Heaven and Hell -Are they for real?

[Paulclem]

See Psalm 16:11
You have made known to me the path of life; you will fill me with joy in your presence, with eternal pleasures at your right hand.

Not sure how a person enjoys eternal pleasures at God's right hand without being in heaven. David live 1000 years before Christ, so your article is wrong. "Scholars" who begin with the idea that heaven is illusionary don't look too hard to see anything different. It took me about 30 seconds online to find this Psalm.

I think one of the points of the article is that the perception of heaven has changed over time. (It's not my article by the way, I just thought it would be a good starting point for a discussion about what we perceive heaven to be). He's saying that the Jewish conception of heaven is unrecogniseable for the modern heaven believer.

I think this is the idea being referred to, and it took me 30 seconds to find it as well.

Sheol: An Underground Abyss

The subject of death is treated inconsistently in the Bible, though most often it suggests that physical death is the end of life. This is the case with such central figures as Abraham, Moses, and Miriam.

There are, however, several biblical references to a place called Sheol (cf. Numbers 30, 33). It is described as a region "dark and deep," "the Pit," and "the Land of Forgetfulness," where human beings descend after death. The suggestion is that in the netherworld of Sheol, the deceased, although cut off from God and humankind, live on in some shadowy state of existence.

http://www.myjewishlearning.com/beli...and_Hell.shtml

Just to clarify - I'm not saying I agree with the article, as you can see from my posts, but there is an interesting point about the idea of heaven and hell.

This doesn't seem to be the modern version of heaven.

[The Atheist]

Would any believer like to deal with the "eternal" part of heaven? How you see that eternity working out? It's a hell of a long time.

[Paulclem]

I suppose it comes back to the idea of heaven discussed in the article. The heaven you described is someone else's version of heaven, and not yours. As for eternity - bit of a conundrum I don't think the theistic religions answer very well.

[NikolaiI]

Would any believer like to deal with the "eternal" part of heaven? How you see that eternity working out? It's a hell of a long time.

Yes! I would be happy too!

First, there are unknown dimensions of knowledge of time, and existence in relation to time, of which we have no knowledge. Do we know what it is really like to live for 5,000 yrs., as some of our trees do? No but perhaps we do far below the surface of the conscious mind, or perhaps even not that far. It's been my experience that we really do have an 'unborn' nature; the state we were in before we were born, and that after we die.

We have an unborn nature, and how can I say so? Because we are connected to everything else in the universe, and pretty much everything else, except us, has been around here a lot longer: Rock formations, continents, planets, star formations, galaxies; even all life on earth is older than us. We are the babies of the universe. But we are part of the same reality as everything else; as the rest of life on Earth, as well as the rest of space and rock in the universe. All is part of one whole, including space and time. As the Buddhist poems say; "For a Buddha a single moment becomes identical to a thousand years."

There are just many levels of existence of which we're not aware with our current modern common sense. Including time. Just see how our perceptions change over the course of the first half of life! At the beginning our sense of time is slightly different as every single day goes on; the minutes grow shorter quickly; at first 5 minutes is forever, and later it is nothing. This goes to show that it is relative; and we cannot but assume that every level of time exists, at least potentially.

The other reason which belies the misunderstanding of your idea, you would not like to live forever, is that at the same time as being unborn eternally, before you exist and after, is a peace beyond anything within the realm of duality. We all pretty much live within duality, as our senses seem to tell us this is what is. But if we really think about it, we are responsible for the same miracles as in every other part of creation, of which we are in awe: specifically, unconsciously and effortlessly, we grow our bones, grow our skin and our cells and our muscles and organs! Who is responsible for this if not us, this beautiful act of creation, which is as unique as the stars forming, planets forming, or an apple tree bearing fruit, or any other part of nature. Is it us or the universe? Where do you draw the line? Certain minds have come to state that we are one continuous process with the universe.

As mystic and legend Black Elk spoke; "Only when men know they are one with the universe shall they know peace in their souls."

And as Alduous Huxley put succinctly; "When the doors of perception are cleansed, then man will see all as it is, infinite."

Furthermore, it may even be said; all the past and the future is but an idea, only the present is real.

[Paulclem]

Yes! I would be happy too!

