive punishment for sins. For Adolph Hitler that punishment will be a very long time. But I don't see how a soul can be helled down forever. As far heaven is concerned I think we get the heaven we dream up. C. S. Lewis talks about that in one of his books, also the movie "What Dreams May Come" speaks to this. I do think there is room for reincarnation in all of this. And at the end of time (if there is such a thing) I think we go back to being a part of the godhead which is where we came from. The soul is sovereign. I think the soul decides. Now concerning sacrifice equaling love, I don't think I accept that as a premise anymore. I think sacrifice can be part of love. I don't think sacrifice is required in order to love. I don't mean the ordinary sacrifices like sharing a bathroom or anything like that. But the big sacrifices like jumping in front of a bus to save someone's life. I could be wrong and I don't know everything. In fact, I am still learning.

[Leaf]

I could be wrong and I don't know everything. In fact, I am still learning.

Well put, definitely something everyone should try to remember.

 

Anyway, I just wanted to make a comment that I find common with this topic. From all the different interpretations, people like to conclude that heaven and hell could be many different things. This leads to three typical responses: 1)its all subjective and your heaven/hell is based on what you like/despise (roughly); 2)there is only one heaven and hell and everyone else is wrong; 3)neither exists. People tend to get caught up in interpretations including things like whether their dog will be there, if there will be sex, if they can do their favorite hobby, if they will sing praises to God for eternity, or if they will see old relatives, etc. and miss the general concept of an afterlife. Whether they accept the concept at all tends to fall along religious lines but not always.

 

I think if you look towards general themes across many belief systems it becomes a little bit more apparent. Some theories are reward based and include things such as happiness and eternal bliss. Others seem to capture wisdom, knowledge and truth with include things such as expanded thought, self-understanding and enlightenment. Still others focus on a God figure and include hope, faith, love and community with other deceased persons. I am grossly oversimplifying, but the point is many people are dissatisfied with the idea of life being limited to earth. This brings of questions of meaning and purpose, with the psychologist sitting in the background saying belief in something after is just a coping mechanism to deal with all the suffering and hardship. Life leaves so many holes in human understanding, enlightenment, and experience that people look onward. Death is often not an end but a new beginning, creating a duality that is consistent with themes of heaven and hell (life and death after human life). In some cultures children were often viewed as a continued legacy of their parents, a way for people to live on and have an impact years later, even if they left no mainstream legacy.

 

I honestly cannot imagine what heaven and hell would be like, but that people would propose that science and reason cannot allow for the existence of such nonsense is a shame. There is more to life than just reason and I would rather leave people with a sense of hope that there is something better to strive for each and every day than convince them it is for nothing; for their benefit. Its easy to say that non-existence is no big deal, but honestly, with all the tribulations of life, is it better to live or are you better off dead? To the world you may be one person, but to someone you can mean the world. I know which one I prefer.

 

EDIT:

I wanted to add one thing about the idea of heaven and hell as reward/punishment. Many preachers convince people that they are doomed to hell unless they repent and whatnot. We have all heard it in some form or another I am sure. I don't remember where I heard it, but I am convinced that only those that want to go to hell actually do, although that will not stop preachers, since the idea is to use fear to get people to push themselves. People tend to become complacent and content with their habits and don't always have the motivation to challenge themselves. I also get annoyed when people believe that heaven is a reward that a good life will earn, which is a poor way to look at it to say the least.