First, there are unknown dimensions of knowledge of time, and existence in relation to time, of which we have no knowledge. Do we know what it is really like to live for 5,000 yrs., as some of our trees do? No but perhaps we do far below the surface of the conscious mind, or perhaps even not that far. It's been my experience that we really do have an 'unborn' nature; the state we were in before we were born, and that after we die.

We have an unborn nature, and how can I say so? Because we are connected to everything else in the universe, and pretty much everything else, except us, has been around here a lot longer: Rock formations, continents, planets, star formations, galaxies; even all life on earth is older than us. We are the babies of the universe. But we are part of the same reality as everything else; as the rest of life on Earth, as well as the rest of space and rock in the universe. All is part of one whole, including space and time. As the Buddhist poems say; "For a Buddha a single moment becomes identical to a thousand years."

There are just many levels of existence of which we're not aware with our current modern common sense. Including time. Just see how our perceptions change over the course of the first half of life! At the beginning our sense of time is slightly different as every single day goes on; the minutes grow shorter quickly; at first 5 minutes is forever, and later it is nothing. This goes to show that it is relative; and we cannot but assume that every level of time exists, at least potentially.

The other reason which belies the misunderstanding of your idea, you would not like to live forever, is that at the same time as being unborn eternally, before you exist and after, is a peace beyond anything within the realm of duality. We all pretty much live within duality, as our senses seem to tell us this is what is. But if we really think about it, we are responsible for the same miracles as in every other part of creation, of which we are in awe: specifically, unconsciously and effortlessly, we grow our bones, grow our skin and our cells and our muscles and organs! Who is responsible for this if not us, this beautiful act of creation, which is as unique as the stars forming, planets forming, or an apple tree bearing fruit, or any other part of nature. Is it us or the universe? Where do you draw the line? Certain minds have come to state that we are one continuous process with the universe.

As mystic and legend Black Elk spoke; "Only when men know they are one with the universe shall they know peace in their souls."

And as Alduous Huxley put succinctly; "When the doors of perception are cleansed, then man will see all as it is, infinite."

I think what The Atheist is saying - and I'm sure he'll correct me if have him wrong, is that the theistic conceptions of heaven do not hold any allure for him as popularly described.

[The Atheist]

I suppose it comes back to the idea of heaven discussed in the article. The heaven you described is someone else's version of heaven, and not yours.

Yes, well my version of heaven is easy to achieve:

A night without the kids, some Champagne and Mrs Atheist.

As for eternity - bit of a conundrum I don't think the theistic religions answer very well.

I agree, but then, I don't believe they articulate what heaven is very well either. One of my uncles a ThD Reverend Canon in the Anglican church, yet I still have no understanding beyond a vague idea of an eternal, unexplainable existence.

Sounds bloody awful to me - I can't even have a cup of tea! I find the idea of a non-physical existence too horrible to consider seriously.

Yes! I would be happy too!

Thanks for that.

I understand what you're saying and have seen very much the same thing in the past.

What you've done - from where I read it - is create an abstract idea which doesn't have any attraction for me anyway. I don't see a difference between being an incorporeal "soul" to being a tetraplegic trapped in a bed, and I have instructions to pull the plug should I ever be left that way.

I agree with your relativity of time, but in that situation, one second would become 1000 years for me.

[Paulclem]

Yes, well my version of heaven is easy to achieve:

A night without the kids, some Champagne and Mrs Atheist.

Me too- Mrs Paulclem I mean.

I agree, but then, I don't believe they articulate what heaven is very well either. One of my uncles a ThD Reverend Canon in the Anglican church, yet I still have no understanding beyond a vague idea of an eternal, unexplainable existence.

Sounds bloody awful to me - I can't even have a cup of tea! I find the idea of a non-physical existence too horrible to consider seriously.


Yes. The article got me thinking about perceptions of heaven, and seemed to throw up some interesting points about the current view of heaven. I don't think there have been many satisfactory defences of this popular view by believers yet. I wonder if they've really considered it?

[JuniperWoolf]

Yes, Buddism is not a Divine religion because it denies that there is a God.

Cool. I want to look into Bhuddism more.

[Paulclem]

Cool. I want to look into Bhuddism more.

I was asked to recommend some books on Buddhism recently. Do you want the list I sent?

[The Atheist]

Yes. The article got me thinking about perceptions of heaven, and seemed to throw up some interesting points about the current view of heaven. I don't think there have been many satisfactory defences of this popular view by believers yet. I wonder if they've really considered it?

The scariest part is that the western ideal of heaven always has it as a place where "You are together with your family and loved ones" in some kind of happy place.

In my case, I've spent half my life avoiding my bleeding family - I don't think being dead's going to make me want to live with for the next quintillion millennia!

Even worse, what about my ex-wife? If I'm together with my boy - teenage git that he is - I'd still have him, so does that mean I have to have his mother, my insane ex-wife as a neighbour? Hell would be mild.

To me, if, as the 71% of believers believe, heaven is an actual place where you take your dog/s with you* it must work something like that.

*How many dogs do you take? If I'm a dog guy and live to 80, I might have half a dozen doggy best friends in heaven with me. How's that going to work out?

I really do think the majority of people who believe in heaven see it as a concept without really having any idea of how it could work in unreality.

Cool. I want to look into Bhuddism more.

Popular choice that, and I know a few people who have been attracted to it sufficiently to join up.

I like beef far too much myself to consider it seriously.

[Paulclem]

It could make a good sit com.

[caddy_caddy]

Originally Posted by Paulclem
Yes. The article got me thinking about perceptions of heaven, and seemed to throw up some interesting points about the current view of heaven. I don't think there have been many satisfactory defences of this popular view by believers yet. I wonder if they've really considered it

What do u want us to say :
u said by yourself " believers " , no one proclaimes he can proove their existence .
But no one of you can proclaim that they do Not exist too because it is proven that human beings are limited , in power over things , in knowledge , at least till these days .
Who knows maybe one day we can travel in time and went there so we could proove that they do exist in real or do not exist . And till those days we have only the words of God and our faith in them and that everything mentionned there is true .

[soundofmusic]

Wonderful and very brave thread, Paul.
Heaven and Hell has always presented a great dilema for me; even during my youthful exposure to fundamentalist christianity.
I couldn't quite understand why a person would have to die, and then be made immortal, only to go to hell to be tortured for eternity. As a loving, paternal figure, I could not quite believe that god would see any point in torturing a creation forever; particularly since he/she was responsible for their original exposure to evil.
Heaven, on the other hand, seemed to be too many material rewards too late to benefit from them...

I'll take my money now, Thanks


I have an odd suspicion; that though I do not believe in a judging god, heaven or hell; I will be praying on my death bed...
Just in case...

[Paulclem]

What do u want us to say :
u said by yourself " believers " , no one proclaimes he can proove their existence .
But no one of you can proclaim that they do Not exist too because it is prooven that human beings are limited , in power over things , in knowledge , at least till these days .
Who knows maybe one day we can travel in time and went there so we could proove that they do exist in real or do not exist . And till those days we have only the words of God and our faith in them and that everything mentionned there is true .

Hi Caddy - I think you misunderstand me. The point of the article was to question perceptions of heaven or hell. The article has suggested that the idea of heaven was a Jewish construct which had litte reltion to our present idea of what heaven will be like. I know it can't be proved either way - and it's not about converting a believer or an unbeliever. What is interesting in the article is that current versions of heaven seem to rest upon the situation of the person asked. What is heaven like? How do we know? Is it a mental construction? Given that we can experience hellish conditions on earth, are there heavenly conditions, and does this point to the reality of heaven and hell?

[Paulclem]

Wonderful and very brave thread, Paul.
Heaven and Hell has always presented a great dilema for me; even during my youthful exposure to fundamentalist christianity.
I couldn't quite understand why a person would have to die, and then be made immortal, only to go to hell to be tortured for eternity. As a loving, paternal figure, I could not quite believe that god would see any point in torturing a creation forever; particularly since he/she was responsible for their original exposure to evil.
Heaven, on the other hand, seemed to be too many material rewards too late to benefit from them...

I'll take my money now, Thanks


I have an odd suspicion; that though I do not believe in a judging god, heaven or hell; I will be praying on my death bed...
Just in case...

More honest than many. I had a similar problem with evil and creation too.